Читать книгу John Lackland - Kate Norgate - Страница 9
FOOTNOTES: [Skip footnotes]
Оглавление[112] Gesta Ric. vol. ii. pp. 72, 73.
[113] “Paternae in Hibernia acquisitionis plenitudinem et comitatum in Normannia Moritanensem, de quibus scilicet paternam donationem ratam habuit” [Ricardus], W. Newb. l. iv. c. 3. “Comitatum de Moritonio, quem dono patris pridem perceperat” [Johannes], Ric. Devizes (Howlett, Chronn. of Stephen, etc., vol. iii. ), p. 385. Cf. above, p. 6.
[114] The biographer of William the Marshal, indeed, does on two occasions before Henry’s death speak of “le conte Johan,” “li quens Johan” (vv. 8543, 9078). But although in one sense contemporary, he did not write till after 1219; his use of the title therefore proves nothing.
[115] Gesta Ric. p. 78.
[118] Ann. Cambr. p. 57.
[119] Gesta Ric. p. 97.
[120] Ann. Cambr. p. 57.
[121] R. Diceto, vol. ii. pp. 72, 73.
[122] Gloucester (honour), Pipe Roll 1 Ric. I. p. 7; Lancaster, p. 18; Orford (Suffolk), p. 40; Staverton (ib.), p. 54; Hanley, Edersfield and Bisley (Worcestershire), p. 250; Hecham (Northamptonshire), p. 97; “other lands” in Northamptonshire, p. 104; Sherwood, p. 172; Andover, ib.; Gloucestershire, third penny, p. 163.
[123] Gesta Ric. p. 78. The Peverel castles were those of Bolsover and the Peak.
[124] Tickhill castle appears as garrisoned by the Crown in Pipe Roll 2 Ric. I. (1190) m. 7; so does Orford in 1191–92, P.R. 5 Ric. I. (1193) m. 2 (among accounts “de veteri firma” of Suffolk); Gloucester castle was repaired by the sheriff of the county in 1191, P.R. 3 Ric. I. m. 12; Bristol, the other great castle of the Gloucester earldom, was held by the Crown in 1192, P.R. 4 Ric. I. m. 20.
[125] For Marlborough, Wallingford and Luggershall, see Gesta Ric. p. 78; Eye is added by R. Howden, vol. iii. p. 6. There is no mention of any of these in the Pipe Rolls of 1188–93, except that the men of the soke of Eye pay tallage to the Crown in 1190 (P.R. 2 Ric. I. m. 9 d), and that in 1192 the sheriff of Suffolk charges for livery of a garrison in Eye castle for a year (i.e. Michaelmas 1191 to Michaelmas 1192; P.R. 5 Ric. I. m. 2, among accounts “de veteri firma” of Suffolk).
[126] “Eodem mense [Decembri] Ricardus Rex Angliae dedit Johanni fratri suo in augmentum comitatum Cornubiae, et comitatum Devoniae, et comitatum de Dorset, et comitatum de Sumerseta,” Gesta Ric. p. 99. According to this writer, Richard had granted to John “villam de Notingham cum honore illo … et Derebisiram” at the same time as Gloucester, Lancaster, etc. (ib. p. 78). But the sheriffs of all six shires account for them to the Crown up to Michaelmas in Pipe Roll 1 Ric. I.; so they must all have been granted after that date. “Villam de Notingham cum honore illo” stands for the town and the shire; there was no “honour” of that name. W. Newburgh, though his list of John’s counties is very incomplete (l. iv. c. 3), rightly mentions “Notingehamesciram” as one of them; it disappears from the Pipe Rolls like the other five after Michaelmas 1189. Sherwood Forest disappears likewise, being included in the shire. On the other hand, later events show that Nottingham castle was retained by the Crown. At this period Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, Dorset and Somerset, Cornwall and Devonshire, were always administered and accounted for in pairs.
[127] Stubbs, pref. to R. Howden, vol. iii. p. xxv. note 4.
[128] Gilbert, Hist. Doc. of Ireland, p. 49; Rot. Canc. Hib. Cal. vol. i. pt. i. pp. 1, 3; Carte, Life of Ormonde (ed. 1851), vol. i. introd. pp. xlv., xlvi.; Hist. MSS. Commission, 3rd Report, p. 231; Harris’s Ware, Antiq. Hibern. p. 197. The exception referred to is a grant of land in Ireland, without date of day or year, but issued by “Johannes filius Regis Angliae, Dominus Hiberniae,” “apud Ceneman’,” i.e. Le Mans, and witnessed by John the Marshal, “dapifer Johannis,” Rot. Canc. Hib. Cal. vol. i. pt. i. p. 3.
[129] We hear of John’s chancellor, Stephen Ridel, in 1191, Gesta Ric. p. 224; of his seneschal, William de Kahanger, and his butler, Theobald Walter, in 1192, Foedera, vol. i. pt. i. p. 55. We have seen already that at some date between 1185 and 1189 he had as “dapifer” no less a personage than John the Marshal; and in 1191 Roger de Planes appears as “in tota terra comitis Johannis justiciarius,” R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 99.
[130] Gesta Ric. p. 73.
[131] See above, footnote 128.
[132] Hist. de G. le Mar. vv. 9581–618. See charters in Carte’s Life of Ormonde (1851), vol. i. introd. p. xlvi.
[133] W. Newb. l. iv. c. 3.
[134] Gesta Ric. p. 106.
[135] R. Devizes, p. 392.
[136] Stubbs, pref. to R. Howden, vol. iii. p. 41.
[137] Gesta Ric. p. 157.
[138] R. Devizes, p. 402.
[139] R. Howden, vol. iii. pp. 242, 243. Cf. W. Newb. l. iv. c. 16, and R. Devizes, p. 406.
[140] Gesta Ric. p. 207; R. Howden, vol. iii. p. 134. Cf. W. Newb. l.c. Gerard was constable of Lincoln in right of his wife, Nicola de Haye.
[141] R. Devizes, p. 407; Gesta Ric. p. 207. Cf. W. Newb. l. iv. c. 16.
[142] Gesta Ric. l.c.
[143] R. Devizes, pp. 407, 408.
[144] Walter left Messina April 2 (cf. R. Howden, vol. iii. p. 100; Itin. Ric. Reg. p. 176, and R. Devizes, p. 404), and landed either about midsummer (Gerv. Cant. vol. i. p. 497), or, more probably, April 27 (see Bishop Stubbs’s note to R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 90).
[145] R. Devizes, p. 408.
[146] Wallingford, Eye, Bristol, Exeter, Launceston and “Hereford”; R. Howden, vol. iii. p. 136. Hereford is quite out of place among “castra de honoribus a domino rege sibi” [i.e. Johanni] “datis.” The name may be a mistake for Oxford; see above, p. 26.
[147] R. Howden, vol. iii. pp. 135–7. One other clause in the agreement may be noticed. After the provisions about the castles already mentioned, it is added: “Sed et tria castella ad coronam domini regis pertinentia, scilicet castellum de Windeshoveres comiti de Arundel; castellum de Wintonia Gilleberto de Lasci; castellum de Northampton Simoni de Pateshille, tradita sunt custodienda; qui fidelitatem domini Regis de ipsis ad opus ipsius fideliter custodiendis juraverunt,” ib. p. 136. The earl of Arundel figures, at the end of the document, as one of the chancellor’s sureties, and the Lacys were in close alliance with the Longchamps; taken by itself, therefore, this clause would seem to indicate a change of custodians made at the chancellor’s desire, and dictated by a discovery or suspicion that the actual commandants of these three castles were in treasonable alliance with John. But the Pipe Rolls show that the appointment of Simon de Pateshill implied no change at all, for he had custody of Northampton castle without interruption from Michaelmas 1189 to Michaelmas 1191 (P.R. 2 Ric. I. m. 4; 3 Ric. I. m. 1); while the other appointments were speedily annulled, owing to the breakdown of the whole agreement.
[148] W. Newb. l. iv. c. 16.
[149] Gesta Ric. pp. 232, 234.
[150] R. Devizes, pp. 409, 410. The date which he has appended to the agreement is impossible, not only for this particular document, but for any personal meeting of John and the chancellor this year at Winchester, where he places it. See Round, Commune of London, p. 214, and Cal. Doc. France, vol. i. p. 17. As to the agreement itself, cf. W. Newb. l. iv. c. 16.
[151] W. Newb. l. iv. c. 14.
[152] Gir. Cambr. vol. iv. p. 382.
[153] Monast. Angl. vol. vi. pt. iii. p. 1188.
[154] Gir. Cambr. vol. iv. p. 389.
[156] Gir. Cambr. vol. iv. p. 389.
[157] R. Devizes, p. 410.
[158] R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 96.
[159] Gesta Ric. p. 210.
[160] R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 97; Gir. Cambr. vol. iv. pp. 388–93; R. Devizes, pp. 411, 412.
[161] Gesta Ric. p. 211.
[162] Epp. Cantuar. pp. 344, 345; Gerv. Cant. vol. i. p. 506. Cf. R. Devizes, p. 413.
[163] Gesta Ric. p. 211.
[164] September 21, R. Devizes, p. 412; September 26, R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 97.
[165] Gir. Cambr. vol. iv. pp. 394–7.
[166] Ib. p. 397; R. Devizes, p. 413. Cf. Gesta Ric. p. 212. One of the summons is given in R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 98.
[168] Ib. vol. iv. pp. 398–402. For date see R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 98.
[169] Cf. Gir. Cambr. vol. iv. pp. 402–5; R. Devizes, pp. 413, 414; R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 99; Gesta Ric. p. 212, and W. Newb. l. iv. c. 17.
[170] Gir. Cambr. vol. iv. p. 405; Gesta Ric. pp. 213, 214; R. Diceto, l.c.; R. Devizes, pp. 416, 417.
[171] Gesta Ric. pp. 213, 214.
[172] R. Devizes, p. 415.
[173] Gesta Ric. p. 214. Cf. R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 97.
[174] Gir. Cambr. vol. iv. p. 402.
[176] Ib. pp. 106, 107; R. Devizes, pp. 417, 418; R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 100. The reservation was merely nominal; R. Diceto says the constables appointed by William to these castles were allowed to remain, but made to give hostages for their loyalty; while Gerald says the constables were to be appointed by the new ministry. Probably the ministry decided to retain or reappoint the actual constables, on the condition mentioned by Ralph.
[177] Gesta Ric. p. 220; R. Diceto, vol. ii. pp. 100, 101.
[178] Gesta Ric. p. 236.
[179] R. Devizes, pp. 430, 432; Gesta Ric. p. 236.
[180] Gesta Ric. p. 237.
[181] R. Howden, vol. iii. p. 188; in Gesta Ric. p. 239, the sum is given as five hundred thousand marks, “which,” as Bishop Stubbs says (note to R. Howden, l.c.), “is of course impossible.”
[182] Richard of Devizes, indeed, says (p. 418) that on the chancellor’s departure over sea “Comes omnia munita terrae quibus voluit et plus credidit sibi reddita liberavit”: but his own story about Windsor and Wallingford shows this to be incorrect.
[183] R. Devizes, p. 433.
[184] “Episcopo Dunelmensi £34: 15s. in Pickering pro escambio custodiae castelli de Windsor quamdiu regi placuerit,” Pipe Roll 4 Ric. I. (1192) m. 7.
[185] Gesta Ric. pp. 235, 236.
[186] R. Devizes, p. 433.
[187] Gesta Ric. p. 239.
[188] R. Devizes, pp. 433, 434.
[189] “Dare placet vel commodare pecuniam, sed non de proprio, tandemque totum cadit in absentis aerarium. Creduntur comiti de fisco per fiscarios quingentae librae sterlingorum, et recipiuntur ad placitum literae in cancellarium,” R. Devizes, p. 343. “Johannes … acceptis a Rothomagensi archiepiscopo et a caeteris justitiariis Angliae duobus millibus marcis argenti de thesauro regis fratris sui, consilio eorum adquievit,” Gesta Ric. p. 239. Possibly the smaller sum was handed over to John at once, and the remainder only promised.
[190] Gesta Ric. pp. 239, 237.
[191] W. Newb. l. iv. c. 32.
[192] R. Howden, vol. iii. p. 204.
[193] Foedera, vol. i. pt. i. p. 57. The document (of which no original is known) may be slightly corrupt, but it is obviously more trustworthy than the version of John’s and Philip’s agreement given by Roger of Howden, vol. iii. p. 204.
[194] Gerv. Cant. vol. i. pp. 514, 515.
[195] R. Howden, vol. iii. pp. 204, 205.
[196] Gerv. Cant. vol. i. p. 515; R. Howden, vol. iii. p. 205.
[197] Gerv. Cant. vol. i. p. 516.
[198] Ib.; R. Howden, vol. iii. p. 207.
[199] R. Howden, vol. iii. p. 217.
[201] “‘Johannes frater meus non est homo qui sibi vi terram subjiciat, si fuerit qui vim ejus vi saltem tenui repellat,’” R. Howden, vol. iii. p. 198. I think there can be no doubt as to the significance of the first “vi.”
[202] “Ad pacem cum illo faciendam qualemcumque,” ib. p. 217.
[203] “De comite autem Johanne sic erit: quod si homines regis Angliae poterunt sufficienter monstrare in curia domini regis Franciae quod idem Johannes juraverit ad perquirendam pecuniam ad liberationem regis Angliae, et de hoc dederit litteras suas, ipse Johannes tenebitur ad solvendum, et totam terram quam ipse tenebat quando rex Angliae frater ejus iter arripuit ultra mare, tenebit, citra mare et ultra, ita libere sicut prius tenebat; excepto eo quod liber erit a sacramento quod fecerat de non intranda terra Angliae; et de hoc dictus rex Angliae faciet dominum Johannem securum per se, et per barones et archiepiscopos et episcopos terrae suae, et insuper per regem Franciae. Si autem comes Johannes vellet negare quod litterae illae non essent suae, aut quod illud non jurasset, homines regis Angliae sufficienter in curia regis Franciae monstrabunt, per idoneos testes, quod juraverit ad querendam pecuniam ad liberationem regis Angliae. Si autem monstratum fuerit, sicut dictum est, quod comes juraverit ad quaerendam pecuniam ad liberationem regis, vel si defecerit de recipienda monstratione, rex Franciae non intromittat se de comite Johanne, si pacem de terra sua praedicta recipere voluerit,” R. Howden, vol. iii. pp. 217, 218.
[205] “Sed custodes illorum noluerunt tradere illi aliquod castellum per breve,” R. Howden, vol. iii. pp. 227, 228. Did they suspect John of having forged the king’s writ? Or should the words be “nisi per breve,” and do they mean that the individual castellans refused to act upon what seems to have been a merely general order, and require a special writ for each castle?
[207] Ib. p. 229. Cf. W. Newb. l. iv. c. 40.
[208] R. Howden, vol. iii. pp. 232, 234.
[210] “Petiit sibi fieri judicium de comite Johanne,” etc., ib. p. 241.
[211] Hugh was sheriff of Warwickshire and Leicestershire.
[212] “Demeruisse regnum,” R. Howden, vol. iii. p. 242.
[213] Ann. Margan. a. 1199.
[214] R. Howden, vol. iii. p. 251.
[215] For John of Alençon see Round, Calendar of Doc. in France, vol. i. pp. 14, 15, 90, 91, 210, 454, 528.
[216] Hist. de G. le Mar. vv. 10365–419. R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 114, places the meeting of the brothers at Brueis; and Roger of Howden, vol. iii. p. 252, says their reconciliation took place “mediante Alienor regina matre eorum.” This may mean either that she had interceded with Richard before he left England, or that it was she who had counselled John to throw himself on the king’s clemency.
[217] R. Howden, vol. iii. p. 252. Some of John’s English lands had been seized before the council of Nottingham; no doubt, by virtue of the decree passed at the council in London on February 10. In the Pipe Roll of Michaelmas 1194 the king’s officers accounted to the king’s treasury for the ferms of Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Dorset and Somerset, the third penny of Gloucestershire, and the ferm of Eye, for half a year (P.R. 6 Ric. I. m. 6, 13, 16, 4 d); but the sheriff of Devon and Cornwall rendered his account for three-quarters of a year (ib. m. 12); while the forfeiture of John’s private estates in Dorset and Somerset seems to have been dated from Ash-Wednesday, February 23 (ib. m. 13 d); a part at least of the honour of Gloucester, viz. Bristol, had been seized at Mid-Lent, four days after Richard’s landing in England, and the whole not later than Easter (ib. m. 16 d); and for the honours of Peverel and Tickhill a whole year’s ferm was reckoned as due to the treasury at Michaelmas (ib. m. 6). The king’s escheators rendered a separate account of a number of escheats in the honour of Lancaster and in the counties which John had held (ib. m. 2, 2 d); and the sheriff of Dorset and Somerset gathered in for the king a quantity of “arrears of debts which were owed to Count John for pleas and amercements of the men and townships” of those two counties (ib. m. 13). The commission issued to the itinerant justices in the same month of September contained an express order that they should inquire into and report upon all John’s property, real and personal, and all the moneys owed to him, to the intent that the whole might be secured for the king, R. Howden, vol. iii. pp. 263, 264.
[218] R. Howden, vol. iii. p. 252.
[219] Hist. de. G. le Mar. vv. 10491–517.
[220] W. Newb. l. iv. c. 40; Rigord, c. 94.
[221] Hist. de. G. le Mar. vv. 10516–20.
[222] Rigord, c. 96.
[223] W. Armor. Gesta Phil. Aug. c. 72; Philipp. l. iv. vv. 445–62. The last detail seems to imply that the victims of the surprise—whatever its character—were, after all, not the whole garrison, but probably only the officers.
[224] Rigord, c. 96.
[225] R. Howden, vol. iii. p. 253.
[226] Rigord, c. 100; W. Armor. Gesta P. A. c. 74; Philipp. l. iv. vv. 530–69.
[227] W. Armor. Philipp. l. v. vv. 30–32.
[228] R. Howden, vol. iii. p. 286.
[229] I can find no mention either of the honour of Eye or of that of Gloucester in Pipe Roll 7 Ric. I. (1196).
[230] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 5.
[231] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 16.Cf. W. Newb. l. v. c. 31.
[232] Deville, Hist. du Château-Gaillard, pp. 21, 22, 119–23.
[233] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 60.
[234] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 81.
[235] R. Coggeshall, p. 99.
[236] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 83. The fourth part of the royal treasure was to be given to Richard’s servants and to the poor.
[238] Hist. de G. le Mar. vv. 11877–908. These lines may be an almost literal report of the interview as described by the Marshal himself to John of Earley (d’Erlée), on whose relation to the Histoire in its present form see M. Meyer’s introduction, vol. iii. pp. ii.–xiv. John was the Marshal’s favourite squire, and was immediately despatched by him on an important mission to England; see vv. 11909–16. It has been suggested (Dic. Nat. Biog. “Marshal, William”) that “li arcevesques”—as John calls him, without either Christian name or title of see—may have been not Walter of Rouen, but Hubert of Canterbury. Hubert was in Normandy at the time; but the advocacy of Arthur’s claims, intelligible enough in the mouth of a Norman prelate, is so contrary to the English political traditions of those days that I cannot, without further evidence, ascribe it to such a thoroughly English statesman as Archbishop Hubert Walter.
[239] “Hostis naturae Johannes,” W. Newb. l. iv. c. 40.
[240] Magna Vita S. Hugonis, p. 287.
[241] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 86; R. Coggeshall, p. 99.
[243] Mag. Vita S. Hug. pp. 287–91.
[244] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 87.
[245] Mag. Vita S. Hug. pp. 291–5.
[246] Rigord, c. 127.
[247] R. Coggeshall, p. 99; R. Howden, vol. iv. pp. 85, 86.
[248] R. Howden, pp. 86, 87; date from Chron. S. Albini Andeg. a. 1199.
[249] Mag. Vita S. Hugon. p. 296.
[250] Rigord, c. 127; W. Armor. Gesta P. A. c. 101.
[251] R. Coggeshall, p. 99.
[252] Ib.; R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 87; R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 166; Mag. Vita S. Hugon. p. 293; Gerv. Cant. vol. ii. p. 92.
[253] R. Howden, vol. iv. pp. 87–88.
[254] Mag. Vita S. Hugon. p. 293.
[256] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 86. The writer of the Hist. de G. le Mar. asserts, vv. 11909–16, that John of Earley had been sent to England by the Marshal three weeks earlier, to “take seisin” of the land, castles, towns and royal demesnes for the count of Mortain. Probably he was really sent to bid the Marshal’s own men in England secure for John the castles, etc., which they held; and also to act as a medium of communication between the Marshal and the justiciar.
[257] R. Howden, vol. iv. pp. 87, 88, where, however, the order of events is wrong. Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 99.
[258] Hist. de G. le Mar. vv. 11925–40.
[259] “Cum privatis suis,” R. Coggeshall, p. 99.
[260] R. Howden, vol. iv. p. 89; Gerv. Cant., vol. ii. p. 92, says Seaford.
[261] R. Howden and R. Coggeshall, ll.cc.; R. Diceto, vol. ii. p. 166.
