Читать книгу The Minority of Henry the Third - Kate Norgate - Страница 8
Оглавление[1] Cf. W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 232, and Rog. Wendover (ed. Coxe), vol. iii. pp. 385–6.
[2] Hist. de Guill. le Maréchal, ll. 15170–90. Cf. Hist. des Ducs de Normandie, p. 180.
[3] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15207–57.
[4] “Quem gratia juventutis et innocentia cunctis reddidit amabilem, et venusta facies cum flava caesarie singulis favorabilem, sermo quoque maturus universis venerabilem.” Mat. Paris, Hist. Angl., vol. ii. p. 196.
[5] “Qui son meistre e son norriçon Out este e encor esteit,” Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15263–4. These words seem to imply that Ralf was Henry’s tutor, or teacher, but this cannot have been the case, for Ralf was only a man-at-arms, “serviens” (Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 345 b, 362); no doubt, one whose proved fidelity to the late king had entitled him to be specially trusted to watch over the safety of the heir.
[6] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15261–84.
[8] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 1.
[9] Henry, son of Henry II.
[10] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15306–24.
[11] M. Paris, Chron. Maj., vol. iii. p. 1; Hist. Angl., vol. ii. p. 195.
[12] “Cum orationibus et cantuum modulationibus quae in coronatione regum solent decantari,” R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 2.
[13] “Sertum quoddam,” T. Wykes, a. 1216.
[14] The Hist. des Ducs, p. 181, and the Annals of Margan, Tewkesbury, Winchester, and Waverley, a. 1216, say that Henry was crowned by Gualo; the Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15329–31, says “Wales la messe li chanta, Li legaz, e sil corona, O li evesques qui la furent”; and the official letter written in Henry’s name to the Justiciar of Ireland says he was crowned “by the hands of Gualo the Cardinal legate and the bishops then present” (Foedera, I. i. p. 145). Probably, however, they all mean merely what is expressly, though awkwardly, stated by the Merton chronicler—“Coronatus ... a domino Syvalone legato ... assistentibus sibi domino Petro Wintoniensi episcopo qui eum inunxit et coronam imposuit capiti, ut dicunt” &c. (Petit-Dutaillis, Vie de Louis VIII., p. 514), and more clearly by the Barnwell annalist: “Imposuit autem ei manus ex jussu legati episcopus Wintoniensis” (W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 233). Roger of Wendover (vol. iv. p. 2) says Henry was crowned and anointed by Bishop Peter; Matthew Paris (Chron. Maj., vol. iii. p. 2) that Peter of Winchester and Jocelyn of Bath crowned him; the Dunstable annalist (Ann. Monast., vol. iii. p. 48) that he was crowned by Gualo’s authority, but by the hands of the Bishops of Winchester, Worcester, and Exeter. Wykes’s account of the coronation is obviously fantastic, except in one detail, that of the “sertum quoddam,” which is no doubt correct, as certainly no real crown could be available.
[15] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15333–46. This corrects the statement of R. Wendover, l.c., “duxerunt regem ... regalibus indutum ad mensam.”
[16] Chron. Merton, l.c.
[17] Winchester, Worcester, Chester (or Coventry), Bath, Exeter, and Meath; see R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 1, Ann. Wav., a. 1216, Ann. Dunst. a. 1215, p. 48, and Chron. Merton, l.c.
[18] R. Wend., l.c.
[19] Ann. Wav., a. 1216. This Chronicle and Roger both add the Earl of Chester, but they are certainly wrong.
[20] R. Wend., l.c.
[21] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15347–72. For the name of the place see errata to vol. ii. p. 390.
[23] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15465–561. Cf. Hist. Ducs, p. 181: “Guillaume li Mareschaus fu eslius a iestre souvrains baillius del regne.”
[24] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15579–15610.
[25] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 233.
[26] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15611–30.
[28] “L’om m’a baillie ceste baillie, Qui ja est pres de mesballie;” ll. 15641–2.
[29] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15628–708.
[30] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 3.
[31] Foedera, I. i. p. 145.
[32] See the list of witnesses to the Charter, Statutes of the Realm—Charters of Liberties, p. 14.
[33] Ann. Wav., a. 1216.
[34] First Charter of Henry III., c. 1.
[35] Magna Charta, c. 2, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 2.
[38] 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 5.
[40] M. C., c. 16, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 11.
[41] M. C., c. 17, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 12.
[42] M. C., cc. 18, 19, 1st Ch. Hen. III., cc. 13, 14.
[43] M. C., cc. 20, 21, 22, 1st Ch. Hen. III., cc. 15, 16, 17.
[44] M. C., c. 23, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 18.
[45] M. C., c. 24, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 19.
[46] M. C., c. 29, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 22.
[47] M. C., c. 31, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 24.
[48] M. C., c. 32, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 25.
[49] M. C., c. 33, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 26.
[50] M. C., c. 34, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 27.
[51] M. C., c. 36, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 29.
[52] M. C., c. 37, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 30.
[53] M. C., c. 35, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 28.
[54] M. C., c. 38, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 31.
[55] M. C., c. 39, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 32.
[56] M. C., c. 40, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 33.
[57] M. C., c. 43, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 35.
[58] M. C., c. 44, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 36.
[59] M. C., c. 46, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 37.
[60] M. C., c. 54, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 39.
[61] M. C., c. 47, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 38.
[62] M. C., c. 56, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 40.
[63] M. C., c. 13, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 10.
[64] M. C., c. 28, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 21.
[65] M. C., c. 30, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 23.
[66] M. C., c. 41, 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 34.
[67] M. C., cc. 10, 11, 48, 43, 50, 52, 55, 57, 45.
[68] M. C., cc. 25, 27, 42.
[69] M. C., cc. 12, 14.
[70] M. C., c. 15.
[71] 1st Ch. Hen. III., c. 41.
[72] M. C., cc. 49, 58, 59.
[73] 1st Charter of Henry III., c. 42; Statutes of the Realm—Charters of Liberties, pp. 14–16.
[74] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 233.
[75] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 3.
[77] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 232. The words are “Hiis diebus, antequam de obitu regis mentio fieret, impetraverunt qui apud Dovram obsessi erant inducias usque post Pascha, et soluta est obsidio”; but the more detailed accounts in our other authorities clearly show that though hostilities were suspended before John’s death, the siege was not actually raised till the beginning of November. Mr. G. J. Turner appears to have overlooked this fact when he wrote that Hubert’s absence from the coronation “excites some suspicion concerning his loyalty” (“Minority of Henry III.,” part I., Trans. Roy. Hist. Soc., 2nd Series, vol. xviii., p. 246). It was precisely Hubert’s loyalty which made it impossible for him to leave Dover till his truce with Louis was prolonged and the siege raised.
[78] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 4. Cf. Hist. Ducs, p. 182: “Grant doute avoient” [the king’s friends] “de Looys, qui se partit tost de Douvre apries chou que la trive fu prise entre lui et cels dedens, si s’en vint à Londres.”
[79] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 4.
[80] For Newark and Lincoln see Hist. Ducs, p. 181; for Sleaford see below, p. 25.
[81] Norwich castle is said by Roger of Wendover (vol. iii. pp. 378–9) to have been “found empty” and garrisoned by Louis before John’s death; but this is a very unlikely story. Without discussing objections in detail, it is enough to say that in the French expedition into East Anglia (R. Wend., l.c., M. Paris, Hist. Angl., vol. ii. p. 182) during which this important acquisition is alleged to have been made, Louis had in reality no personal share at all, being at the time busy winning castles in Hampshire; and that the expedition was clearly a mere raid, from which all the French troops engaged in it returned to meet Louis again in London. Cf. Hist. Ducs, p. 172.
[82] Hist. Ducs, p. 181.
[83] Hist. Ducs, p. 180.
[85] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 4–5.
[86] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15717–28. According to one account, Louis made over Hertford to Robert FitzWalter, to whom it had formerly belonged (Hist. Ducs, l.c.); according to another, FitzWalter claimed it, but was put off with a temporizing answer, on the advice of Louis’s French knights, who said, truly enough, that “Englishmen who had betrayed their own sovereign were not fit to be trusted with castles.” R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 5.
[87] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 5, 6.
[88] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15735–41.
[89] Henry was at Oxford in 1217 on January 13–20, and again January 27–February 1; Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 295 b–297.
[90] On all these truces and surrenders see Note I at end.
[91] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 235.
[92] E.g., the stores, &c., removed from Norwich and Orford were on 8th February assigned for the reinforcement of Dover; Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 335 b.
[93] Hist. Ducs, p. 182.
[94] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 235.
[95] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 11.
[96] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 235.
[97] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 6.
[98] Patent Rolls Hen. III., vol. i. p. 109. See Note I.
[99] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 10–11.
[100] “Prise par engien.” Hist. Ducs, p. 182.
[101] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 17.
[102] “Qui la”—i.e., at Rye—“estoit a grant plente de nes biens garnies de gens armees, comme chil qui la mer ot a garder de par le roi.” Hist. Ducs, p. 183.
[103] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15779, &c.
[104] Cf. Hist. Ducs, pp. 181, 183, and Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15768–9 and 15795–808.
[105] Hist. Ducs, p. 183.
[106] Hist. Ducs, pp. 184–187.
[107] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15859–67; cf. Hist. Ducs, p. 187.
[108] From the Hist. G. le Mar. alone it might be supposed that the Marshal himself had headed the expedition which captured Rye; but the Rolls distinctly show that this was not the case.
[109] “Crucesignati.” Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 108–109.
[110] Hist. Ducs, p. 187.
[111] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15868–9, 16034–6. We get the date by comparing these latter lines with the date of Louis’s return; see M. Paul Meyer’s note 5, vol. iii. p. 225.
[112] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 235.
[113] Ann. Wav., a. 1217.
[114] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 5.
[115] Hist. G. le Mar., l. 15884.
[116] When they had a joint letter of safe conduct to go to the court for six days; Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 10, 8th December, 1216.
[117] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15872–86.
[118] A dateless letter from the Earl Marshal, Walter de Lacy, William de Cantelupe, and Falkes, to the Earl of Salisbury and the younger Marshal, sets forth that the writers have sworn “quod conventionem prolocutam inter dominum nostrum Henricum regem Angliæ illustrem et nos” [sic, but surely it should be vos?] “pro posse nostro firmiter et absque malo ingenio teneri faciemus,” wherefore the two persons addressed are to come without delay to the writers, who will have them absolved by the Bishop of Chichester, he being empowered by the Pope and the Legate to absolve persons returning to allegiance. Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 109.
[119] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15884–96.
[120] Cf. ib. ll. 15901–2, and Close Rolls, vol. i., p. 299.
[121] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 37.
[122] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 15943–4.
[124] Ib. ll. 15960–84. Reinforcements were on 7th April summoned to be at Winchester on Wednesday after the close of Easter, i.e., 10th April; Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 335 b.
[125] “S’en alerent Baucone,” Hist. G. le Mar., 15986. The name is hopelessly corrupt; M. Meyer suggests in a note “à Suzhantone?” It is probably either Southampton or Odiham; cf. Hist. Ducs, pp. 187, 189.
[126] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16003–10. The place is there called Rovcestre, but there can be no doubt Porchester is meant; we know from the Close Roll, vol. i. p. 301 b, that the siege of Porchester was begun before 20th March.
[127] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16011–33.
[128] Hist. Ducs, pp. 187, 189.
[129] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 57, 62.
[130] Hist. Ducs, p. 188.
[131] See the orders “de conversis” in Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 300 b et seq.
[132] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 14. Cf. Hist. Ducs, p. 189, and Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16092–6. Roger gives the date, “post Paschalem solemnitatem,” i.e., after 26th March.
[133] Hist. Ducs, p. 188.
[134] “In vigilia S. Georgii martyris,” Chron. Merton in Petit-Dutaillis, p. 514. The Barnwell Annalist (W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 236) says, “Sabbato quo finiendae erant treugae applicuit Lodowicus apud Sandwich.” The day on which the truce would end, if the “month after Easter” (see above, p. 19), meant a calendar month, would be 26th April, and not Saturday but Wednesday. But a month of four weeks from Easter would expire on Saturday, 22nd April; and this interpretation is confirmed by the Hist. Ducs (l.c.), one MS. of which says Louis sailed “le venredi devant le mois de Pasques”; see M. Francisque-Michel’s note, ib., and M. Paul Meyer’s notes to Hist. G. le Mar., vol. iii. p. 225. The only doubt is whether Louis sailed on the night of Friday, 21st April, and landed on Saturday, 22nd, or sailed on Saturday, 22nd, and landed on Sunday, 23rd. As the preponderance of evidence seems to be in favour of the latter view, I have based my reckoning of the dates of his subsequent movements on the assumption of its correctness.
[135] Hist. Ducs, p. 189.
[136] W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 236.
[137] “Fist tant a Hubiers de Bourg que les trives furent alongies,” Hist. Ducs, l.c. Hubert may or may not have been there in person; the “truce” is obviously only the local one, limited to Dover and quite independent of the general truce, which was now unquestionably ended.
[141] Hist. Ducs, pp. 189, 190.
[142] Comparing Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16039–44 and 16052–53, with Hist. Ducs, pp. 189, 190, I venture to think that this is the true meaning of the poet’s somewhat confused story, notwithstanding M. Meyer’s note 1, vol. iii. p. 225. The fact that the Marshal was attesting royal letters at Winchester from 14 March onwards does not prove that he had gained possession of the castle before that date.
[143] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16048–50. The order for razing Chichester castle had been issued before, on 16 April; Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 57.
[144] “Li castiaus n’ot garde,” Hist. Ducs, p. 190.
[145] Hist. Ducs, l.c.
[146] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 14.
[147] “Qui escondire ne li pot.” Hist. Ducs, l.c.
[148] From R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 15, we should suppose that Saer’s appeal to Louis was made in London; but the Hist. Ducs, l.c., shows that it was made at Farnham. On the other hand, the Flemish chronicler represents Saer as departing straightway from Farnham for Mountsorel “on the morrow,” i.e. Saturday, 29 April, “o grant chevalerie d’Englois” and some seventy French knights (pp. 190, 191); while Roger says the relieving force—which he makes to consist of six hundred knights and more than twenty thousand men-at-arms—started from London “pridie kalendas Maii, id est die Lunae proximo ante Ascensionem Domini” (l.c.). The last day of April, 1217, was Sunday, not Monday. I think we may combine the two accounts, and assume that Saer left Farnham on April 29 to go not directly towards Leicestershire, but to London. The journey thither, and the necessary preparations after he had joined his associates there, must have taken a couple of days, and the combined forces could hardly set out before Monday, 1 May. The Ann. Dunst., p. 49, say the relieving force consisted of “the barons who were at London,” the Count of Perche, the Marshal of France, and ten thousand armati whom Louis had given them. The Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16085–92, which says the party set out from Winchester at the same time that Louis and the rest of his forces returned thence to London, is obviously quite wrong.
[149] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 15–17.
[150] “Satis innocenter,” Ann. Dunst., p. 49.
[151] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 17. W. Cov., vol. ii; p. 237. Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16097–16105.
[152] Hist. Ducs, pp. 191, 192. Cf. Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16055–81.
[153] Hist. Ducs, pp. 192, 193. “E li Waudois les assaillirent, mais desconfis furent.”
[154] Hist. Ducs, p. 194. Cf. R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 17, and W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 237.
[155] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16115–26.
[157] “Se sunt embatuz folement,” l. 16161.
[159] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 18.
[160] Ib. For the knights see also Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16264–6 and 17025.
[161] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 18, 19.
[162] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16203–24.
[163] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 19, 20. Cf. Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16225–32.
[164] R. Wend., l.c.
[165] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16236–7.
[167] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 20.
[168] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16240–46. Cf. R. Wend., l.c. In p. 25 Roger gives the date of the battle as “quarto decimo kalendas Junii, sabbato scilicet in hebdomada Pentecostes,” where the ecclesiastical date is correct, but not the civil one. One MS. of the Hist. Ducs makes it “la velle de la Pentecouste;” but the other has “la velle de la Trinite,” p. 194, note 3. The Annals of Waverley, a. 1217, give the true date, “tertio decimo kalendas Junii, in hebdomada Pentecostes.” So also R. Coggeshall, p. 185.
[169] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16277–310, 16331–4.
[170] Ib. ll. 16247–61, 16314–15.
[171] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 20. He makes seven divisions, or “battles,” instead of four, but gives no details of their arrangement. It is possible that either he or the Marshal’s biographer may have put the crossbowmen in a wrong place.
[172] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16418–24.
[173] Cf. ib. ll. 16427–32 and R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 21, 22.
[174] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16434–60.
[175] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 20, 21. Cf. Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16341–72.
[176] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16373–97.
[178] “Whom God preserve both in body and soul!” prays the Marshal’s biographer, l. 16492. The other party called her “molt engigneuse e mal querans e vighereuse vielle,” Anon. Béthune, quoted by Petit-Dutaillis, p. 148.
[179] Hist. G. le Mar., vol. iii. p. clix.
[181] On the “blocked gate” see Note II.
[182] The whole city above hill, except the minster precincts, was in the “bail” or jurisdiction of the castle.
[183] It had at least seven, without counting the two Bar-Gates beyond the river.
[184] I think this is to be inferred from Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16544–52; see Note II.
