Читать книгу The Minority of Henry the Third - Kate Norgate - Страница 9
Оглавление[185] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16521–34.
[186] E. Mansel Sympson, Lincoln, pp. 24, 25.
[187] “At illi” [i.e. majores exercitus] “per eam” [the “little back door” of the castle, “posterulam quae propter adventum eorum fuerat jam aperta,” cf. above, p. 36] “noluerunt omnes intrare, sed miserunt Falcasium cum agmine toto cui praeerat et cum balistariis omnibus, qui portam civitatis saltem unam exercitui aperirent. Deinde omnis multitudo ad portam se aquilonarem conferens illam confringere vacavit ... Falcasius interim castrum cum agmine cui praeerat ac balistariis omnibus ingressus,” &c. R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 22.
[188] R. Wend., l.c. See Note III.
[189] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16541–55. See Note III.
[190] “Mes soufrez que entor la tor Augent dui home tot entor De chascune de nos batailles Qui enquerront les repostailles,” ll. 16563–66. La tor ought of course to mean the castle. But the castle was known to be surrounded on three of its sides by enemies in open action against it; to send men to look for “ambushes” round it seems therefore absurd, and would certainly have been impracticable. Can la tor be a scribe’s error for le mur, and did the poet mean “round the wall of the city”? Or can “entor la tor” be a sheer blunder for something wholly different, and should ll. 16564–5 be construed together—“Let two men go all round each of our battles,” &c.?
[191] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16567–16628.
[192] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 22.
[193] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16643–77.
[195] The poet in ll. 16335–40 excludes the English rebels from his reckoning; but in ll. 17026–7 he seems to include the English knights fighting on the French side in the six hundred and eleven. The Hist. Ducs, p. 191, makes only seventy French knights.
[196] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 25.
[197] “Nundinae,” R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 25. See Professor Tout’s article on “The Fair of Lincoln,” Eng. Hist. Rev., April, 1903, p. 241, note 2. Cf. also Hist. G. le Mar., l. 16334 (see above, p. 34).
[198] “Li lor mestre perreior.”
[199] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16630–42.
[200] That is, after going along what is now the street called Westgate to its junction with that now known as Bailgate (a portion of the old Ermine Street), they turned southward down the latter; the “church on their left” would be All Saints, near the angle formed by the junction of Bailgate and Eastgate. The cathedral church would have been called not “un moustier” but “le moustier,” as in l. 16705.
[201] Obviously the space between the west front of the cathedral church and the east gate of the castle.
[202] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16681–708.
[203] William the Breton, Gesta Philippi Aug., c. 223.
[204] Hist. G. le Mar., l. 16707.
[205] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 23.
[207] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16729–68.
[208] “Aval une rue a senestre S’en tornerent vers Wikefort,” ll. 16774–5. Perche and his men had evidently been fighting with their backs towards the east front of the minster, so that the “street on their left” would be the main road—Ermine Street, Steep Hill, High Street—running down due southward “towards Wigford” as the poet says.
[209] The present Stonebow was built in the fifteenth century, but the name “Stan-bogh” occurs in a document dating from 1220–1230. Sympson, Lincoln, pp. 384, 425.
[210] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16777–828. Wigford Bridge is now called the High Bridge.
[211] “Reials! reials!” l. 16903.
[212] “Dont point ne m’ennuie,” contemptuously says the Marshal’s biographer, l. 16939.
[214] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16830–944.
[216] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 23.
[217] Ib., Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17002–20.
[218] Hist. Ducs, p. 194.
[219] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16997–17018.
[220] Saer de Quincy (Earl of Winchester), Henry de Bohun (Earl of Hereford), Gilbert of Ghent, Robert FitzWalter, Richard de Montfichet, William de Mowbray, William de Beauchamp, William Mauduit, Oliver D’Eyncourt, Roger de Cressy, William de Coleville, William de Ros, Robert de Ropsley, Ralf Chaineduit, R. Wend.,vol. iv., pp. 23–24; to these the continuator of Gervase of Canterbury (vol. ii. p. 111) adds Robert FitzWalter’s son, Gilbert de Clare, Gerard de Furnival, Stephen and Maurice of Ghent, Nicolas and Eustace de Stuteville, Warin de Montchensy, Ralf and Roger de Tony, Geoffrey de Say, Henry and Philip, sons of Earl David (of Huntingdon), William de Huntingfield, William de Hastings, Nicolas de Kennet, Robert de Grilley, Robert of Newburgh the constable of Hedingham, John of Bassingbourne, Ralf Murdac, Anselm de Kent, William de Fiennes, Geoffrey and Walter de St. Leger, Henry de Braybroke, Adam FitzWilliam, Simon de Kime, Walter de Thinham, Robert Marmion the younger, John of St. Helen’s, William Martel, and John of Sanford. The Chron. Merton (Petit-Dutaillis, p. 514) gives the total number as fifty-two. One of those enumerated above, however—Henry de Braybroke—is said by the Dunstable Annalist (p. 49) to have escaped with Simon de Poissy. Earl William de Mandeville and the constable of Chester also escaped; Hist. Ducs, p. 195.
[221] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 24. Cont. Gerv. Cant., l.c. In W. Cov., vol. ii. pp. 237, 238, the number is given as three hundred and eighty, but avowedly only on hearsay.
[222] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 16965–69.
[223] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 26.
[224] M. Paris, Hist. Angl., vol. ii. p. 213.
[225] R. Wend.,vol. iv. p. 24.
[227] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17031–68.
[228] Hist. Ducs, p. 195.
[229] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 25, 26.
[230] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 64. The Marshal was back at Lincoln on the 22nd; Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 308 b.
[231] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 26. Ann. Dunst., p. 50.
[232] Hist. Ducs, p. 195, says “le joesdi apries le Pentecouste” instead of after Trinity; but this is a mistake caused by the writer having dated the battle a week too early; see above, footnote 168.
[233] Hist. Ducs, pp. 195, 196.
[235] Ann. Wav., a. 1217.
[236] Hist. Ducs, p. 197. The three abbots had letters of safe-conduct from the king, who with the host was now at Reading, on 6th June; Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 68.
[237] Hist. Ducs, l.c.
[238] Rer. Gall. Scriptt., vol. xix. p. 636.
[239] Safe-conduct, dated 12th June, Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 69.
[240] They were Simon de Langton, Archdeacon of Canterbury and brother of the Primate; Gervase of Hobrigg, Dean of S. Paul’s, London; Robert of S. Germain, a clerk of the King of Scots; and Master Elias, a clerk of the Archbishop of Canterbury. From the beginning of the war these men had set the Papal authority at defiance, and they were now preaching at Paul’s Cross to the people and “giving them to understand that the Royalists were excommunicate and that Louis and his men were good folk, wrongfully excommunicated by the Pope.” Hist. Ducs, pp. 197, 198. See the Archbishop of Tyre’s letter in Rer. Gall. Scriptt., vol. xix. pp. 636, 637, and cf. Hist. Ducs, p. 198, and W. Cov., vol. ii., p. 238.
[241] They had a safe-conduct to the sea on 21st June; Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 70, 71.
[242] Before 22nd June; Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 71.
[243] Foedera, I. i. p. 147.
[244] They were there 1–6 July; Pat. Rolls, vol. i. pp. 77–79.
[245] Hist. Ducs, p. 198.
[246] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 27.
[247] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17085–103. The monstrous version of Philip’s speech given by M. Paris, Hist. Angl., vol. ii. p. 216, is beneath notice except as an illustration of Matthew’s own character as an historian.
[248] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 27, 28. See also the curious story in Récits d’un Ménestrel de Reims, pp. 157, 158.
[249] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17117–24. Cf. Ann. Dunst., p. 50.
[250] One hundred, Hist. Ducs, p. 198; three hundred, R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 28.
[251] Hist. Ducs, pp. 198, 199.
[252] Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 336, 314 b, 317, 336 b.
[253] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 71; Close Rolls, vol. i. p. 314.
[254] Petit-Dutaillis, p. 157. See especially Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 310–312.
[255] August 7–13; Close Rolls, vol. i. pp. 317 b–319 b.
[256] Reading, August 14th; Farnham, August 15th. Ib. p. 320.
[257] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17167–210. Of this, again, Matthew Paris (Hist. Angl., vol. ii. pp. 217, 218) has a version which is obviously a mere romance of his own, devised—as needlessly as clumsily—to exalt Hubert de Burgh at the expense of the Marshal.
[258] Son of Warren’s sister; see Hist. Ducs, p. 200.
[259] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17262–85.
[260] So say Roger of Wendover, vol. iv. p. 28, and the Hist. Ducs, l.c. The Marshal’s biographer, ll. 17293–4, says three hundred, but this does not tally with our accounts of the smallness of the force which the fleet had to bring over.
[261] “Batellies.”
[262] Hist. Ducs, l.c.
[263] See the list in Hist. Ducs, p. 201.
[264] Cf. Hist. Ducs, l.c., and Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17160, 17290–91, and 17365–76.
[265] Hist. Ducs, l.c.
[266] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17286–90.
[267] Hist. Ducs, l.c.
[268] Cf. Hist. Ducs, l.c., Ann. Wav., a. 1217, Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17214–15, and R. Wend., l.c.
[269] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17234–44.
[271] “Mes Dex e en terre e en mer A le poeir d’aidier as buens; Donques aidera il as suens,” ll. 17322–24.
[273] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 28.
[274] Cf. ib. and Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17309–10.
[275] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17307–8; Hist. Ducs, p. 201.
[276] Hist. Ducs, l.c.
[277] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17302–6.
[278] Ib. ll. 17329–31; R. Wend., l.c.
[279] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17354–58. Cf. M. Paris, Hist. Angl., vol. ii. p. 219.
[280] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17360–65.
[281] Ib. ll. 17377–404. Cf. Hist. Ducs, pp. 201, 202.
[282] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 29.
[283] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17405–433.
[285] Hubert de Burgh came back with two of them in tow; ib. ll. 17505–08.
[286] Cf. Hist. Ducs, p. 201, and Ann. Wav., a. 1217.
[287] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17507–62.
[288] Ib. ll. 17473–80. The poet says, speaking “apres cels qui virent,” that there were full four thousand Frenchmen slain, besides those who sprang overboard and were drowned (Cf. R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 29). But he adds “Je n’i fui pas; ci m’en descombre De dire ce que nuls ne seit,” ll. 17491–97.
[289] R. Wend., l.c.
[290] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17434–55, and Hist. Ducs, p. 202; cf. R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 29, 30. This last says it was Richard the king’s son who answered the inveterate turncoat’s offers of ransom and service by exclaiming “Nunquam de caetero falsis tuis promissionibus quenquam in hoc saeculo seduces, proditor nequissime,” drawing his sword and striking off his head. The French account seems more probable, as I think we may safely identify the “Stephen Trabe” (or “Crave”) of the Hist. Ducs with the poet’s “Stephen of Winchelsea.”
[291] Hist. Ducs, p. 202.
[292] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17572–76.
[293] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 30.
[294] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17510–68. The date is confirmed by Hist. Ducs, l.c., R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 28, and W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 238; the Ann. Wav., a. 1217, erroneously make it the eve, instead of the day, of S. Bartholomew—“X. kal. Septembris.”
[295] “Destructi sunt barones apud Lincolniam.” Chron. Merton, Petit-Dutaillis, p. 514.
[296] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 30.
[297] Hist. Ducs, pp. 199, 200.
[299] Ib. Cf. Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17634–41.
[300] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17642–76.
[301] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 89.
[302] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 30; cf. W. Cov., vol. ii. p. 239.
[303] “Ludowicus in arcto positus significavit Legato pariter ac Marescallo quod ipse voluit consilio eorum in omnibus obedire, ita tamen quod salvo honore suo et sine suorum scandalo pacem congruam providerent,” R. Wend., l.c. “Looys parla a eus” [the Marshal and the Justiciar] “e il li orent en couvent que il se peneroient en boine foi de la pais faire, e tele qui honnerable li seroit,” Hist. Ducs, p. 203.
[304] “Si conta a Looys che que il ot trouvé.”
[305] Hist. Ducs, pp. 203, 204. Cf. Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17683–90, where however it is asserted that the French kept their English allies out of the council, “not wishing them to know their secrets.”
[306] “At illi, in quibus totum pendebat negotium, et qui Lodowici liberationem supra modum desiderabant, quandam pacis formam in scripto redactam ei remiserunt.” I am conscious that my rendering of Lodowici liberationem is a bold one but I believe it conveys the real meaning better than a strict translation.
[307] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 30.
[308] “Item, Dominus Ludovicus faciet juramentum corporale, et sui cum eo, et cartas suas facient singuli quos consilium domini Regis voluerit, quod pacem praescriptam firmiter et fideliter tenebunt; et ad impetrandam super hoc confirmationem Domini Papae et Domini Legati apponet legale posse suum per preces.” Foedera, I. i. p. 148; D’Achéry, Spicilegium, vol. iii. p. 586. Why Louis should be specially charged with the duty of obtaining confirmation of the peace from the Pope, and still more from the Legate, when the latter was at the head of those who were actually dictating its terms, is one of the many puzzles connected with the treaty of Kingston. The Pope, however, did confirm the treaty, on 13th January, 1218, and he says expressly that he did so at the request of Louis; Foedera, I. i. p. 149.
[309] On the document summarized above see Note V.
[310] “Cum autem forma pacis ad Ludovicum pervenisset, audienda et inspicienda, placuit, timens multa deteriora.” Flores Hist., vol. ii. p. 165.
[311] Roger of Wendover, vol. iv. p. 31, says that Louis after discussing the draft with his friends sent to ask for a conference; but the Hist. Ducs, p. 203, distinctly indicates that this meeting on Tuesday (11th September) had been arranged before the terms were sent to him.
[312] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17702–3; Hist. Ducs, p. 204. R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 31, says “near Staines.”
[313] Hist. Ducs, l.c.
[314] R. Wend., l.c.
[315] A stipulation of interest, which appears in only one known version of the written conditions of peace, may probably have been inserted in them at the same time: “Item, Dominus Ludovicus reddat Domino Regi rotulos de Scaccario, cartas Judaeorum, et cartas factas de libertatibus tempore Regis Johannis a P. Rumougrend (sic), et omnia alia scripta de scaccario quod (sic) habet, bona fide.” (Martène and Durand, Thesaurus Novus Anecdotorum, 1717, vol. i. p. 858). I have no idea what can be the meaning of the words “a P. Rumougrend,” unless they have, in process of transcription, been somehow evolved out of “in p[rato] Runimead.”
[316] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 31, 32.
[317] Roy. Lett., vol. i. p. 7; Hist. Ducs, l.c.
[318] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 95. On this date, and the whole series of dates connected with the treaty, see Note V.
[319] Hist. Ducs, l.c.
[320] Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17704–10.
[322] Hist. Ducs, p. 205.
[323] Pat. Rolls, vol. i. p. 91.
[324] Chron. Merton, Petit-Dutaillis, p. 515.
[325] Cf. ib., R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 32, Hist. Ducs, p. 205, and Hist. G. le Mar., ll. 17717–20.
[326] Rob. Autiss. Contin. II., Pertz, Rer. Germ. Scriptt., vol. xxvi. p. 282.
