Symphonia A Critical Edition of the Symphonia

Armonie Celestium Revelationum Symphony of the

Harmony of Celestial Revelations Hildegard Of
Bingen pdf download
https://ebookmeta.com/product/symphonia-a-critical-edition-of-
the-symphonia-armonie-celestium-revelationum-symphony-of-the-
harmony-of-celestial-revelations-hildegard-of-bingen/

Download more ebook from https://ebookmeta.com

We believe these products will be a great fit for you. Click
the link to download now, or visit ebookmeta.com
to discover even more!

Green Mass The Ecological Theology of St Hildegard of

Bingen 1st Edition Michael Marder

https://ebookmeta.com/product/green-mass-the-ecological-theology-
of-st-hildegard-of-bingen-1st-edition-michael-marder/

Voice of the Living Light Hildegard of Bingen and Her

World Barbara Newman (Editor)

https://ebookmeta.com/product/voice-of-the-living-light-
hildegard-of-bingen-and-her-world-barbara-newman-editor/

The Cambridge Companion to Hildegard of Bingen

Cambridge Companions to Literature 1st Edition
Jennifer Bain

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-cambridge-companion-to-
hildegard-of-bingen-cambridge-companions-to-literature-1st-
edition-jennifer-bain/

C# 12 and .NET 8 Modern Cross-Platform Development

Fundamentals 8th Edition Mark J. Price

https://ebookmeta.com/product/c-12-and-net-8-modern-cross-
platform-development-fundamentals-8th-edition-mark-j-price/
Protective Hero Heart of a Wounded Hero 1st Edition
Khloe Summers

https://ebookmeta.com/product/protective-hero-heart-of-a-wounded-
hero-1st-edition-khloe-summers/

Clinical Environmental Medicine: Identification and

Natural Treatment of Diseases Caused by Common
Pollutants 1st Edition Walter J. Crinnion

https://ebookmeta.com/product/clinical-environmental-medicine-
identification-and-natural-treatment-of-diseases-caused-by-
common-pollutants-1st-edition-walter-j-crinnion/

Classical Literature and Posthumanism 1st Edition

Giulia Maria Chesi (Anthology Editor)

https://ebookmeta.com/product/classical-literature-and-
posthumanism-1st-edition-giulia-maria-chesi-anthology-editor/

Nemesis 1st Edition C R May

https://ebookmeta.com/product/nemesis-1st-edition-c-r-may/

The Ph D Mindset Decoupling Passion From Research 1st

Edition Hamid H. Kazeroony

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-ph-d-mindset-decoupling-
passion-from-research-1st-edition-hamid-h-kazeroony/
Day Hikes Around San Luis Obispo 156 Great Hikes 3rd
Edition Robert Stone

https://ebookmeta.com/product/day-hikes-around-san-luis-
obispo-156-great-hikes-3rd-edition-robert-stone/
SYMPHONIA
 Saint Hildegard of Bingen

SYMPHONIA
A Critical Edition of the Symphonia
armonie celestium revelationum
[Symphony of the Harmony
of Celestial Revelations]

WITH INTRODUCTION, TRANSLATIONS,

ANO COMMENTARY BY

BARBARA NEWMAN

SECOND EDITION

Cornell University Press

lthaca and London
 CORNELL UNIVERSITY PRESS GRATEFULLY ACKNOWLEDGES
A GRANT FROM THE ANDREW W. MELLON FOUNDATION
THAT AIDED IN BRINGING THIS BOOK TO PUBLICATION

Copyright C 1988, 1998 by Cornell University

All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review, this book, or parts
thereof, must not be reproduced in any form without permission in writing
from the publisher. For information, address Cornell University Press,
Sage House, su. East State Street, Ithaca, New York 148so.

First edition published 1988 by Cornell University Press.

Second edition published 1998.

Cornell University Press strives to usc environmentally responsible suppliers and

materials to the fullest extent possible in the publishing of its books.
Such materials include vegetable-based, low-VOC inks and acid-free
papers that are also either recycled, totally chlorine-free,
or partly composed of nonwood fibers. For further information, visit our
website at www.cornellpress.cornell.edu.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Hildegard, Saint, I098-1179·

[Symphonia armonie celestium revelationum. English and Latin.] Symphonia :
a critical edition of the Symphonia armonie cclestium revclationum
(Symphony of the harmony of celestial revelations]/ Saint Hildegard of Bingen;
with introduction, translations, and commentary by Barbara Newman. 1nd ed.
p. em.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
English and Latin.
ISBN-13: 978-o-8o14-8S47·3 (pbk. : alk. paper)
ISBN-xo: o-8oi4-8547-9 (pbk. : alk. paper)
I. Hymns, Latin (Medieval and modern) 1. Chants (Plain, Gregorian, etc.)
I. Newman, Barbara, 1953- . II. Title.
781.2.5'o168-dcu 98-9609

Paperback printing 10 9 8 7 6 s4 3 1

Cover illustration: Hildegard of Bingen , wood polychrome sculpture

(14th century), church of St. Peter and Paul, Mtinster-Sarmsheim
(diocese of Trier). Reproduced by permission.
Omnis caelestis harmonia speculum divinitatis est,
et horno speculum omnium miraculorum est Dei.

All celestial harmony is a mirror of divinity,

and man is a mirror of all the miracles of God,
SAINT HILDEGARD, Causes and Cures
 Contents

PREFACE xi
INTROOUCTION I

Biographical Sketch 1
Composition and Dating of the Symphonia 6
The Symphonia in the Monastic Liturgy 12
Aesthetics and Theology of Music 17
Musical Style and Performance 27
Poetic Style 3 2
Themes of the Symphonia 45
The Manuscripts and the Order of Songs J 1
The Text and Translations 6o
LIST OF MANUSCRIPTS 64
ÜROER OF SONGS IN THE MANUSCRIPTS 65
APPENDIX: The Symphonia and the "Epilogue to the Life
of Saint Rupert" 68
MUSIC ANO TEXT IN HILOEGARO'S ANTIPHONS 74
by Marianne Richert Pfau

Sympbonia armonie celestium revelationum 95

TEXT ANO TRANSLATIONS

l. FATHER ANO SoN 97

1. O vis eternitatis 98
2.. O virtus Sapientie roo

Vll
 viii Contents

3· O quam mirabilis zoo

4· O pastor animarum zoz
S· O cruor sanguinis 102.
6. O magne Pater 104
7· O eterne Deus zo6
11. MoTHER AND SoN 109
8. Ave Maria uo
9· O darissima mater u 2.
10. O splendidissima gemma II4
II. Hodie aperuit u6
u. Quía ergo femina II 6
13. Cum processit factura z z 8
14. Cum erubuerint u8
1 s. O frondens virga no
16. O quam magnum miraculum no
17. Ave generosa n2.
18. O virga mediatrix n4
19. O viridissima virga n6
2.0. O virga ac diadema n8
2.1. O tu suavissima virga 132.
2.2.. O quam preciosa z 34
23. O tu illustrata zJ6

111. THE HOLY SPIRIT 139

2.4. Spiritus sanctus vivificans vita 140
2s. Karitas habundat 140
2.6. Laus Trinitati 142.
2.7. O ignee Spiritus 142.
28. O ignis Spiritus Paraditi 148

IV. THE CELESTIAL HIERARCHY 1S3

2.9. O gloriosissimi lux vivens angeli 154
30. O vos angeli IJ6
3 1. O spectabiles viri r J 8
32. O vos felices radices z6o
33· O cohors milicie floris z62.
34· O lucidissima apostolorum turba 164
35. O speculum columbe z66
Contents ix
36. O dulcís electe z68
37· O victoriosissimi triumphatores z7o
38. Vos flores rosarum z72
39· O vos imitatores I74
40. O successores z76

V. PATRON SAINTS 179

41. O mirum admirandum z8o
42.. O viriditas digiti Dei z82
43· O felix anima z84
44· O beata infantia z84
45· O presul vere civitatis z86
46. O felix apparicio z9o
47· O beatissime Ruperte z9o
48. Quia felix puericia z92
49· O Ierusalem 192.
so. Mathias sanctus z98
SI· O Bonifaci 2.04
52.. O Euchari columba 2.06
53. O Euchari in leta via 2.08
54· Columba aspexit 2.u
VI. VIRGINS, WIDOWS, ANO INNOCENTS 2.17
55. O pulcre facies z.z 8
s6. o
nobilissima viriditas z.z8
57· O dulcissime amator 2.20
58. O Pater omnium 224
59· Rex noster promptus 226
VII. SAINT URSULA ANO COMPANIONS 2.2.9
6o. Spiritui sancto 2.30
6 1. O rubor sanguinis 2. 3 2.
62.. Favus distillans 234
63. Antiphons for Matins 2.36
Studium divinitatis
Unde quocumque
De patria
Deus enim in prima
Aer enim volat
 x Contents

Et ideo puelle
Deus enim rorem
Sed diabolus
64. O Ecclesia 2.38
6 s. Cum vox sanguinis 2.44
VIII. ECCLESIA 2.49
66. O virgo Ecclesia 2.50
67. Nunc gaudeant 2.52.
68. O orzchis Ecclesia 2.52.
69. O choruscans lux stellarum 2.54

~OUR SONGS WITHOUT MUSIC 2.57

O Verbum Patris 2.58
O Fili dilectissime z6o
O factura Dei 2.62.
O magna res 2.64
COMMENTARY

BIBLIOGRAPHY
DISCOGRAPHY
 Preface

Twenty years ago only a handful of medievalists knew the

name of Saint Hildegard of Bingen. But no sooner do contempo-
rary tastes change than the past takes on new contours. Names
from the margins of our historical awareness are rediscovered,
illumined, shihed toward center. So it was that, with the help of a
few art historians, the forgotten Georges de la Tour suddenly
became a painter of the first rank. So it was that Felix Men-
delssohn "discovered" Johann Sebastian Bach; Franz Pfeiffer dis-
covered Meister Eckhart; and a sisterhood of nuns discovered
Hildegard of Bingen.
Hildegard, whose personal fame reached from England to By-
zantium during her lifétime (1098-r 179), has always had ad-
mirers in her native Germany. But her reputation suffered eclipse
not long aher her death. Though celebrated throughout the Mid-
dle Ages as an apocalyptic prophet, she was all but forgotten as a
versatile writer, composer~ and scientist. Between the Reforma-
tion and the early twentieth century, an occasional author hailed
her as a great woman, a great saint, or a great German. Flurries of
publication marked the 750th anniversary of her death in 192.9
and the octocentennial in 1979. But her belated emergence as a
major representative of twelfth-century civilization owes most to
two factors: the feminist quest for a canon, and the critical schol-
xi
 xii Preface
arship of the nuns at St. Hildegard's Abbey in Eibingen. Sister
Maura Bockeler, who was attempting to revive and modernize
Hildegard's distim:tive theology, published a German translation
of her most famous work, the Scivias, in 192.8. Bockeler's Scivias,
reprinted many times, became the first of a series; all of Hildegard's
major works are now available in abridged German versions pub-
lished by Otto Müller Verlag of Salzburg. In the meantime two
other Eibingen nuns, Marianna Schrader and Adelgundis Führ-
kotter, broke ground in 1956 with an important historical and
paleographic study, establishing the long-contested authenticity
of Hildegard's works beyond doubt. 1 Together with Angela Car-
levaris, Führkotter also published a critical edition of the Scivias
for the series Corpus Christianorum: continuatio mediaevalis (Turn-
hout, 1978). But the rest of Hildegard's works, which are exten-
sive, remain in limbo. Most of the printed texts are poor, and for
the English-speaking reader, only brief excerpts are available in
trustworthy versions.
Yet des pite these problems, popular interest in Hildegard is
burgeoning. Herbalists have begun to use her prescriptions and
diets in their medical practice. A fashionable Catholic guru sa-
lutes her, generously but falsely, as the prophet of everything
from ecological justice to global ecumenism. Novels and films
about her life are under way, and illustrations from her works
have been cast in ceramics and needlework for Judy Chicago's
mammoth exhibition The Dinner Party. Her music in particular
has received fresh attention, thanks to several fine recordings by
English and Continental ensembles. Peter Dronke, the author of
many perceptive essays on Hildegard, finds in her songs "sorne of
the most unusual, subtle, and exciting poetry of the twelfth cen-
tury."2 1 believe he is right, and 1 present this edition of Hil-
degard's lyrics to make this extraordinary body of work available
both to the scholar and to the general reader.

tMarianna Schrader and Adelgundis Führkotter, Die Echtheit des Schrifttums

der heiligen Hildegard von Bingen (Cologne and Graz, 1956).
2Peter Dronke, "Hildegard of Bingen as Poetess and Dramatist," in Poetic
Individuality in the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1970): 151.
Preface xiii
This volume contains a critical text of Hildegard's poetic cycle,
the Symphonia armonie celestium revelationum [Symphony of
the harmony of celestial revelations], together with two sets of
facing-page translations, one in plain prose and the other in free
verse. lt is recommended that the general reader begin with the
verse translations. The prose versions are offered partly as a cor-
rective to my poetic license, but principally as an aid to the stu-
dent who is trying to decipher Hildegard's rewarding but peculiar
and often bewildering Latín. These prose versions are quoted in
the examples throughout the introduction. The commentary at
the end of the book includes manuscript information along with a
discussion of each individual poem. For the benefit of musicolo-
gists and singers, it also provides cross-references to the German
edition of Hildegard's music. 3 All biblical citations refer to the
Vulgate.

1 thank the librarians at the Hessische Landesbibliothek in

Wiesbaden and the Bibliotheek der St.-Pieters-&-Paulusabdij in
Dendermonde, Belgium, for their hospitality and for providing
the manuscript photographs that appear on pages 52. and 53. 1 am
also grateful to the Württembergische Landesbibliothek in Stutt-
gart and the Ósterreichische Nationalbibliothek in Vienna. Ox-
ford University Press has graciously permitted me to reprint the
stanzas by Charles Williams which appear on p. 2.82.; they are
taken from Williams's play The House of the Octopus (London:
Edinburgh House Press, 1945), as reprinted in his Collected Plays
(London: Oxford University Press, 1963). Twelve of the poems in
this volume have previously appeared, in slightly different form,
as an appendix to my earlier study, Sister of Wisdom: St. Hilde-
gard's Theology of the Feminine (Berkeley: University of Califor-
nia Press, r987). Parts of the introduction have appeared in Arts
& Sciences, a magazine published by Northwestern University
(Fall r987).
This project would not have been possible without a travel
lPudentiana Barth, M.-1. Ritscher, and joseph Schmidt-Gorg, eds., Hildegard
von Bingefl: Lieder (Salzburg, 1969).
 XIV Preface
grant from Northwestern University, for which 1 am deeply grate-
ful
As a literary scholar with no daim to expertise in music, 1 offer
my observations on Hildegard's musical style with sorne trepida-
tion. My particular thanks are due to the musicians and musicolo-
gists who have saved me from many errors and offered helpful
suggestions: Theodore Karp, Barbara Lachman, William Mahrt,
Therese Schroeder-Sheker, and Barbara Thornton. ·Marianne
Richert Pfau Kindly agreed, when this project was near comple-
tion, to let me include her essay on Hildegard's music. My hus-
band, Richard Kieckhefer, has read the manuscript, as always,
with vigilance as well as tender loving care. 1 thank Lieven Van
Acker for sharing his ideas on the thorny manuscript problems
discussed in the Appendix. Finally, 1 am grateful to David Myers
for nerving meto "write poems" instead of pallid academic fac-
similes of Hildegard's Latin. The infelicities that remain are all
my own.

A Note on the Second Edition

Ten years after the original publication of the Symphonia, 1
am pleased to offer the reader this second, revised edition. The
bibliography and discography have been updated to include
more recent editions, translations, studies, and recordings of
Hildegard's works. In addition, 1 have thoroughly revised the
prose translations for the benefit of readers and listeners who do
not read Latin. Without departing from strict fidelity to
Hildegard's texts, 1 now offer more fluent and elegant versions
that do less violence to normal English syntax. Finally, in the case
of a single poem (no. 2.9), 1 have changed my interpretation of
the last three lines and modified my translation and comments
accordingly. The other verse translations and all the Latin texts
are unaltered.

BARBARA NEWMAN

Evanston, Illinois
SYMPHON IA
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
 [1195] R. Coggeshall, pp. 180, 181.

[1196] Rot. Pat. vol. i. p. 175 b.

[1197] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 229.

[1198] Rot. Pat. p. 176.

[1199] Ib. p. 179.

[1200] See Revue historique, vol. xxxii. p. 49, note 2.

[1201] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 364–7. The version of M. Paris, Hist.
Angl. vol. ii. pp. 176, 177, is as M. Petit-Dutaillis says (Louis VIII. p. 95,
note), obviously nothing but an oratorical amplification.

[1202] Rot. Claus. vol. i. p. 270.

[1203] Ib. p. 270 b.

[1204] Itin. a. 17.

[1205] Rot. Pat. p. 178 b.

[1206] Itin. a. 17.

[1207] R. Coggeshall, p. 181.

[1208] Hist. des Ducs, pp. 167, 168. Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 181.

[1209] Hist. des Ducs, pp. 168, 169. Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 368,
and Ann. Winton. a. 1216, both of which give the same date for Louis’s
arrival. R. Coggeshall, p. 181, gives a date which, though self-
contradictory, is, I think, meant for the same—“die sabbati post
Ascensionem Domini, scilicet xiiii kalendas Junii.” W. Coventry, p. 229, is
quite wrong. John had gone on May 19 (Ascension Day) to Folkestone;
on the 20th and 21st he was at Canterbury. Itin. a. 17, 18.

[1210] Hist. des Ducs, p. 169.

[1211] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 368; W. Coventry, vol. ii. pp. 229, 230.

[1212] Ann. Dunst. a. 1215.

[1213] Hist. des Ducs, p. 170. The assertion of William the Breton,
Gesta P. A. c. 221, that John actually did await the attack of the French,
and was driven away by their vigorous onset, certainly is, as M. Petit-
Dutaillis says (Louis VIII. p. 100), an error. That error is grounded, like
the sneering comments of Ralf of Coggeshall (p. 181), the Ann. Winton.
(a. 1216), and some later writers, on the mistaken idea that John was on
the spot when Louis first landed on the 21st.

[1214] Hist. des Ducs, p. 170.

[1215] Rot. Pat. p. 184.

[1216] Itin. a. 18.

[1217] Thorne, Gesta Abb. S. Aug. Cant. in Twysden, X Scriptt. cols.

1868–70. The letter as there given is addressed to the abbot and convent
of S. Augustine’s, but it was evidently a manifesto of which copies were
sent, or intended to be sent, to all the religious houses of note, probably
also to the secular clergy, and perhaps to be distributed among the laity
as well. The character of Louis’s “case” as set forth in this letter, and in
the arguments of his envoys at Rome (R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 371–8),
has been sufficiently exposed by M. Petit-Dutaillis, Louis VIII. pp. 75–87.

[1218] Hist. des Ducs, pp. 170, 171; cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 181, and
Ann. Dunst. a. 1216.

[1219] Thorne, l.c. cols. 1864, 1870.

[1220] Hist. des Ducs, p. 171.

[1221] Chron. Merton. in Petit-Dutaillis, Louis VIII. p. 514.

[1222] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 230; R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 370.

[1223] Ann. Winton. a. 1216.

[1224] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 230. Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 369,
370.

[1225] Hist. des Ducs, p. 171; W. Coventry, l.c.; Liber de Antiq.

Legibus, Appendix, p. 202.

[1226] Hist. des Ducs, l.c.; Liber de Antiq. Legibus, l.c.

[1227] Chron. Merton. in Petit-Dutaillis, Louis VIII. p. 514. Cf. Hist. des
Ducs, pp. 171, 172; R. Coggeshall, pp. 181, 182, and R. Wendover, vol.
iii. pp. 368, 369.
 [1228] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 369.

[1229] Hist. des Ducs, pp. 171, 172.

[1230] R. Coggeshall, p. 182.

[1231] Itin. a. 18. This disposes of R. Coggeshall’s story (l.c.) that John
“cognito ejus adventu, draconem suum deposuit et aufugit.”

[1232] Ann. Winton. a. 1216.

[1233] Ann. Waverl. a. 1216.

[1234] Ib. a. 1216. The Ann. Winton. a. 1216 give a wrong date.

[1235] Cf. Ann. Winton. a. 1216, and Hist. des Ducs, p. 173.
Whichever version be the correct one, both alike show that Ralf of
Coggeshall (l.c.) is wrong in attributing the fire to John himself.

[1236] “Li grans castiaus le roi,” “le maistre castiel,” Hist. des Ducs, p.
173.

[1237] L.c.

[1238] Cf. Hist. des Ducs, p. 174; Rot. Pat. p. 188 b, and Ann. Waverl.
a. 1216.

[1239] Hist. des Ducs, l.c. Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 182, and W. Coventry,
vol. ii. p. 231.

[1240] “Qui tamen cito rediit,” W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 231.

[1241] William of Armorica, Gesta Phil. Aug. c. 222, says that Salisbury
changed sides because “ei certo innotuit relatore” that during his own
captivity in France his royal brother had made an attempt on the honour
of his wife (the well-known Countess Ela). As, however, we shall see that
Salisbury “went back” almost as promptly as Albemarle, and the story
seems quite unknown to the English chroniclers, its truth may be
doubted, though the mere fact that such a story could be told of John
with reference to his own sister-in-law illustrates the character for
reckless wickedness which he had earned for himself.

[1242] Hist. des Ducs, p. 174.

 [1243] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 371. Odiham surrendered July 9, Ann.
Waverl. a. 1216.

[1244] Hist. des Ducs, pp. 175–7.

[1245] Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 371, 378–81, Hist. des Ducs, p.
172, and M. Paris, Hist. Angl. vol. ii. p. 182.

[1246] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 379.

[1247] Chron. Mailros, a. 1216.

[1248] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 379.

[1249] Rot. Pat. pp. 184 b, 185 b, 186, 186 b, 187 b, 188, 193–5.

[1250] Ib. p. 184. Cf. ib. p. 192.

[1251] Ib. pp. 185, 187, 187 b, 188 b, 189, 189 b, etc.

[1252] Ib. pp. 187, 188.

[1253] Ib. p. 185 b.

[1254] Itin. a. 18.

[1255] Rot. Pat. p. 191 b; Brut y Tywysogion, p. 293.

[1256] Itin. a. 18.

[1257] Rot. Pat. p. 194. Worcester had been surrendered to the

younger William Marshal, for Louis, early in July, but was retaken on the
17th by the earl of Chester and Falkes de Bréauté; Ann. Wigorn. a. 1215.
The castle, according to Ann. Dunst. a. 1215, was taken by “the old
Marshal” at some unspecified date. (In both the Worcester and the
Dunstable Annals the history of 1216 is placed under the year 1215.)

[1258] M. Paris, Chron. Maj. vol. ii. p. 664.

[1259] Liber de Antiq. Legibus, appendix, p. 202; Ann. Waverl. a.

1216. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 380, gives a wrong date.

[1260] Hist. des Ducs, p. 177. Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 182; R. Wendover,

vol. iii. p. 381, and W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 230.

[1261] Hist. des Ducs, l.c.

 [1262] R. Coggeshall, l.c.

[1263] Hist. des Ducs, l.c.

[1264] Chron. Mailros, a. 1216.

[1265] Ib.; R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 382, 383.

[1266] Widow of John’s old friend Gerard de Camville; see above, p.

31.

[1267] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 230.

[1268] Hist. des Ducs, p. 179, relates John’s advance to Reading,

which took place on September 6 (Itin. a. 18), and then goes on “Puis
vint li rois d’Escoce,” etc.

[1269] Ib.

[1270] “Fecit [Alexander] ei [i.e. Ludovico] homagium de jure suo,

quod de rege Anglorum tenere debuit,” R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 382.
“Lendemain fist li rois son houmage à Looys de la tierre de Loonnois,”
Hist. des Ducs, p. 179. (M. Francisque-Michel and M. Petit-Dutaillis render
the last word “Lennox”; does it not rather represent “Lothian”?) The
Chronicle of Melrose, a. 1216, says cautiously, “Alexander rex ...
humagium fecit dicto Laodowico, ut dicitur.”

[1271] Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 381, and Hist. des Ducs, pp. 178,
179.

[1272] Itin. a. 18.

[1273] Hist. des Ducs, p. 179.

[1274] Cf. W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 231, and R. Coggeshall, p. 182.

[1275] Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 382; M. Paris, Hist. Angl. vol. ii. p.
185; and Ann. Dunst. a. 1215.

[1276] Itin. a. 18.

[1277] Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 382; R. Coggeshall, p. 183; W.

Coventry, vol. ii. p. 231; Itin. a. 18; and Rot. Pat. p. 197 b.

[1278] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 382.

 [1279] Hist. des Ducs, p. 179.

[1280] R. Wendover, l.c.

[1281] Itin. a. 18.

[1282] M. Paris, Hist. Angl. vol. ii. pp. 189–190. Cf. Chron. Maj. vol. ii.
p. 667. Matthew gives no precise date; but he implies that it was before
Michaelmas; and the Itinerary shows that the only possible date is
September 21–22, on the way from Rockingham to Lincoln.

[1283] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 382; for date see Itin. a. 18.

[1284] Rot. Claus. vol. i. p. 289; probably one of several small places
so called, on the eastern side of the Trent.

[1285] Cf. W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 231, and Itin. a. 18.

[1286] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 381.

[1287] Cf. ib., W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 231, and Itin. a. 18.

[1288] Itin. a. 18.

[1289] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 384.

[1290] R. Coggeshall, p. 183.

[1291] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 232.

[1292] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 380.

[1293] Hist. des Ducs, p. 179.

[1294] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 370. The leader’s name comes from
Hist. des Ducs, p. 181; M. Paris, Chron. Maj. vol. ii. p. 655, has corrupted
it into “Collingham.” See also Ann. Dunst. a. 1215. On William de
Casinghem’s relations with John see Rot. Pat. pp. 185, 186. He figures
frequently in the Rolls of the next reign.

[1295] Rot. Pat. p. 196.

[1296] Hist. des Ducs, p. 179.

[1297] Ann. Dunst. a. 1215.

 [1298] R. Coggeshall, p. 182. Cf. Hist. des Ducs, p. 180, and W.
Coventry, vol. ii. p. 232.

[1299] R. Coggeshall, p. 183. Cf. W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 231.

[1300] Rot. Pat. p. 199.

[1301] Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 384; M. Paris, Hist. Angl. vol. ii. p.
190; and R. Coggeshall, pp. 183, 184.

[1302] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 385; M. Paris, Hist. Angl. vol. ii. p. 191.
The later legends about the cause of John’s death are not worth notice.

[1303] R. Wendover, l.c., says John left Swineshead “summo diluculo.”

The Itinerary shows him there on October 12 and 13, and at Sleaford on
the 14th and 15th.

[1304] R. Coggeshall, p. 183. Louis had raised the siege of Dover only
on the 14th, but the truce must have been arranged and the messengers
despatched at least a day or two earlier, or the latter could not possibly
have overtaken John at Sleaford. They must in any case have travelled
with marvellous rapidity.

[1305] M. Paris, Hist. Angl. vol. ii. pp. 191, 192. He relates all this as
having occurred on the road from Swineshead to Sleaford, where he
makes John die; a characteristic piece of confusion, illustrative of
Matthew’s careless way of reading the author on whose work his own is
based. The itinerary given by Roger of Wendover, vol. iii. p. 385, is
perfectly accurate and perfectly clear.

[1306] M. Paris, Chron. Maj. vol. ii. p. 668.

[1307] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 385. The long account inserted by

Matthew Paris in his Hist. Angl. (vol. ii. p. 193)—not, it is to be observed,
in his Chron. Maj.—of John’s forgiveness of the barons and good advice
to his heir is evidently intended for the edification of Henry III. and of
posterity, and if it has any foundation at all, it is inserted in a wrong
place; for it is put after John’s last Communion, whereas the abbot
obviously must have insisted upon John’s declaring himself to be in
charity with all men (the barons, by implication at least, included) before
he gave him the Sacrament.

[1308] R. Wendover, l.c.

[1309] Baronius, Annales (ed. Mansi), vol. xx. p. 397.

 [1310] Hist. des Ducs, p. 180. Cf. Hist. de G. le Mar. vv. 15167–88.

[1311] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 385.

[1312] Foedera, vol. i. pt. i. p. 144.

[1313] R. Coggeshall, p. 184. Cf. W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 231, and R.

Wendover, vol. iii. p. 385.

[1314] R. Coggeshall, l.c.

[1315] Cf. W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 232; M. Paris, Chron. Maj. vol. ii. p.
668; and Hist. Angl. vol. ii. p. 194.

[1316] R. Coggeshall, l.c.

[1317] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 385, 386.

[1318]

“Hoc in sarcophago sepelitur regis imago,

Qui moriens multum sedavit in orbe tumultum.”
R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 386.

[1319] M. Paris, Hist. Angl. vol. ii. p. 191.

 Note I

John and the De Braoses

The fullest account of the quarrel of King John and William de

Braose is contained in a document printed in Foedera, vol. i. pt. i.
pp. 107, 108. This is a letter or manifesto addressed by John, after
the fall of De Braose, “to all who may read it,” witnessed by the
justiciar (Geoffrey Fitz-Peter), the earls of Salisbury, Winchester,
Clare, Hertford, and Ferrars, Robert Fitz-Walter, William Brewer,
Hugh de Neville, William d’Aubigny, Adam de Port, Hugh de Gournay,
William de Mowbray “and others,” and evidently intended as a public
defence of the king’s conduct towards William. Coming from John,
and under such circumstances, its truthfulness is necessarily open to
suspicion; but it is hardly conceivable that so many witnesses of
such rank and character as those enumerated should have set their
hands to it if it contained any gross misrepresentations of matters
which must have been well known to most of them; one of these
witnesses, indeed, the earl of Ferrars, is stated in the letter itself to
have been De Braose’s own nephew, and another, Adam de Port, his
brother-in-law. The only point on which the letter seems to be at
variance with any other contemporary authority is the amount of the
debt owed by De Braose to the king at the end of 1207 or beginning
of 1208. John says (l.c. p. 107), that William then owed him the
whole of the 5000 marks due for the honour of Limerick, and had
only paid him one sum of 100 marks for the ferm of the city “which
he had held for five years” (strictly speaking, it was, at the utmost,
four years and a half). The Pipe Rolls of 1206, 1207, 1208, 1209,
and 1210 (8–12 John), however, all state the sum still owed by
William for the honour of Limerick as £2865: 6: 8 (= 4298 marks),
thus implying that £468, or 702 marks, had been paid before
Michaelmas 1206. In the Roll of that year the city of Limerick is not
mentioned; but in each of the later Rolls William is said to owe £80
for its tallage, and 100 marks for its ferm for one year (Sweetman,
Calendar, vol. i. pp. 46, 55, 58, 68). This does not necessarily imply
that the ferm for the other years had not been paid; for the original
grant of the custody of the city of Limerick to De Braose in July 1203
and the writ ordering its restoration to him in August 1205 both
specify that he is to pay its ferm “to our exchequer in Dublin” (Rot.
Chart. p. 107 b; Rot. Claus. vol. i. p. 47). As there are no remaining
records of the Dublin Exchequer of so early a date, we cannot
certainly know what was or was not paid in there. The strange thing
is not that the English Exchequer should claim only one year’s ferm
for Limerick, but that it should have any claim at all in the matter.
The restoration of the city to De Braose in August 1205 was ordered
to be conditional on his finding security, within forty days, for the
payment of the arrears of the ferm. That the restoration was actually
made, and therefore that he gave the security, is plain; but there is
nothing to show that he ever redeemed his pledge, or that he paid
the ferm for the succeeding years.
The story of John’s vengeance on the family of De Braose
appears, in slightly varied forms, in almost every chronicle of the
period. Ralph of Coggeshall (p. 164), Roger of Wendover (vol. iii. p.
235) and the Brut y Tywysogion (a. 1209) say the victims were “slain
in Windsor castle”; the Annals of Dunstable and of Oseney (a. 1210),
that they “died in prison,” without specifying where or how. The
Barnwell Annalist (W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 202) and the Annals of
Margan, Tewkesbury, Waverley, Winchester, and Worcester (a. 1210)
say they were starved to death. The Hist. des Ducs de Normandie
(pp. 114–115) says they were imprisoned “el castiel del Corf,” with
no food save “une garbe d’avoine e i bacon cru,” and describes with
gruesome minuteness the attitudes in which, on the eleventh day,
they were found dead. Ralph of Coggeshall makes the victims
William de Braose’s wife and “sons” (filii); Roger of Wendover, his
wife, eldest son, and that son’s wife; the Ann. Winton., wife and
“younger” son; the Ann. Tewkesb., wife and “children” (liberi); while
the Ann. Dunst. say: “Cepit [rex] Willelmum de Lacy, et Willelmum
de Brause juniorem, et sororem ejus, et Matildem matrem ejus; qui
in carcere post modum perierunt.” All the other writers speak only of
the wife and one son, whom the Ann. Osen. call “Willelmus
primogenitus ejus,” and the Ann. Wigorn. “haeres.” This latter
version is undoubtedly the correct one as to the last point; of De
Braose’s three sons, the eldest, William, alone was in John’s power;
Giles, the second, was bishop of Hereford and safe beyond the sea,
while the third, Reginald, had escaped capture, and lived to recover
the greater part of the family heritage. One of the daughters—the
wife of Hugh Mortimer—had been taken prisoner with her mother
and eldest brother (Foedera, vol. i. pt. i. p. 107); but she did not
share their fate, for she was set free in 1214 (Rot. Pat. vol. i. p.
122); and Roger of Wendover is certainly wrong about the younger
William’s wife, who was still living in July 1220 (Royal Letters, ed.
Shirley, vol. i. p. 136). The elder William died, an exile in France,
about a year after this tragedy (R. Wend. vol. iii. p. 237).
 Note II

EUSTACE DE VESCI AND ROBERT FITZ-WALTER

Eustace de Vesci and Robert Fitz-Walter have long figured in

history as typical examples of the way in which individual barons
were goaded into hatred and vengeance against John by his
invasions of their domestic peace, and also as foremost among the
“patriots” to whom England is supposed to be indebted for her Great
Charter. On both aspects of the lives of these two men—especially of
the life of Fitz-Walter, whom Professor Tout has glorified as “the first
champion of English liberty”—a few considerations may be offered
here.
1. The earliest mention of John’s unsuccessful attempt to entrap
the wife of Eustace de Vesci is in an addition made by a chronicler at
Furness Abbey, writing c. 1270–1298, to the Stanley chronicler’s
continuation of the history of William of Newburgh. This Furness
writer (Howlett, Chron. of Stephen, etc., vol. ii. p. 521) merely states
the bare fact, without any details, in the briefest and simplest way,
and without any clue to the date. Walter of Hemingburgh, who was
living in 1313, tells the story in an elaborate form which is certainly
not impossible, perhaps not even very improbable, although it
somewhat resembles a story in Procopius (see Dic. Nat. Biogr.
“Vesci, Eustace de”). Walter gives it as an illustration of John’s
character, of which he inserts a picture—painted in the most frightful
colours—between the coming of the Franciscans in 1212 and the
rising of the barons in 1215; but he connects the incident directly
with the latter event, representing Eustace as inducing those of his
fellow-barons whom the king had injured in a similar way to join him
in a common effort for vengeance, which widens into the struggle
for the Charter (Hemingburgh, vol. i. pp. 247–9). The affair would
thus seem to have occurred some years after Eustace’s desertion
from the king’s host and flight from England in 1212; a desertion for
which, therefore, it cannot serve as an excuse.
2. The legend of Robert Fitz-Walter’s daughter which became
famous in prose and verse in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries is based upon a passage in the Chronicle of Dunmow,
printed in Monasticon, vol. vi. pt. i. p. 147. This chronicle, written in
a monastery of which the Fitz-Walters were patrons, begins with the
year 1054, but the MS. (Cott. Cleopatra C. iii.) is of the end of the
fifteenth century; it ends at the year 1501. The story is placed in
1216, and is briefly this: John demands Robert’s daughter, the fair
maiden Matilda; her father refuses to give her up to him; the civil
war breaks out, and the city of London joins the barons; afterwards
they are worsted, whereupon the king destroys Robert’s fortress in
London—Castle Baynard—and causes Matilda to be poisoned at
Robert’s manor of Dunmow. Meanwhile Robert has fled to France.
War continues on both sides of the Channel. Presently John goes to
France, and has a conference with Philip Augustus; Robert Fitz-
Walter displays his prowess in a single combat in presence of both
the kings; John admires his valour, they are reconciled, and remain
friends from that time forth.
On a tale so monstrous and so nonsensical as this, comment is
needless. There is, however, a much earlier and more rational
account of the quarrel between John and Fitz-Walter. According to
the contemporary Histoire des Ducs de Normandie, Robert Fitz-
Walter, “qui estoit uns des plus haus homes d’Engletierre et uns des
plus poissans” (he was lord of Dunmow in Essex, of Baynard’s Castle
in London, and also, by his marriage with an heiress, of large estates
in the north), had two daughters, of whom the elder was married to
Geoffrey de Mandeville, eldest son of Geoffrey Fitz-Peter, chief
justiciar of England. “Une fois” when the king was visiting
Marlborough, a quarrel for lodgings arose between the servants of
this young Geoffrey and those of William Brewer; they came to
blows, and Brewer’s chief “sergeant” was slain by the hand of
Geoffrey himself. Geoffrey, fearing the wrath of the king, whom he
knew to be jealous of his father’s power and wealth, fled to his
wife’s father, who went to intercede for him with the king; John,
however, “jura les dens Diu que non auroit (merchi), ains le feroit
pendre, se il le pooit tenir.” Robert in return swore “Par Corpus
Domini, non ferés! ains en verriés ii. m. hiaumes laciés en vostre
tierre, que chil fust pendus qui ma fille a.” At last John promised a
“day” for agreement between himself and Geoffrey at Nottingham,
intending to seize him at his coming; but Robert, “ki le roi connissoit
à moult gaignart,” came with his son-in-law, and with five hundred
knights at his back. The king then proposed another “day,” and the
same thing happened a second time. Then John began to plot
vengeance upon Robert; he sent secret orders to “ses bourgois de
Londres, qui se faisoient apelier baron,” to pull down Castle Baynard;
and they, not daring to disobey him, did as they were bid. Robert,
knowing very well that they had acted on an order from the king,
fled over sea with his wife and children. On reaching the Continent
“il fist à entendre par tout que li rois Jehans voloit sa fille aisnée, qui
feme estoit Joffroi de Mandeville, avoir à force à amie, et por chou
que il ne le vaut soufrir, l’avoit il chacié de sa tierre et tout le sien
tolut.” This was the tale which he also told to King Philip of France,
at whose court he—after staying some time at Arras—presented
himself just as Philip was preparing to invade England. When the
invasion had been checked by John’s submission to Pandulf and
Pandulf’s prohibition to Philip, Robert went to “Pandoufle le clerc”
and to him told another tale: “li dist que il s’estoit partis d’Engletierre
por le roi qui escumeniiés estoit, car il ne voloit pas estre en la
compaignie des escumeniiés; et por chou li avoit li rois toute sa terre
tolue”; wherefore he begged Pandulf, now that the king was
excommunicate no longer, to make peace for him and get him back
his land, which Pandulf accordingly did (Hist. des Ducs, pp. 115–25).
Here, at any rate, it is clear that the date of the quarrel cannot
have been later than the spring of 1213; perhaps, as we are not told
how long Robert stayed in Flanders before going to France, it might
be some months earlier. This agrees with the date assigned to
Robert’s flight from England by the Barnwell annalist, Ralph of
Coggeshall, and Roger of Wendover, all of whom place it in the latter
part of 1212 (see below, p. 292). The cause of the flight, however,
still remains doubtful. It will be observed that the writer of the
Histoire des Ducs, speaking in his own person, makes the quarrel
between John and Robert arise out of John’s enmity to Robert’s son-
in-law, Geoffrey de Mandeville, and also makes that enmity originate
in the king’s jealousy of Geoffrey’s father (the Justiciar), without a
word about Geoffrey’s wife; but that he represents Robert Fitz-
Walter as having given to different persons two different accounts of
the matter, both of which are quite distinct not only from the
account given by the writer himself, but also from each other. To the
third of these three accounts—the assertion which Robert is said to
have made to Pandulf, that he left England because he would not
keep company with an excommunicate sovereign—it is hardly
possible for any one who has read the story of the years of interdict
to attach any weight. Robert’s appeal to Pandulf, moreover, is
chronologically out of place; it is represented as having been made
after John’s agreement with Pandulf, whereas in reality the
restoration of Robert Fitz-Walter, and also of Eustace de Vesci, was
one of the conditions of that agreement. The statement which
Robert is said to have made “everywhere,” on the other hand, is only
too likely to be true, and may well contain the true explanation of
John’s designs against the husband of Fitz-Walter’s daughter; while
none of the three versions is incompatible with either of the others.
Still the fact remains that three different versions are thus given—
two on the alleged authority of Robert Fitz-Walter, one on his own
authority—by a writer who was strictly contemporary, and who ranks
as one of the best, and certainly the most impartial, of our
informants on the closing years of John’s reign; and this fact leaves
a somewhat sinister impression as to the opinion which that writer,
at least, entertained of the truthfulness of the “first champion of
English liberty.”
The main facts which can be gathered from other sources as to
Robert Fitz-Walter’s relations with the king are these. In 1203 he and
Saher de Quincy were jointly charged by John with the defence of
the castle of Vaudreuil. They surrendered the place to Philip
Augustus under circumstances so exceptionally disgraceful that Philip
himself felt constrained to make an example of them as cowards and
traitors of too deep a dye to be left unpunished, and flung them into
prison at Compiègne, whence they were only released on payment
of a heavy ransom (R. Wend. iii. 172; R. Coggeshall, pp. 143, 144).
“Ex qua re,” adds Ralf of Coggeshall, “facti sunt in derisum et in
opprobrium omni populo utriusque regni, canticum eorum tota die,
ac generositatis suae maculaverunt gloriam” (cf. Hist. des Ducs, p.
97). Alone, the sovereign whom they had betrayed sought to shield
their reputation at the risk of his own. Of course he acted from a
motive of self-interest. As neither Robert nor Saher held any lands in
Normandy, their money was to Philip more useful than their personal
adhesion could have been. But for John the friendship of two barons
of such importance in England was worth buying back, and he
endeavoured to secure it by treating them with an exaggerated
generosity which was evidently designed to impress them by its
contrast with Philip’s severity; he issued (July 5, 1203) letters patent
declaring that they had surrendered Vaudreuil under a warrant from
himself, and ordering that neither they nor its garrison should be
made to suffer for their act (Rot. Pat. vol. i. p. 31). Fitz-Walter
therefore came back in peace to his English possessions. Like
Eustace de Vesci, he joined the host which John gathered for a
Welsh war in 1212; like Eustace, too, he withdrew from it secretly on
learning that John had received a warning of treason in its ranks
(Ann. Waverl. a. 1212); and like Eustace, again, he did not come
when summoned to make his “purgation” with the other barons, but,
as has been already seen, fled the country instead (W. Coventry, ii.
207; R. Coggeshall, p. 165; R. Wendover, iii. 240). The Barnwell
annalist (W. Coventry, l.c.) dates the demolition of Castle Baynard,
and of Robert’s other castles, after his flight; the Annals of
Dunstable place the destruction of Castle Baynard a year earlier, viz.
in 1211.
 There remains the question: What was the reason for the special
mention of Eustace de Vesci and Robert Fitz-Walter in the terms of
reconciliation between the Pope and John? At first glance it seems
natural to infer that there must have been some peculiar injustice in
John’s outlawry of these two men, to make their restoration a matter
for intervention on the part of the Pope. But, as has been seen, all
the ascertained facts of the case point the opposite way. If indeed
Fitz-Walter’s alleged assertion to Pandulf, that he had fled on
account of the king’s excommunication, were true, he would
naturally be among the “laicis ad hoc negotium contingentibus” (R.
Wendover, iii. 248), while the fact that the rest of these lay sufferers
seem to have been all of lower rank might possibly account for his
being specially mentioned by name. But it was not true; and with
regard to De Vesci no such assertion is mentioned. Nevertheless, it is
extremely probable that both Fitz-Walter and De Vesci may have
contrived to represent to the Pope or his commissioner the cause of
their exile in the way in which Fitz-Walter is described as
representing his own case to Pandulf; and neither Pandulf nor
Innocent could have at his command the means of knowing what all
the evidence now available goes to show—that these two men had
fled their country and left their property to fall into the king’s hand,
not for conscience’s sake, but because their consciences accused
them of treason.
 INDEX

Adela of France, 21, 22, 40

Albemarle, earl of, 272, 281
Alençon, John of, 51
Alençon, Robert, count of, 89
Alençon, siege of, 94
Alexander III., Pope, 19
Alexander of Scotland, 162, 258–260, 273, 276, 278, 279
Angers occupied by Bretons, 61, 89;
John at, 74, 115, 200
Angoulême, Ademar, count of, 75–77, 87
Angoulême, Isabel of, 76, 77, 89
Anjou, Arthur acknowledged in, 61;
John in, 115, 200, 201
Aquitaine, Richard made duke of, 1;
proposal to transfer it to John, 8, 9.
See Gascony, Poitou
Ardenne, Ralf of, 107
Arques, siege of, 87;
surrender, 102
Arthur of Britanny, 36, 57, 58, 61, 71, 85, 86, 90–92
Articles of the Barons, 213–217, 227, 233
Arundel, earl of, 272
Athies, Gerald of, 150
Aubigny, William of, 80, 248, 251
Auvergne ceded to France, 73
Axholme ravaged, 279

Baldwin, archbishop of Canterbury, 20, 26

Balliol, Hugh de, 274, 276
Bangor burnt, 158;
bishop of, see Robert
Barham Down, muster on, 177
Barnard Castle, siege of, 276
Barons, English, their attitude after Richard’s death, 64;
swear obedience to John, 104;
grievances against him, 122–125, 131;
refuse foreign service, 186, 189;
meet John at Wallingford, 191;
refuse to pay scutage, 210;
relations with Langton, 211, 212, 218, 219;
meeting at S. Edmund’s, 221;
demand Henry I.’s charter, ib.;
appeal to the Pope, 225;
assemble in arms, 226;
their “schedule,” 227;
defy the king, 228;
besiege Northampton, ib.;
Bedford surrendered to, 229;
refuse arbitration, ib.;
win London, ib.;
plunder the Jews, 230;
take Exeter, ib.;
evacuate it, 231;
besiege the Tower, 232;
seize Lincoln, ib.;
break their promise to John, 236;
insolence to him, 238;
prepare for war, 239;
spoil the forests, 241;
meet bishops, 242, 243;
usurp sheriffdoms, 243;
propose to elect a new king, 244;
advance against John, 248;
retreat, ib.;
attempt relief of Rochester, 250;
 negotiate with John, 252;
offer crown to Louis, 253, 254;
northern, do homage to Alexander, 259;
of the Irish March, support John, 172, 173;
of Poitou betray John, 201
Barri, William de, footnote 600
Beauchamp, William de, 229
Beaufort, John and S. Hugh at, 60
Beaumont, Adam de, 272
Bedford surrendered to the barons, 229
Belvoir surrendered to John, 256
Berwick taken by John, 260
Béthune, Robert de, 230, 255
Bishops, English, their flight, 130;
restoration and restitution, 188, 190, 191, 206;
claim free election for churches, 192;
confer with barons, 242, 243;
proclaim excommunication of “disturbers,” 243
Blanche of Castille, 73
Bolton, meeting of John and William the Lion at, 132
Boulogne, Reginald, count of, 68, 70, 107, 108, 185, 202, 203
Bourges ceded to France, 73
Bouvines, battle of, 203
Boves, Hugh de, 202, 203, 241, footnote 1112
Brabant, duke of, 202
Braose, Giles de, bishop of Hereford, footnote 989, 288
Braose, Margaret de, 140, 281
Braose, Maud, wife of William de, 149–152, 155, 156, 288
Braose, Maud de, wife of Griffith ap Rees, 140
Braose, Philip de, 15, 139
Braose, Reginald de, 152, 288
Braose, William de, 139–141, 144–147, 149–151, 155, 156, 287,
288
Braose, William de, the younger, 152, 156, 288
Bréauté, Falkes de, 232, 247, 255, 281, 285
Brewer, William, 222, 255, 285
Brezolles, siege of, 54
Britanny, Alice of, 200
Britanny, Arthur of, see Arthur
Britanny, Constance of, see Constance
Britanny, Eleanor of, 196
Britanny, Geoffrey of, see Geoffrey
Britanny, Peter, count of, see Dreux
Brus, Peter de, 263, 273
Buck, Walter, 255
Burgh, Hubert de, 80, 90, 231, 233, 237, 252, 269, 274, 280,
281
Burgh, William de, 138, 139, 141, 142

Caermarthen, Rees and John at, 25

Cambridgeshire ravaged, 257, 278
Camville, Gerard de, 31, 33, 35
Canterbury, John at, 118;
disputed election to see, 119–121;
archbishops of, see Baldwin, Hubert, Langton
Carlisle attacked by Alexander, 260;
siege of, 273
Carrick, Duncan, lord of, 152
Carrickfergus, siege of, 152
Casamario, abbot of, 94, 100
Casinghem, William of, 280
Castles in John’s lands, 26, 27;
disputes between John and Longchamp about, 31–35;
royal, John’s designs on, 39, 41;
the barons’, demanded by John, 80
Cathal Carrach O’Conor, king of Connaught, 139
Cathal Crovderg O’Conor, king of Connaught, 139, 142
Châlus, siege of, 56
Charter of Henry I., 211, 219–221;
the Great, 233–236;
quashed by the Pope, 246
Château-Gaillard, 55, 94;
 siege of, 95;
attempted relief, 96, 97;
fall, 100
Châteauroux, siege of, 20, 21
Chester, muster at, 158
Chester, Ralf, earl of, 50, 58, 65, 285
Chichester, bishop of, see Richard
Chinon surrendered to Philip Augustus, 113
Cinque Ports, their relations with John, 132, 163, 280
Cistercians, their quarrel with John, 73;
claim exemption from interdict, 129;
John’s spoliations of, 160, 171
Clare, Isabel de, 29, 148
Clare, Richard de, earl of Striguil, 12
Clare, Richard, earl of, 65, 252, 255, 261
Clergy, John’s dealings with, 128, 129, 136, 187, 207
Cogan, Miles, 13–16
Cogan, Richard, 16, 138
Colchester, siege of, 261
“Commune” of 1205, 104
“Commune” of London, 39
Connaught, civil war in, 139;
kings of, see Cathal, Roderic
Constance of Britanny, 5, 9, 58, 61, 71, 85
Corfe, Peter of Pontefract imprisoned at, 170
Cork, city, constables of, 15, 16;
“English” driven out of, 138;
county, 153;
kingdom, 14, 15.
See Desmond
Cornhill, Reginald of, 248
Counties in Ireland, the earliest, 153
Courcy, John de, 13, 16, 19, 137–139, 143, 152
Coventry, bishop of, see Nonant
Crowland burnt by John, 278
Croxton, abbot of, 283–285
Culvertage, 176
Cumin, John, archbishop of Dublin, 17, 18
Curson, Robert, 204
Cuthred MacWilliam, 162, 163

Desmond, 14, 15;

fiefs in, 138.
See Cork
Dover, siege of, 280;
raised, 281
Dreux, Robert, count of, 200
Dreux, Robert of, the younger, 273, 276, 281
Dreux, Peter of, count of Britanny, 200, 241, 280
Driencourt seized by John, 78
Dublin, held by Henry II., 12;
John’s charter to, 138;
John in, 152, 153;
archbishops of, see Cumin, O’Toole
Durand, 160, 162
Durham, bishops of, see Philip, Puiset

Eleanor of Aquitaine, queen of England, 1, 30, 41, 43, 63, 69,

73, 86, 103
Ely sacked, 258
England, condition of, under John, 212–217
Erlée, John d’, footnote 238, footnote 256
Escheats, inquiry concerning, 163
Essex harried, 257;
earls of, see Mandeville, Fitz-Peter
Eu, count of, see Lusignan
Evreux, John at, 53;
burnt by Philip, 55;
county of, 73
Ewell, John does homage to the Pope at, 180
Exeter taken by the barons, 230;
evacuated, 231;