« PreviousContinue »
seized and fortified the 'isle of Andeli’ in the river, then began fortifications on the mainland, with the purpose of protecting the town. In great alarm the archbishop expostulated, but finding Richard obdurate, laid Normandy under an interdict, and the 7th of November set out for Rome. As was usual in such quarrels, King Richard found ecclesiastics to support him, of whom the most prominent was the bishop of Lisieux, William de Rupierre. He and Philip, the bishop elect of Durham, acted as the royal advocates at Rome. The main argument which weighed with the Pope Celestine III and, indeed, with the archbishop of Rouen himself, was that the rock was a natural fortress, and that the fortification of the island had become necessary in the face of French attack. The Pope and cardinals were accepted as mediators, and finally, on October 16th 1197, the archbishop quitelaimed nearly the whole of his manor to the king, 3 and received in exchange the flourishing seaport of Dieppe, the manor of Bouteilles Arques, the forest of Alihermont, and the manor of Louviers with the ministerium of the forest of Bort. The normal annual value of these valuable properties
1. Howden, iv, 17, 19. The chancellor, who was to have made a third, died on the way at Poitiers, January 31st, 1197 (Diceto, ii, 150).
2. Rog. Howden, iv, 18; cf. the archbishop in Diceto, ii, 154 : "omnes enim intelligentes situm Andeleii paci ineptum et guerrae vicinum et expositum.” Matthew Paris later inserted in Howden's narrative of the quarrel that the archbishop laid the interdict and appealed to Rome, "stimulante Francorum rege” (Chron. Maj., ii, 420), but there is no proof of this very likely suggestion.
3. “Excepto manerio de Fraxinis cum pertinenciis suis . . . ita quod tam milites quam clerici et omnes homines tam de feodis militum quam de prebendis sequentur molendina de Andeliaco sicut consueverunt et debuerunt, et moltura erit nostra.”
amounted to about 1,400 li Angevin,' a very fair provision for the archbishop.
Richard had begun to build his castle on the rock before the final agreement was reached; and the greatest fortress in the west of Europe was finished in the course of the following year. ?
In an interesting letter written about this time Bishop Stephen of Tournai remarked that he doubted the wisdom of risking the inconvenience caused by sentences of excommunication, on the ground that so little respect was paid to them.3 The success achieved by the archbishop of
1. This was a net revenue, made up as follows. (Rot. Scacc., i, 68 ; ü, 421, 481.)
£ S. d. £ 8. d.
100 0 0 forest of Alihermont
177 0 0 Louviers, etc.
400 0 0
£1405 0 0
In addition, it should be noted that the forest of Alihermont produced corn rents of wheat and oats in the forest of Alihermont, which seem to have been paid into the Exchequer first (cf. Rot. Scacc., i, 91, with ii, 421). On the other hand, the war had lessened the value of Dieppe (Rot. Scacc., i, 235), and it appears from Richards estimate of the stated tithes, alms, etc., in Dieppe, 372li, that these had been lately increased, since they only amounted to £211. 6. 8d. in 1195 (1bid). 2. In his charter of October, 1197, Richard refers to his “
new castle of the Rock.” He was constantly at the “ Bellum Castrum de Rupe" between February, 1198, and January, 1199 (see the catalogue of his charters in Cartellieri, iii, 224–32). Building was proceeding in May, 1198 (Diceto, ii, 162).
3. Lettres, ed. Desilve (1893), p. 31. A letter of 1197 referring to Baldwin of Flanders.
Rouen proved that this could not be said to be the effects of an interdict; the recent interdicts had caused distress to king and people. " Yet the troubles of the archbishop remind us that those secular movements which were to be so characteristic of the thirteenth century had begun. Those movements were peculiar, not through the conflict of physical strength with spiritual force, nor even by reason of the conflict of great principles of law, as in the tragedy of Thomas of Canterbury. They expressed the steady and precise formulation of secular life, partly as the result of social organic growth, partly in opposition to the assertion of papal claims and of ecclesiastical rights generally. The change was not confined to the centres of government. The archbishop of Rouen had to face the same independent attitude among the shopkeepers of his cathedral city;2 no less than in the arguments about the interest of the state put forward by King Richard at Andeli. War merely precipitated and embittered a struggle which was bound to come. For the moment the Church was, on the whole, victorious, mainly because she was united and able to play off her rivals against each other: the Norman clergy helped to change the ruling dynasty in Normandy, as Innocent III controlled the downfall of the Emperor Otto and of King John. But the sense of unity did not last, and later writers are able to see in the events of this time the faint prophecy of Gallican liberties, and to trace
1. Howden, (iv, 16) says that Richard was confusus because the archbishop refused to relax the interdict. “Corpora enim defunctorum insepulta jacebant per vicos et plateas civitatum Normanniae.
2. For this quarrel between the merchants and canons of Rouen, see Chéruel, Histoire de Rouen, i, 40-54; and compare the archbishop's letter in Diceto, ii, 144. King Richard's letters on the subject, commencing with a letter from Worms in 1194, in Round, Calendar, nos. 64, 65, 67. Celestino III's letters in Martène, Thesaurus, i, 659-61. The dispute was not really ended until the fourteenth century.
in the policy of Richard and Philip the expression of imperial claims which sought no papal sanction.
While the towers of Chateau-Gaillard were rising, Richard was engaged in projects which were truly imperial. He was in a large measure responsible for the struggle in Germany which lasted until the battle of Bouvines. The Emperor Henry VI died in September 1197, and Richard used his popularity in Germany to secure the election of his nephew Otto of Brunswick as emperor in opposition to Henry's brother, Philip of Suabia, who had been elected at Mühlhausen in March 1198.2 A friendly emperor was of obvious advantage to the king of England, and he could expect devoted support from the young man who had been trained at his court and had received so many benefits at his hands. The new pope, Innocent III, was also friendly; he admired Richard's exploits in the Holy Land; he appreciated bis hostility to the Hohenstaufen; and he realised his value in the tussle with Philip of France. 4 For, so long as the latter refused to recognise Ingeborg of Denmark as his wife, there seemed little chance of peace between France and the papacy. The king of England stood out for a few months as the head of the secular princes of Europe, the patron of an emperor, the friend of the pope. His position was, it
1. The spread of Carolingian forms and names is remarkable in France during the reign of Philip Augustus. See the interesting remarks of Alfred Leroux in his article “La Royauté française et le saint empire romain” (Rev. Hist., 1892, xlix, 255–59).
2. The chief text for the Germany policy of King Richard is Howden, iv, 37–39. The subject falls outside the scope of this book and deserves separate attention. For the latest treatment of the evidence and for the literature on the matter, see Cartellieri, iii, 165 seqq.
3. Cartellieri, iii, 172. I think Cartellieri somewhat exaggerates the importance of Otto's position as count of Poitou and in Anglo-Norman society.
4. Innocent's letters of May 29, and Richard's letter to the Pope, August 19, 1198, are the chief authorities for Richard's relations with the Pope. See Migne, Patrologia Latina, ccxiv, 179, no. 206; Potthast, no. 225; and Migne, ccxvi, p. 1000, no. 4 Cf. Cartellieri, iii, 170–71.
is true, an unstable one; and if he had lived he could hardly have prevented the series of compromises which bound Innocent and Philip Augustus together and caused the downfall of the north German princes; but for the time Philip Augustus was isolated. 1
Some months before the election of Otto in June 1198, Richard had gathered round him a small band of powerful allies. The two kings had been busy bidding against each other since 1196. In June of that year Philip evidently felt in a strong position; he had given his sister Alice with a new dowry instead of Arques, to William of Ponthieu;? the counts of Flanders and Boulogne pledged themselves to support him against his enemies, , and powerful ecclesiastic sanctions were invoked to secure their fidelity. 3 These diplomatic successes were closely followed by the military triumph at Aumâle. King Richard was, however, the wealthier and more impressive man; he had checked the Bretons, rallied the Poitevins, and made friends with the dangerous count of Toulouse. He understood the art of giving; and the counts of Flanders and Boulogne did not long withstand a generosity which was so like the easy expression of magnanimous nature. 4 William the Marshal, who was one of the most persuasive barons at Richard's court, sent to win
1. Cf. Luchaire, Innocent III: Les Royautés vassales, pp. 252–60. Philip allied himself in the meanwhile with Philip of Suabia, at the end of June, 1198 : see Cartellieri, iii, 176.
2. Actes de Philippe Auguste, No. 501, p. 119.
3. Actes, nos. 497–500, pp. 117–19; Rigord i, 135; Pope Innocent's letter in Migne, ccxiv, 117; Potthast, no. 153—a later confirmation by the papal chancery. For the career of Renaud of Boulogne, see Henri Malo, Un grand feudataire, Renaud de Dammartin (1898).
4. Howden, iv, 19–20. Howden states that Richard gave 5000 marks of silver. There are frequent references in the exchequer roll of 1198 to Richard's gifts, e.g., to the count of Boulogne, 500 marks of silver (Rot. Scacc., ii, 301); to the count of St. Pol the same (p. 302); to William of Hainault, the uncle of the count of Flanders, 160 li. (p. 369) ; to the count of Boulogne again, 108 li. (p. 432).