« PreviousContinue »
doubtful succession.1 Philip made the most of this fact. He demanded the Angevin counties and Maine for Arthur, ? and secure possession of the whole Norman Vexin for himself. The recent fighting in the valley of the Epte, followed by the unsatisfactory treaty of the previous January had seriously weakened Philip's hold of the Vexin. If he could make sure of his authority along the Norman march, from the forest of Lions to the borders of Maine, and also establish Arthur's rights to the old centres of Angevin power, the empire of Henry II would cease to be a danger. Anxious though John was for peace, such a solution was impossible. Negotiations were broken off and the war went on.
Within a few weeks fresh preparations for peace were arranged by the indefatigable papal legate. Circumstances had forced Philip to moderate his tone; his hopes had been centred in Anjou and William des Roches, but either he grasped too quickly at power, or the seneschal thought a safer game could be played with King John than with
1. Philip complained that John had acted without his licence. “Ipse sine licentia illius occupaverat Normanniam, et alias terras. Debuerat enim in primis ad eum venisse, et eum requissise de jure suo, et inde homagium ei fecisse” (Howden, iv, 95).
2. According to Howden, he had previously knighted Arthur and invested him with Normandy and Poitou in addition to Anjou, etc. (iv, 94). The same chronicler also states that he claimed Poitou for Arthur from John at the conference (p. 95). Both statements are probably false. Arthur was knighted in 1202, when he was sixteen years old (Coggeshall, 137; Rigord, i, 152). Although knighthood at any early age was frequent in the case of royalty, as indeed the ceremony of 1202 proves, it is not likely that Philip would knight a boy of thirteen. The young King Henry was knighted at the age of eighteen. (See Meyer's remarks in his edition of Guillaume le Maréchal, iii, p, 26.) As Stubbs has shown in his introduction to Howden (iv, 29–33) the chronology of this chronicler is very shaky for the years 1200 onwards. The last part of the chronicle was hastily compiled. As for the claim to Poitou on Arthur's behalf, it is not likely that, after receiving the homage of Eleanor, Philip would attempt to divide the duchy of Aquitaine.
King Philip; certainly, during September the way was prepared for a reconciliation between John and his nephew. A formal treaty, of the familiar feudal type, was arranged on the 18th, and shortly afterwards John was at Le Mans. Apparently Philip was unaware that he had been betrayed and made no efforts to secure the person of Arthur. He pursued the war in Maine, took the fortress of Ballon, and destroyed it. William des Roches made this act of violence the occasion of a quarrel; John and the Poitevins had in the meantime repulsed Philip at Lavardin; and all the parties in the late disturbances, Arthur and his mother, William des Roches and his army, the viscount of Thouars and the Poitevins, met round the king of England at Le Mans early in October.2
These events forced Philip to make terms which, if John had acted with ordinary prudence, might have been lasting. The legate arranged a truce which was to lead to a peace, as in the autumns of 1195 and 1198. Once again there was to be a solemn colloquy on St. Hilary's day (13 Jan.).3
1. Rot. Chart,. 23b, 30b. M. Alfred Richard (Comtes de Poitou, ii, 359) suggests acutely that Constance of Beaumont, the wife of Roger of Tosny (Toeni), who was connected with some of the Angevin families, had arranged the treaty. Shortly before Philip Augustus had taken Conches, her husband's castle (Howden, iv, 96), and now and afterwards she received benefits from John (Rot. Chart., 20b; Rot. Norm., 52—the latter a charter of June, 1202, for Constance, domina de Conchis). If this surmise is correct, it illustrates the cross currents in the family histories of Normandy and Anjou.
2. The chronology is doubtful. I have combined Howden with the facts of John's itinerary. John was in Le Mans again in October (8—11) and Howden ascribes the surrender of the city, as also the destruction of Ballon, to this month (iv, 96). In an act dated Anet, October, by which Andrew of Chauvigni promises to hold his Angevin fiefs of Arthur or of the heir to the county, Philip Augustus seems still to pose as Arthur's ally (Actes, no. 567).
3. Howden, iv, 97. Rigord, i, 147, who says the truce was to last till December 27th. The Annals of Winchester incorrectly date the truce in September (Ann. Mon., ii, 73).
The treaty of Le Goulet, which brought peace to Normandy, was arranged on May 22nd, 1200, in accordance with terms settled at this earlier conference when the two kings had met face to face, and talked alone in the centre of a circle of their followers. It is worthy of some attention.2
John was recognised by Philip as Richard's lawful heir.3 After inquiry, Philip's court adjudged Anjou and Brittany to him. There was in the case of Normandy no judicial enquiry. Arthur was
Arthur was to hold Brittany as John's man; and his rights, though legally protected, were safeguarded only by the interposition of John's court: John promised that he would in no way diminish Arthur's position without a judgment of his court. As Philip's man, John was to be responsible lord over his father's continental fiefs, including Brittany.5 Events were to show that the king of France was able to give a new reality to this relationship between John and him
1. Gervase of Canterbury, ii, 92.
2. The best editions of the treaty, as contained in John's letters, in Teulet, Layettes, i, 217, No. 578; Cartulaire Normand, p. 280, no. 1063. Philip's letters, containing the same, in Howden, iv, 148. Somewhat full but misleading accounts in Howden, iv, 107, 114; Coggeshall, pp. 100-1.
3. “ Sicut rectus heres regis Ricardi."
4. "Nos vero recipimus Arturum in hominem, ita quod Arturus Britanniam tenebit de nobis, et nos sicut rectus heres tenebimus de domino rege Francie omnia feoda, sicut pater noster et frater noster rex Ricardus ea tenuerunt a (sic) domino rege Francie et sicut feoda debent . . . . De Arturo sic erit, quod nos non minuemus eum, nec de feodo, nec de dominio Britanne citra mare, nisi per rectum juditium curie nostre.” Coggeshall asserts that Philip received John's homage for Brittany et hoc secundum judicium curiae suae—this remark, if not due to a misunderstanding of the treaty, gives us fresh information, and explains the procedure by which Philip, in the words of the treaty, surrendered Brittany to John (feoda Britannie que rex Francie nobis dimisit). Howden says that John became Philip's man (iv, 115).
5. See previous note and below p. 204 note.
self; but to all appearance the unity of the Angevin empire was preserved.
In return for the recognition of his claims to be Richard's heir, John went back to the settlement made at Issoudun in 1195, and confirmed at Louviers in January 1196. By taking this treaty as a basis of agreement, the disputes which had arisen during the later war and which had not been settled by the abortive truce of 1199, were set on one side. Again, Philip was able in this way to break up the coalition which had been formed against him after the death of the Emperor Henry VI. John promised to refuse aid in the future to his nephew Otto 2a promise which he fulfilled so long as he could do without him. The equivocal relations between Philip and his important feudatories, the counts of Flanders and Boulogne, of which Richard had availed himself with such skill, were deprived of their sting by John's admission that, as they were vassals of France rather than of England, he would countenance them in no attack upon their proper lord. 3 Thus, although comprehended in the treaty, the counts lost the advantage which had been theirs, or at least that of the count of Flanders, in the
1. “Nos tenebimus . . . pacem quam frater noster rex Ricardus fecit illi inter Exoldunum et Charrotium, exceptis hiis que per presentem cartam excipiuntur vel mutantur, propter interceptiones quas idem frater noster illi fecit de pace illa."
2. “Nos nepoti nostro Othoni nullum auxilium faciemus, nec per milites, nec per gentem, nec per nos, nec per alium, nisi per consilium et assessum domini regis Francie.” The Annals of Winchester (Ann. Mon., ii, 73) and Howden (iv, 116) show that John acted on this promise.
3. “Qui melius sint aut debeant esse homines ipsius regis Francie quam nostri.” On January 2nd the counts had made the important treaty of Peronne with Philip (Actes, nos. 579–91, see Longnon, Atlas historique, Texte, pp. 230–1). In 1199, as a remark in the autobiography of Gerald of Wales shows, the war between Philip and Baldwin of Flanders, "qui regi Angliae Johanni tunc adhaes erat,” made travelling from Flanders to France very dangerous (Gir. Camb., Opera, i. 118).
past; and, by which, owing to their alliances with the dukes of Normandy, they had been able to limit their feudal service to the king of France to its legal minimum. 1 John's agreement with Philip was a concession to the theory of the French state, which interpreted feudal duties in a much less pedantic fashion than the count of Flanders; and, besides involving the loss of his allies, it strengthened a policy soon to be directed against himself.
Two or three important modifications were made in the treaty of 1195-6, with regard to the frontier. The manor of Andeli, which had belonged to the archbishop of Rouen and which now contained the castle of the Rock and the forts of the isle and of Boutavant on the Seine, was cut off from the Norman Vexin and retained by John as part of Normandy: it will be remembered that in the previous treaty it had been regarded as neutral ground. In the rest of the Norman Vexin, which was recognised as Philip's territory, a strip of land between Gamaches, and the forests of Vernon and Andeli was to remain unfortified. On the other side of the river Seine a more elaborate arrangement was necessary. In spite of the care bestowed by Richard upon the fortifications of Evreux, ? that unhappy city had again been overcome by Philip. John agreed to the surrender of the place together with a great part of the county. The treaty of 1195-6 had fixed the boundary half-way between Gaillon and Vaudreuil from the Seine to the Eure, then--as of old-along the Eure and Avre. It had also given to France Paci, Ivry and Nonancourt-important fortresses on these rivers. 3 The new boundary was apparently to follow the Itun from
1. See Lot, Fideles ou Vassales ? p. 24, and above p. 123. The treaty did not put an end immediately to relations between John and his Flemish neighbours. See arrangement with Boulogne on May 9th (Rot. Chart., 57b) and entry in Rotuli de Liberate (p. 3) of October 20th, in favour of the count of Flanders. 2. Rot. Scacc., ii, 463–4. 3. Cart. Norm., p. 276: Coggeshall, p. 100.