Page images

the great earl Marshal had compromised, and the earl of Meulan, weary and disillusioned, had retired from the contest on the first of May. Some of these things had happened near to Rouen, or were transacted in King Philip's camp across the river. They were, therefore, not likely to be hidden from Peter of Préaux and his comrades.

For a time Peter hesitated. He sent urgent messages to King John, and on June 1st concluded with Philip a temporary armistice of a type familiar in feudal warfare. The barons and citizens would surrender the city if help did not come within thirty days; Philip, in the meanwhile, was to retain the barbican on the west side of the river. This outwork defended the bridge across the Seine, and had been besieged by the king. He stipulated that he should be allowed to strengthen it, and, if necessary, to demand that the citizens should destroy the four arches of the bridge next adjoining it. But these precautions were not needed. It is clear, from the terms of the armistice, that Rouen was regarded as lost. They constituted a treaty of surrender. The knights and burgesses of Rouen, Eu, Aumâle, Drincourt and the tenants of Alençon, were to be secured in their holdings, if, after the expiration of the appointed time, they should do homage to the French king and their lords.3 Those who did homage in the interval might depart at once to their holdings; and safe conducts were promised to recalcitrants who might prefer to retire from Normandy, provided that they made up their minds before the time had passed. On payment of the usual dues merchants who did not carry corn or bread, were to be allowed to conduct their business; and, if the city surrendered, all its trading facilities and liberties within the old limits of Normandy and in Poitou, Anjou, Maine, Brittany and Gascony were to be retained.

1. Above, p. 383.

2. At Préaux, near Rouen, where he gave over his English and Norman lands to his heirs. See Stapleton, II, cci.

3. i.e., the counts of Eu and Alençon.

The men of Verneuil and Arques were to be granted the same terms if they should ask for them before the Wednesday after Ascension Day (June 9).

Hostages were given by the barons and citizens as security for the observance of the truce.

Rouen did not wait for thirty days before the surrender. The end came on the 24th of June, the Feast of St. John the Baptist. Verneuil and Arques surrendered also. It is probable that King Philip had spent the interval well, for the story went that Peter of Préaux had sold his defection. Certainly his nephews were endowed by Philip, and the mayor of Verneuil received a reward like that of the mayor of Falaise. But Peter was a brave and had proved himself a faithful man; it is likely that circumstances were too strong for him.

The fall of Rouen, urbs invicta, brought the war in Normandy to an end. Resistance doubtless continued in certain places, but no record of it has survived. Normandy was rapidly forced by Cadoc and the other French bailiffs into Philip's administrative system. Only at Dieppe do we hear of any serious trouble. This great port was closely connected with England and seems to have enjoyed peculiar freedom on account of the uncertain relations which existed between the authority of the archbishop, its new lord, and the local bailiff of Caux, or, as he was styled sometimes, of Arques. Some of the problems raised by King Richard's exchange of Dieppe for Andeli had been settled in the year 1200; for example, the right to the prisage of wine and the regulations concerning the passage

1. Layettes, i, 250. The hostages were to be the children or relatives (de parentela nostra) of the defenders. The citizens were to provide forty hostages. Cf. Rigord, i, 161 (who gives sixty as the number).

2. Histoire des ducs de Normandie, ed. Michel, p. 98. Cf. Delisle's remarks, Actes de Philippe Auguste, p. cxiij.

3. Actes, no. 836, p. 190. 4. Ibid, no. 906, p. 208.

of the king's men to England. But disputes necessarily continued over such matters as the regalia, and the royal monopoly of fishing rights in the river. In 1204 Philip Augustus placed one of his followers, John of Rouvrai, who had already received grants of Norman lands, in charge of the castle and bailiwick of Arques.2 Dieppe was disaffected, and apparently not yet occupied by Philip's troops. John of Rouvrai heard that Roger of Mortemer had landed with the purpose of maintaining King John's cause, and immediately set men-at-arms in the town. Roger was taken.3 The men of Dieppe offended King Philip in other ways, both at home and abroad. Some of them joined the fleet which in 1206, sailed with King John to Poitou; and the archbishop of Rouen, as their lord, only succeeded in making their peace with Philip in March 1207.4 The anxieties and disturbances of war had of course affected the finances of the archbishop; and it is with an obvious sigh of relief that a chronicler of Rouen refers to the happy restoration of order. His words may form an epilogue :

“ At Michaelmas, in the year 1206, archbishop Walter granted to the chapter of Rouen the tithe of Dieppe. He had promised it for some time, but in the tempest of war he had not been able to collect in full the revenues of that town, and the canons in consequence could not receive their tithe. Now they were established again in their rights, and on the same day the tithe was paid, a sum amounting to £13 14s., of which the canons, thirty

1. Rot. Norm., 3.

2. Cart. Norm., no. 167, p. 27. At Rouen John of Rouvrai had received the lands of earl Bigod in Normandy up to the value of £240 (Actes, no. 819, p. 186). See also Delisle's preface to the inquests of Saint Louis, Recueil des historiens de France, xxiv, part i, p. 109*.

3. Cart. Norm., p. 27. See also Stapleton, II, cxxii-iii. 4. Cart. Norm., no. 132, p. 23.

six in number, each received sixteen shillings in money of Tours.” 1

I do not intend to follow the course of the war in Touraine and Poitou. It is true that, as the claim to Normandy was not given up till 1259, later hostilities always had the recovery of the duchy as one of their objectives. But in reality the fall of Chinon and Loches in the year 1205 opened a fresh chapter in the history of the Angevin empire, a chapter which was not closed until the middle of the fifteenth century with the defeat of the earl of Shrewsbury at Castillon. During the greater part of this period Normandy was firmly annexed to the royal demesne of France, and was by no means a continuous scene of strife.

During the siege of Rouen King Philip, by receiving the homage of the count of Périgord, 3 had signified that the war would be resumed in Aquitaine, and John decided to meet him there. Normandy went the way of the Vexin and Evreux, and was added to Philip's demesne. The king of France was able from the first, in fact, to play off the northern against the southern duchy by making Normandy the centre of preparations for an attack on England. This project had been in Philip's thoughts in

1. Normanniae nova chronica, in Mém. de la Société des Antiquaires de Normandie (1850), xviii, 15–16. It would appear from this division that the £13. 148. were sterling money, which was worth about four times as much as money of Tours, and that the canons were paid twice a year, at Easter and Michaelmas. Both sterling money and money of Tours had legal currency in Normandy according to the ordinance of Philip Augustus. See Delisle in Bibliothèque de l'école des chartes, x, 204-5.

2. The most important texts are the Gascon rolls and the proceedings of the Parlement of Paris. The former are now accessible in Bémont's classical edition. A valuable selection from the latter may be found in Langlois, Textes relatifs à l'histoire du Parlement (1888).

3. Actes, nos. 821-4.

1193, and occupied his mind continually after the occupation of Rouen. In 1204-5 circumstances were not unfavourable to the enterprise, and there is evidence that arrangements were made. The quarrels which had divided the princes of the low countries between Normandy and the Rhine were partially settled, and Philip could hope to combine some of them against England. The natural ally of John in such a crisis was the count of Flanders, but the count was engaged in a greater warfare. He had been elected emperor of the Byzantine east at midnight on May 9th, 1204, when Philip Augustus was intriguing with the men of Falaise; he had been led to the church of Saint Sophia, clad in the imperial robes, about the same day as that on which Philip had met the victorious Bretons at Caen. The western emperor was nearer to John, but was not more able to help; he appears to have kept in touch with his uncle, but done nothing more. In February, 1205, the probability of an invasion of England was explicitly announced at Vernon, where Philip met Renaud of Dammartin, the count of Boulogne, and the duke of Brabant. Renaud had been Philip's right hand during the invasion of Normandy, and was marked out in virtue of his command of the coast and his English possessions, as the leader of any attack upon England. The duke of Brabant and he had married sisters. Renaud had married the heiress of Boulogne, and, with Philip's sanction, had secured the county; but Henry of Louvain, the duke, had financial claims upon the county also. Hence the brothers

1. See especially Coggeshall, pp. 147–8, for the mission of the bishop of London (above, p. 382), the wretched state of Otto, and the desertion of Henry of Brabant. The chief German authorities are referred to by Lehmann, Johann ohne Land, pp. 254-5. John's letter to the men of Köln (Rot. Pat., 40b) illustrates Otto's difficulties; and compare this entry of December 5, 1204 (ibid, 48), to the barons of the exchequer : "Mandamus vobis quod cum dominus Cantuariensis Archiepiscopus reddi. derit nobis tria milia marcarum quas recepit ad opus nepotis nostri Regis Othonis tunc inde quietus sit."

« PreviousContinue »