Tours and Angers, and having received its submission, turned against the Norman frontiers. The support of the barons of Maine and Brittany, and the successes of William des Roches in his rear made it desirable to resume the attack on the familiar lines. His decision was justified. Within a few weeks Normandy was isolated, Le Mans probably surrendered before the end of April,1 and John was thus cut off from the faithful government of Poitou by the triple barrier of Alençon, Le Mans, Angers. The administration which the king had set up after the battle of Mirebeau collapsed. In the official correspondence Brice the chamberlain appears as seneschal of Anjou for the last time on April 18th.2 He was afterwards transferred to Normandy.3 In Touraine Girard d'Athée, though he also ceased to bear the title of seneschal, kept his ground until 1205. Early in the spring of 1203 he was reinforced by Hubert de Burgh, who took up his headquarters at Chinon,5 while Girard held out in Loches.6 But from the first the outlook was hopeless; in August we find the King ordering the demolition of Montrésor and

1. On April 19th John addressed from Bec an urgent letter to the citizens of Le Mans, begging them to withstand the King of France (Rot. Pat., 28). It does not seem to be known in what manner Le Mans actually fell. Dubois, Bibliothèque, xxxiv, 529; Richard, ii, 425 are based on conjecture.

2. Rot. Pat., 28b.

3. The king entrusted the castles of Mortain and Tenchebrai to him in September (Rot. Pat., 34b, 35) and at the same time he was given some of the English lands of Guy of Thouars (Rot. de Lib., 65). For a time he deserted John; his manor of Wildmundcot is included in the roll of lands of the Normans in 1204 (Rot. Norm., 138), and he needed a safe conduct in England (Rot. Pat., 39). On the other hand, Philip Augustus, in a charter of uncertain date, gave away Brice's lands at Fleuri (Cart. Norm., p. 297, no. 184; Actes, p. 179, no. 790).

4. He is styled seneschal on April 7th, 1203 (Rot. Norm., p. 86). 5. That Hubert was at Chinon in February may be proved by a comparison of a letter in Rot. Pat., 25b (dated by a slip of the copyist from Chinon), with another in Rot. Norm., 86, of April 5th.

6. Salmon, Chroniques de Touraine, i, 150.

all castles not immediately under Girard's jurisdiction, lest they should fall into hostile hands; in the course of 1204 the garrison in the citadel of Tours, which still withstood the French and their allies, at last surrendered. 2 Loches and Chinon were left for a last terrible onslaught in the following year.

King John never approached Anjou again from Normandy. His next visit in 1206 was paid during his invasion from the south. By that time his enemy had laid hold on every foot of Norman soil with the exception of the Channel Isles.

We have seen that the Norman preparations for the campaign of 1203 had been made with a view to a southern expedition from Argentan. After the loss of Maine and the defection of Count Robert of Alençon, no advance was made in this direction until August, when a fruitless siege of Alençon was followed by an equally fruitless invasion of Brittany. In the meanwhile King Philip had dealt several crushing blows along the middle frontier, and the defection of Count Robert had been followed by that of many more, among whom the great baron Hugh of Gournai attracted universal opprobrium.

Some attempt had been made to meet possible attack before hostilities began. The treasure from England helped to pay the garrisons of the march at Arques, Radepont, Pont de l'Arche, Vaudreuil, Verneuil, etc.3 Provision was made for the safety of the burgesses of Dieppe, in case the fortune of war should force them to leave the town. All due service was demanded, though without very much success, from the foreigners who held

1. Rot. Pat., 33.

2. Salmon, op. cit., i, 149, 150.

3. See letters of January 19 (Rot. Norm., 69), February 10 (ibid, 75). 4. February 26, 1203 (Rot. Pat., 26).

Norman lands. 1 Loans and aids were exacted in England and Normandy; privileges were scattered broadcast among the Norman towns,2 and bribes among the king's personal followers. But leadership was lacking. The defences upon which so much care had been lavished were undermined by treachery. In the last week of April or the early days of May, two of the most important men among the Norman barons, Hugh of Gournai and Peter of Meulan, deserted John. They surrendered to the French the two fortresses which controlled the valley of the Risle the river which was a second line of defence to central Normandy. Of these, the more northern castle at Montfort-sur-Risle was immediately re-occupied by the king; it lay beyond the reach of Philip; but Beaumont-le-Roger, the other fortress, was lost for ever.5

4

1. An interesting letter to the provost of Bruges (loco comitis Flandrensis) of March 5th (Rot. Pat., 26b). The date fixed for those who hold fees is infra clausum Pasche. From Rot. de Liberate, 41, it appears that the constable of Boulogne and the advocatus of Béthune had not responded to the call for service.

2. e.g., in February communes for Falaise, Aufai, Domfront (Rot. Pat., 29b, 25b, 26).

3. Important entries in the Jumièges continuation of Robert of Torigni (Histor. de France, xviii, 342). Cf. Wendover, i, 317. The dates are established by the rolls. Hugh of Gournai deserted John between April 21st, when he was with the king at Verneuil (Rot. Norm., 89), and May 4th, when the confiscation of his property begins (ibid, 92). The confiscation of Peter of Meulan's lands begins on May 8th (ibid, 93). 4. Histor. de France, xviii, 342: a source unnoticed by Miss Norgate (ii, 411). The itinerary shows that John went from Verneuil to Montfort on April 23rd or 24th and was not again in Montfort before July 18th. The business is mysterious, but I assume that he heard of Hugh's treachery at Verneuil. On the other hand, Hugh sent letters patent acknowledging the receipt of money due to him by Robert of Thibouville, which the king apparently received on April 30th (Rot. Norm., 90). This however is not conclusive against an earlier desertion.

5. Philip gave it in October to Guy de la Roche (Actes, p. 178, no. 784). In January and March Peter of Meulan had received money, corn, and ammunition, the former "ad emendam warnisionem ad castrum nostrum de Bello Monte" (Rot. Norm., 72, 82).

2

By this time the French king had reached the Evrecin from the west and prepared to advance beyond the boundary marked out by the treaty of 1200. Neubourg stood out, and was still in John's possession in the autumn. 1 Conches, however, was taken, and probably all the smaller forts between the Risle and the Eure. In June Philip advanced along the tongue of land which lies north of Gaillon between the Eure and the Seine, and set up his engines around the great castle of Vaudreuil. We have already seen how this fortress, greatly strengthened by King Richard, was the key to the Seine valley upon the left bank of the river. If it fell only Pont de l'Arche and Roche Orival lay between Philip and Rouen. In the summer of 1203 the garrison, which included some knights of the bishop of Norwich, was under the command of Robert Fitz Walter and Saer de Quinci. The men had been paid in February, and provisions had been brought up the river. John himself moved in the direction of Vaudreuil as far as Roche Orival and Pont de l'Arche, and seemed intent upon energetic measures; urgent messages were sent down stream to hasten the boats laden with food and war-material. 4 Everything pointed to a desperate resistance, when the garrison suddenly surrendered before a stone had been cast.5

The indignation aroused by the loss of Vaudreuil was widespread and intense: the disaster was attributed to the treachery of the castellans, whose conduct became a subject

1. Rot. Pat., 35. Caen, October 10th, 1203: "militibus et servien

tibus commorantibus apud Novum Burgum, etc. Sciatis quod ex quo feceritis negocium quod fidelis noster R. de Plesseto vobis ex parte nostra dicet, vos statim de liberacionibus vestris pacari faciemus." For Robert of Pleshey, see below p. 365.

2. Rigord, i, 157.

3. Above p. 158.

4. Rot. Norm., 69, 74, 80-82; Rot. Pat., 30a, b. Fulk de Cantilupe was in charge of the stores. For the knights of the bishop of Norwich, Rot. Pat., 31b.

5. Wendover, i, 317, 318.

of satirical doggerel. In Normandy the surrender was regarded as a proof of English indifference to the fate of the duchy: the commanders were barons of English interests, and English knights had formed part of the garrison. The king cannot have improved matters by a letter of July 5th in which he declared to all and sundry that the castle had been surrendered at his command. 3 The diplomatic or strategic reasons for the command were as mysterious to contemporaries as they are to us; and, with the exception of Count Robert's desertion, the surrender of Vaudreuil did more to demoralise the cause of John than any event of the year.

It is, indeed, difficult to understand the king's mind during this summer. The curious lethargy of which the chroniclers speak undoubtedly accounts for much of his conduct. It is evident that he was mentally diseased: he refused to be disturbed by the news of continued disaster. His reply to the messenger who told him how Philip led off the castellans of the conquered fortresses bound to their horses' tails was merely, "Let him alone: I will win back all his booty some day." Those who witnessed his levity could attribute it to nothing but sorcery. to this cause of John's inaction we should probably add the fact that he was awaiting papal, if not imperial, interference. In February he had despatched the new prior of Dunstable to Pope Innocent, and towards the end of July the messenger returned with a legate, the abbot of S. Giovanni di Casamario. The king of France,

1. Coggeshall, p. 143.

2. Hist. de ducs de Normandie, ed. Francisque-Michel, p. 97.

Yet,

3. Rot. Pat., 31. See my remarks on this incident in Eng. Hist. Rev., xxi (1906), 296.

4. Wendover, i, 317.

5. Annals of Dunstable (Ann. Monast., iii, 28). Letters of credit in Rot. Pat., 26: Master R. Peccator went with the prior.

6. Ann. Monast., iii, 28. The Pope announced the mission of the legate on May 26. (Patrologia Latina, ccxv, pp. 64-7; Potthast, nos. 1921, 1922).