You may click on the footnote symbol to jump to the note, then click again on that footnote symbol and you will jump back to the same place in the text.
From The Annals of Roger de Hoveden, Comprising the History of England and of Other Countries of Europe from A.D. 732 to A.D. 1201, Translated from the Latin with Notes and Illustrations by Henry T. Riley, Esq., Volume I, London: H.G. Bohn, 1853; pp. 433-454.
In the seventh place, the above-named bishop questioned them upon repentance, if it could take place at the last moment, unto salvation, or whether soldiers who had received a fatal wound could be saved if they repented at the last moment: or if each ought to confess his sins to the priests and ministers of the Church, or to any one of the laity, or to those of whom Saint James has said: “Confess your faults one to another;”1 to which they made answer, and said, that it was sufficient for the sick if they confessed to whom they pleased; but that, as to soldiers, they were unwilling to say, as Saint James speaks only of the sick. He also asked them if contrition of the heart and confession by the lips were alone sufficient, or if it was necessary to make atonement after repentance [by confession], by fasting, alms-giving, and mortification, thus bewailing their sins, if they had the means of so doing. To this they made answer, saying that the words of Saint James were: “Confess your faults one to another, that ye may be healed:” by which they understood that the Apostle commanded nothing else but that they should confess, and so should be healed; and that they had no wish to be wiser than the Apostle, so as to add anything of their own, as the bishops did. To this the heretics added, that the bishop who had given judgment was the heretic and not they, that he was an enemy to them, a ravening wolf, a hypocrite, and an enemy to God, and that he had not given a righteous judgment; that they were not willing to make answer on their faith, because they were on their guard against him, in obedience to what our Lord had commanded in the Gospel, “Beware of false prophets which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves;”2 and that he was a fraudulent persecutor of them, and they were prepared to show by the Gospels and the Epistles, that he was not a good shepherd, neither he nor the other bishops and priests, but, on the contrary, were hirelings.
To this the bishop made answer and said, that the judgment
1176.434 had been pronounced upon them legally, and that he was prepared to prove in the court of our lord Alexander the Catholic pope, or in the court of Louis, king of France, or in the court of Raymond, count of Toulouse, or in that of his wife, who was then present, or in the court of Trenkevelle, the presental,3 that he had given a right judgment, and that they were manifestly heretics, and notorious for their heresies. He further declared that he would accuse them and publish them as heretics in every Catholic court, and would submit to all the risk thereof.
The heretics, seeing that they were convicted, and put to confusion, turned towards the people, and said, “Listen good people, to the faith which we confess; for now, for our love of you and for your sakes, we do make confession of it;” on which the above-named bishop made answer, “Do you say that you pronounce it, not for the sake of God, but for the sake of the people?” The others then said, “We believe that there is one God, three and one, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and that the Son of God took upon Him our flesh, was baptized in the river Jordan, fasted in the wilderness, preached our salvation, suffered, died, and was buried; that He descended into hell, rose again on the third day and ascended into heaven; that, on the day of Pentecost, He sent the Holy Ghost the Comforter; that He will come on the day of judgment to judge both the living and the dead; and that all shall rise again. We know, also, that what we believe in the heart we ought to confess with the lips; we believe that he is not saved who does not eat the body of Christ, and that the body of Christ is not consecrated except in the Church, and only by the priest, whether he is good or whether bad, and that it is no more efficiently done by one who is good than by one who is bad. We believe, also, that no person is saved unless he is baptized, and that infants are saved by baptism. We believe, also, that a man and woman can be saved even though they be carnally united; and that each person ought to receive confession, both in the lips and in
GENSES.435 the heart, and from a priest; and that baptism ought to be performed by the priest, and in churches;” and that, if anything more could be pointed out to them, as supported by the authority of the Gospels or the Epistles, they would believe the same and would confess it.
In consequence of this, fresh authorities of the New Testament were quoted against them by the above-named Catholic persons. After the authorities had been so heard on both sides, the above-named bishop4 arose and pronounced judgment to the following effect: —
“I, Jocelyn, bishop of Lodeve, by the command and mandate of bishop Alberic, and of his assessors, do pronounce judgment, and do here affirm, that these heretics are wrongly informed on the subject of an oath, and that, if they wish to do right, they ought to take the oath, and that an oath ought to be taken when a person’s faith is in question. And, inasmuch as they are infamous and notorious for heresy, they are bound to prove their innocence; and, returning to the unity of the Church, they are bound to uphold their faith upon oath in such way as the Catholic Church maintains and believes; in order that the weak who are in the Church may not be corrupted, and that the diseased sheep may not contaminate the whole flock. And this is neither contrary to the Gospel nor to the Epistles of Saint Paul. For although it is said in the Gospel “Let your communication be yea, yea, nay, nay;’5 ‘neither shalt thou swear by the heaven, nor by the earth’6 still it is not forbidden to swear by God, but by his creatures. For the Gentiles were in the habit of worshipping the creatures, and, if it had been allowed to swear by the creatures, the reverence and honor that are due to God alone would be paid to the creatures, and, in consequence, idols and creatures would be adored as God. For we read in the book of Revelation, that an angel ‘Lifted up his hand to heaven and sware by him that liveth for ever and ever;’7 and Saint Paul, in his Epistle to the Hebrews,8 says, ‘Because God could swear by no greater, he sware by Himself. For men verily swear by the greater, and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.’ Where God has wished more abundantly to show to the heirs of His promise the
1176.436 immoveableness of His counsels, he has interposed an oath. For the Lord sware, saying, ‘By myself have I sworn.’9 And again, ‘The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent.’10 The Apostle, also, frequently made oath; thus, ‘God is my witness,’11 and ‘I call God to witness.’ If, then, God has sworn, an Angel sworn, an Apostle sworn, how is it right not to swear, especially where our faith is in question? Therefore, that which is said in the Gospel12 and in the Epistle of James is to be deemed a piece of advice and not a precept. But, if there were no swearing, there would be no forswearing, a thing which is still more nearly allied to13 evil, that is to say, to sin or the devil, who would prompt us to swear by the creatures.”
Accordingly, seeing that they were also convicted on this point, they said that bishop Alberic had made an agreement with them that he would not compel them to take an oath; which, however, the bishop of Alby denied. After this, the bishop of Alby arose, and said,
“The judgment which Jocelyn, bishop of Lodeve, has pronounced I do confirm, and by my command the same has been pronounced. And I further warn the knights of Lombez not to give them any countenance, on penalty of the fine which they have placed in my hands. I, the abbat of Candiel, chosen judge, do approve of this judgment, and with my assent it has been given. I, the abbat of Aire, chosen judge, do approve of this judgment, and with my assent it has been given. I, Arnold de Be, chosen judge, do approve of this judgment, and with my assent it has been given. I, Peter, bishop of Narbonne, I, A., bishop of Nismes, I, Jocelyn, bishop of Toulouse, I, V., bishop of Agde, I, R., abbat of Saint Pontius, I, R., abbat of Saint William, I, N., abbat of Gaillac, I, —, abbat of Font-froid, I, M., mayor of Toulouse, I, G., mayor of Alby, I, N., mayor of Narbonne, I, R., archdeacon of Agde, I, G., prior of Saint Mary, I, P., abbat of Cahors, I, Master Blanc, I, Bego de Veireiras, I, Trenkevelle, viscount, I, Constance, sister of the king of France, and wife of Raymond, earl of Toulouse, and I, Sicard, viscount of Lautrec, do ratify this judgment, and do know them
TON.437 to be heretics, and do approve of the judgment pronounced upon them.”
In the year of grace 1177, being the twenty-third year of the reign of king Henry, son of the empress Matilda, the said Henry, and Geoffrey, earl of Brittany, and John, his sons, were at Northampton, in England, during the festival of the Nativity of our Lord. On the same day, king Henry, the son, and his wife were at Argenton in Normandy, and Richard, the son of king Henry, earl of Poitou, was in Aquitaine, at the city of Bourdeaux. Immediately after the Nativity of our Lord, he laid siege to the city of Aques, which Peter, viscount of Aques, and the count of Bigorre had fortified against him, and within ten days he took it. After this, he laid siege to the city of Bayonne, which Ernald Bertram, viscount of Bayonne, had fortified against him, and within ten days he took it. Moving his army thence, he came to the gates of Sizarre, now called Port D’Espagne, and took and destroyed it, and by force, compelled the Basques, and Navarrese to make oath, that, from that time forward, they would always keep the peace towards strangers and among themselves, and he also put an end to all the evil customs that had been introduced at Sorges and Espure.
In the meantime, the king of England, the father, holding a general council at Northampton, after the feast of Saint Hilary, restored to Robert, earl of Leicester, all his lands on both sides of the sea, as he held the same fifteen days before the war began, with the exception of the castles of Mountsorrel and Pasci. In like manner he restored to Hugh, earl of Chester, all the lands of which he was in possession fifteen days before the war; and to William d’Aubigny, son of William, earl of Arundel, he gave the earldom of Sussex. At the same council, also, Guido, the dean, resigned into the hands of Richard, archbishop of Canterbury, his deanery of Waltham, and quitted claim, freely and absolutely, of all right which he had in the church of Waltham. In the same manner did the canons secular of Waltham as to their prebends, resigning them into the hands of the archbishop; but our lord the king gave them full compensation for the same, according to the estimate of the lord archbishop of Canterbury. After this, our lord the king, by the authority of our lord the pope, placed in the same church of Waltham canons regular taken from various houses
1177.438 in England, and appointed Walter de Ghent, a canon taken from the church of Oseney, the first abbat of that community, and enriched them with great revenues and very fine mansions.
In the same year, the same king, having expelled the nuns from the abbey of Ambrosebury,14 for incontinence, and distributed them in more strict charge in other religious houses, gave the abbey of Ambrosebury as a perpetual possession to the abbess and convent of Fontevraud; and, a convent of nuns being sent over from Fontevraud, Richard, archbishop of Canterbury, introduced them into the abbey of Ambrosebury, on the eleventh day before the calends of June, being the Lord’s Day, in the presence of our lord the king, the father, Bartholomew, bishop of Exeter, John, bishop of Norwich, and many others of the clergy and the people. On the same day, and at the same place, the before-named archbishop of Canterbury consecrated Guido, bishop of Bangor.
In this year, Philip, earl of Flanders, sent Robert, the advocate of Bethune, and Roger, castellan of Courtrai, to our lord Henry, the king of England, the father, to inform him that Louis, king of the Franks, had asked of him the eldest daughter of his brother, Matthew, earl of Boulogne, in marriage for his son Philip, and the other daughter of the earl of Boulogne for Louis, son of earl Theobald, but that he was determined to give them to no one without his sanction. The said earl also asked the king of England for the money which he had promised to give for the soul of his brother, Matthew, earl of Boulogne, for the purpose of maintaining knights for the defence of the land of Jerusalem. On this, our lord the king made answer to them that the matter would go well, unless, indeed, it stopped short with the earl;15 and added, that if the earl of Flanders was willing to marry his nieces, the daughters of the earl of Boulogne, according to his wishes and advice, and would give him good assurance of the same, he would then fulfil all his promises, even to a fuller extent than he had made them. And, for the purpose of hearing the earl’s answer on the subject, he sent Walter de Coutances, his vice-chancellor, and Ranulph de Glanville, in whose presence the said earl of Flanders made oath that he would marry his said nieces to no person, unless by the advice and consent
SANCHO.439 of the king of England, the father. However, disregarding his oath, the said earl married them without the leave and consent of the king.
In the same year, the before-named Vivianus, cardinal priest, titular of Saint Stephen de Monte Celi, and legate of the Apostolic See, was in the Isle of Man, with king Guthred, on the day of the Nativity of our Lord. After the Epiphany, he passed over into Ireland, and, landing at Dun16 in Ulster, while he was walking along the sea-shore towards Dublin, he met the troops of John de Courcy, who seized him and made him prisoner; but John de Courcy set him at liberty and suffered him to depart. The before-named John de Courcy also, before the Purification of Saint Mary, laid siege to and took the city of Dun, which is the capital of Ulster, where also rest the bodies of Saint Patrick and Saint Columba, the confessors, and of Saint Bridget, the virgin. On hearing this, Roderic, king of Ulster, levied a large army of Irish, and fought a battle with the above-named John; and John de Courcy, after losing a part of his army, gained a great victory, and having conquered king Roderic, and put him to flight, remained in possession of the field, and distributed the spoils of the slain among his men. In this battle was taken prisoner the bishop of Dun, whom John de Courcy ordered, at the prayer of the cardinal, to be set at liberty.
In the same year died the earl Hugh Bigot, whose treasures the king, the father, retained in his own hands. In this year, also, Alphonso, king of Castille, and Sancho, king of Navarre, his uncle, after many and great battles fought between them, came to a settlement before the king of England, the father, on the disputes and claims that existed between them. Accordingly, there came into England, on behalf of the king of Castille and on behalf of the king of Navarre, four chosen men whom they knew to be trustworthy persons, being sent to England to hear the decision of the court of the king of England, and to report the same to the above-named kings of Spain, namely, John, bishop of Tarragona, Peter de Areis, Gunter, a brother of the Temple, and Peter de Rinoso. There, came also on behalf of Alphonso, king of Castille, Matthew, bishop of Palencia, count Gomez, Lobdiez, Gomez, the son of Garsias, Garsias, the son of Garsias, Peter, the son of Peter, and Gotteri Fernanz;
440 and, on behalf of Sancho, king of Navarre, the bishop of Pampeluna, Garsias Bermer, Sancho, the son of Ramiro, Espagnol de Taissonal, Peter, the son of Ramiro, and Ascenar de Chalez. All these were sent to assert their claims, and to answer on behalf of their masters. There came also two knights of wonderful prowess and valor, with horses and warlike arms, one on behalf of the king of Castille and the other on behalf of the king of Navarre, to appeal to wager of battle, at the court of the king of England, if it should be deemed necessary.
Accordingly, on the first Lord’s day in Lent, our lord, Henry, king of England, son of the empress Matilda, came to London, for the purpose of holding a general council. At it were present: Richard, archbishop of Canterbury, Gilbert, bishop of London, Hugh, bishop of Durham, Geoffrey, bishop of Ely, Walter, bishop of Rochester, Reginald, bishop of Bath, Robert, bishop of Hereford, John, bishop of Norwich, Bartholomew, bishop of Exeter, Roger, bishop of Worcester, John, bishop of Chichester, Christian, bishop of Whitherne, the bishop of Saint David’s, the bishop of Saint Asaph, the bishop of Bangor, and the abbats, priors, earls, and barons of England. These having met together at Westminster, the king ordered the aforesaid envoys from the kingdom of Spain to reduce into writing their claims and charges, and afterwards give them to him; in order that, by means of a translation thereof, he himself and his barons might be able to understand their respective claims and charges; for neither the king nor the barons of his court understood their language. For the purpose of reducing this to writing, there was a space of three days allowed.
Accordingly, on the fourth day they produced a writing, in which was the following statement: “king Sancho the Fat had three sons, Ferdinand, king of Castille, Ramiro, king of Arragon, and Garcias, king of Navarre and Nagara. Ferdinand was the father of king Alphonso, who took Toledo, and was the father of queen Vracha, who was the mother of the emperor Alphonso, the father of king Sancho, whose son was king Alphonso, who married Eleanor, daughter of Henry, king of England. Ramiro, king of Arragon, was the father of king Sancho, who was father of king Peter and king Alphonso. King Peter died without issue, and was succeeded by his brother, king Alphonso, who took Saragossa. Garcias,
SANCHO.441 king of Navarre and Nagara, was the father of king Sancho, who was afterwards slain at Penafiel: he was the father of Sancho, who died without issue when a child, and was succeeded, in Navarre and Nagara, by king Alphonso, his father’s kinsman, who took Toledo, as far as the boundaries of Puente la Reyna and Sangosa: and the said child was succeeded by Sancho, king of Arragon, his father’s kinsman, in the remaining portion of Navarre and Pampeluna.
The Treaty and Covenants entered into between Alphonso, king of Castille, and Sancho, king of Navarre.
“These are the treaty and covenants which were entered into between Alphonso, king of Castille, and Sancho, king of Navarre, his uncle, for submitting the points in dispute between them to the judgment of the king of England. For this purpose each of these kings gives three castles in pledge, that he will receive and fulfil the award of Henry, king of England, son of the empress Matilda, and father-in-law of king Alphonso; and he who shall fail so to do, is to lose the castles underwritten. For this purpose king Alphonso gives in pledge Nagara, a castle of the Jews, Arnedo, a castle of the Christians and a castle of the Jews, and Celorigo. In like manner, Sancho, king of Navarre, gives in pledge the castle of Stella, which Peter, the son of Roderic, holds, being a castle of the Jews, as also Funes and Maranon. And for the above purpose envoys from both kings are to appear in the presence of the king of England on the first day of this present Lent, being the beginning of the fast, for the purpose of receiving his decision. And if by chance the envoys on either side shall be detained on the road in consequence of death, infirmity, or captivity, the envoys that precede them are to await them for a period of thirty days beyond the day above-named at the court of the said king of England; and then, those who are well and able are to come to the court and hear the decision. And if all shall be sick, or taken prisoners, or shall die, then the king who has no envoy present is to be the loser. And if all or any of the envoys shall not be detained by any of these causes, and shall not come before the king of England on the day appointed, then the king, whose envoys there are, is to lose the castles above-named, and this is to be done in good faith and without evil intent. And if by accident, which God forbid, the king
1177.442 of England should die in the meantime, then in the same manner as above-mentioned they are to proceed to the king of France to receive his decision, and are to receive his decision as though that of the king of England, and to comply therewith. For this purpose, Sancho, the king of Navarre, through his knight and deputy,17 is to receive possession of these three castles, and is to give Nagara and Celorigo in charge to Peter, the son of count Roderic, and is to give Arnedo in charge to one of the counts of his dominions, and they are to do homage to him for the same. In like manner Alphonso, the king of Castille, through his knight and his deputy, is to receive possession of these three castles, and is to give Stella in charge to Peter, the son of Roderic of Arragon, Funes to S., the son of Ramiro, and Maranon to R., the son of Martin, and they are to do homage to him for them. And if either of the kings shall wish to take the castles aforesaid from the knights in possession of them and to give them to another, then Sancho, king of Navarre, is to give them to Peter, the son of Roderic, or to G., the son of Vermund, or to S., the son of Ramiro, or to I., the son of Felez, or to R., the son of Martin, or to E. or to S., the sons of Almoran, or to E., the son of Ortiz, or to P., the son of Ramiro, or to G. or to P., the sons of Ortiz. In like manner king Alphonso is to give the said castles to count N. or count P., or count G. or to count Gomez, or to R., the son of Gurtez, or to P., the son of Arazuri, or to D., the son of Senez, or to G. or to Ordonez, the sons of Garcias, or to G., the son of Roderico de Aragra, or to P., the son of Gunter, or to L., the son of Roderico de Agafra; but those who shall be holding them are not to give up the said castles until those who ought to receive them shall have done homage for them to the other king, in manner above-mentioned. And the whole that king Alphonso holds of the king of Navarre, he is to improve with his own means as far as he shall be willing and able. In like manner, Sancho, king of Navarre, is to improve with his own means as far as he shall be willing and able, the whole that he holds of king Alphonso. And for the purpose of hearing this decision, the kings have chosen four trustworthy persons, namely, John, bishop of Tarragona,
SANCHO.443 Peter de Areis, Ar—— de Torrela, and Gunter,18 son of de Rinoso; and two or three or all of these are to proceed with the envoys to the court of the king of England, and are to explain before him the complaints of both kings, and when the claims have been heard, then those are to speak whom the king shall order first to plead their cause. And, upon the word of these same trustworthy persons, who shall have heard the judgment pronounced by the king of England, each of the kings are to comply with and perform the above-mentioned covenants in such manner as is contained in this instrument, and the knights who have done homage for the aforesaid castles, according to the report of the said trustworthy persons, are to comply with and perform the treaty aforesaid in good faith and without evil intent. In addition whereto, both of the kings above-named, each upon his own plighted faith, have agreed upon and concluded a good and safe truce for liegemen, for castles, for lands, and for all other things, for a period of seven years; and that the same shall be firmly kept, Sancho, king of Navarre, places Erga19 in pledge, and king Alphonso pledges Calahorra; and if the army of either of these kings, either with him or without him, shall enter the kingdom of the other, he whose army does so, is to lose the fortified place above-named. And if by chance any vassal of these kings shall break this truce in the kingdom of the other, or shall chance by force to take a fortified place, then the king of whom he shall be the vassal shall within forty days deliver up his castle to the other king. And if he shall not do so, the knight who holds the castle that has been so placed in pledge, is to give up the said castle to the king so complaining, and he is to hold the same in pledge until he recovers his own castle. And if any person in these kingdoms, who is not a vassal of those kings, shall by any chance take a castle in the kingdom of the other, then both the kings are to come against him with their people and besiege him, and are not to depart thence until it is taken. It has also been agreed that all the vassals of both kings who have lost their hereditaments since the time of the
1177.444 commencement of the war, shall recover the same, in such manner as they were holding them on the day on which they lost them, and for misdeeds on their part, or on accusations for what they have previously done, they are not to lose them, nor are they to make answer to any one on any complaint made against them within the last seven years. And if hereafter any complaint on fresh grounds, or any litigation shall arise between them, they are to have recourse to arbitration, and whatever judgment shall be pronounced, they are to be satisfied with the same. Also, all men of both kingdoms shall go and return from kingdom to kingdom in security, with the exception of known murderers. And if either of the kings shall be unwilling to restore the hereditaments as above-mentioned, then he is to give up the above-named castle to the other king, who is to hold the same in pledge, until he shall recover the hereditaments and the whole thereof that he shall have demanded. Also, all vassals of either king are to be included in this treaty of peace as to all men, castles, hereditaments, and all other things that they may possess in whatever land they may be; and all the above is to be kept and observed in good faith and without evil intent. Also, Alphonso, king of Arragon, is to be included in this truce, if it shall so please him, and if perchance it shall not please him to be included therein, nevertheless the said truce as above-mentioned is to be strictly observed between the kings above-named. This instrument was made between Navarre and Logrono, in the year 1214,20 on the eighth day before the calends of September.”
An [earlier] Charter of Peace and Reconciliation between the king of Castille and the king of Navarre.
“This is the charter of peace and reconciliation which was made between Alphonso, king of Castille, and Sancho, king of Navarre, at the abbey which is called Siterio. It has pleased both of the said kings that a peace and reconciliation should be made between them for ten years, which has been made accordingly; and it has pleased them that they should ratify the same by oath, and that they and the barons of them both should make oath upon the altar and upon the four Evangelists,
CASTILLE.445 that they will observe the aforesaid truce and reconciliation faithfully, and without fraud and evil intent, for ten years; and this truce has been made as to persons, cattle, goods, and castles, in good faith and without fraud and evil intent; and if either of the kings or any of the barons shall violate this truce, and shall not make amends on claim made, within forty days therefrom, then is he to be a perjurer and a traitor. This instrument was made in the year 1205,21 in the month of October.”
When the above-stated charters of peace and reconciliation between the said kings of Castille and Navarre had been read before the king of England and his barons, the persons who pleaded for the king of Castille spoke to the following effect: —
The Claim of the king of Castille.
“In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Amen. In the name of the Lord, Alphonso, king of Castille and Toledo, makes complaint against, and demands of, Sancho, king of Navarre, his uncle, that restitution shall be made to him of Logrono, Athleva, Vanaret,22 in the vicinity of Ribaronia, Agosen, Abtol, Arresa, and Alava, with their markets, namely, those of Estwalez and of Divina, and all his rights in the lands which are called Durango: all of which king Alphonso, of happy memory, who liberated Toledo from the power of the Saracens, and after his death, his daughter Vracha possessed by hereditary right: after whose death, her son, the emperor Alphonso, of happy memory, was similarly possessed by hereditary right, and after the death of the emperor, his son, Sancho, without question raised, held the same by hereditary right. After the death of king Sancho, his son, our lord the king Alphonso, in like manner held all the places aforesaid by hereditary right, until such time as the king of Navarre already mentioned took away, and now by force withholds, from the aforesaid king of Castille, his orphan and innocent nephew and ward, and the son of his friend and lord, all the above places, no requisition being then made of the same. He likewise makes complaint and asks restitution to be made to him by the before-named king of Navarre, of Roba, which he unjustly withholds. For the emperor
1177.446 acquired that place from a king of the Saracens, whose name was Zafadola, and left it to his son Sancho, who, after the death of the emperor, held it in peace during the whole period of his life: after whose death, my lord the king Alphonso, his son, by hereditary right held it in peace, until such time as Sancho Ramirez de Perola parted with it, who held it according to the custom of Spain, at the hands of Peter Ortiz, which Peter Ortiz held it according to the same custom of our lord the king Alphonso. He also demands the revenues which the king of Navarre so often mentioned has received from Logrono, and from all the places above-named, from the time of his invasion, as also recompense for the losses which he inflicted upon that land, by laying it waste and delivering it to the flames, the amount of all which is estimated at nearly one hundred thousand golden marks. He further demands Puente la Reyna, and Saragossa, and the whole of the land extending from those two towns to the river Ebro; which land king Alphonso, of blessed memory, grandfather of the emperor, held and enjoyed in peace; and through him, according to the custom of Spain, his kinsman, Sancho, king of Arragon, and after his death, his son, king Peter, and after the death of king Peter, his brother, Alphonso, king of Arragon, in the same manner as his kinsmen and friends had held it. He also claims a moiety of Tudela, on the grounds of his maternal descent, which count Dalpreg gave to his cousin-german, queen Margaret, who was the wife of king Garsias, and grandmother of the said king Alphonso, in consequence whereof the aforesaid Tudela does in no way belong to Navarre.”
After the bishop of Palencia, and count Gomez, and the other envoys of the king of Castille had set forth the above, and other matters to a similar effect, both by writing and word of mouth, they made an end of speaking. Upon this, the bishop of Pampeluna, and the other envoys of the king of Navarre, arose, and [orally] contradicting nothing that had been alleged against them by their opponents, produced a writing, in which were contained their petition, claims, and allegations, to the following effect: —
The Claim of the king of Navarre.
“Sancho, king of Navarre, lays claim to the monastery of Cudejo, Monte d’Oca, the valley of Saint Vincent, the valley
NAVARRE.447 of Oliocastro, Cingovilas, Monte Negro, and Sierra Alba, as far as Agreda. To all the above he lays claim, and whatever places lie within these districts on the side of Navarre, and he lays claim to the entire revenues of this district, from the period of the death of king Sancho at Penafiel. All the above, as belonging to his kingdom, Garsias, king of Navarre and Nagara, great-great grandfather of the said king Sancho, held and enjoyed in peace and quietness; and his great grandfather was expelled by violence from his kingdom, on account of his imbecility, by Alphonso, king of Castille, his kinsman. However, in process of time, king Garsias, of famous memory, his grandson, and father of the present king, by the Divine will, and with the aid of the fealty of those of whom he was the natural lord, recovered his kingdom, although not the entirety thereof, and the remaining portion is the same that is now claimed by his son Sancho, king of Navarre. In addition to this, he makes claim of the following places, which the emperor took from his father, king Garsias, by violence, namely; Naga, a castle of the Christians and Jews, Gramon, Pancorvo, Belforest, the monastery of Cereso, Celorigo, Bilboa, Medria, Vegueta, Claver, Verbea, and Lantaron. These same he makes claim of, and demands restitution thereof, because his father, king Garsias, possessed them by hereditary right, and the emperor took them from him. Also, as to Belforest, he makes this complaint, that the emperor restored the same to king Garsias, his father, and after his death, the said emperor took it away from Sancho, the present king of Navarre, who then held and enjoyed it in peace, as being his own by hereditary right. He also demands restitution to him by Alphonso, king of Castille, of certain castles that have been very recently taken from him, together with all the revenues received therefrom, and whatever he would have enjoyed if he had not been expelled therefrom. The names of these castles are as follow: Kel, Ocon, Parnugos, Gramon, Cereso, Valorcanas, Trepcana, Milier, Amihugo, Haiaga, Miranda, Santa Agathea, Salmas, Portela, Malversin, Legiun, and the fortress held by Godin. And to these he lays claim on the grounds that he held and enjoyed the same as his own, and was, without any judicial formalities, expelled therefrom, and his complaint ought therefore to have the precedence, inasmuch as the same was the last act of
1177.448 violence committed, and consequently is the one for which amends should first be made. And further, as to the other side, he has ceased to have any right, if ever he did have any such right. And this we are prepared to show by the above-named instrument, in which is contained a truce for ten years; wherefore, king Sancho makes complaint, because it is true, that king Alphonso has violated his promise made in the treaty aforesaid. For he has received injury within those ten years, by being deprived of the following castles, Kel, Legiun, Malversin, and Portela. In addition to the above, the king of Navarre demands restitution by the king of Castille, of the sum of one hundred23 marks of silver, king Sancho, who now reigns over the kingdom of Navarre, hereby offering satisfaction to the king Alphonso, upon all his complaints, according to the arbitration of the barons of them both, or of the most serene king of England. And we affirm with confidence, that these acts, and the like to them, perpetrated in the face of such covenants and such truce, ought to be redressed before we come to any other article whatever of these claims. For this the law demands, this usage demands, this the canonical ordinances demand, this all right and justice demand. The things that we have said are here set forth in written characters, but shall be more fully and more copiously explained by word of mouth.”
When the above-named envoys of the king of Navarre had set forth the above, and other matters of a similar nature, and the envoys of the king of Castille did not contradict any of the allegations made by them, Henry king of England, son of the empress Matilda, the Holy Evangelists being produced in presence of all the people, ordered the said envoys of the king of Castille and the king of Navarre make oath, before he pronounced judgment, that their masters, namely, the king of Castille and the king of Navarre, would receive and strictly observe his award, both as to restitution as well as to the truce, and that if they should fail so to do, then they themselves would surrender their bodies into his hands and power. This being accordingly done, the earls and barons of the royal court of England adjudged that full restitution should be made to each of the parties above-named of what he had rightfully claimed. Accordingly, the king of England wrote to the above-named kings of Spain to the following effect: —
The Award of Henry, king of England, upon the judgment given in his court between the king of Castille and the king of Navarre.
“Henry, by the grace of God, king of England, duke of Normandy and of Aquitaine, and earl of Anjou, to his most dearly beloved friends Alphonso, king of Castille, and Sancho, king of Navarre, greeting. According as, from the tenor of your letters, and the relation of your trustworthy servants, John, bishop of Tarragona, Peter de Areis, Gunter,24 and Peter de Rinoso, and from the assertions of your envoys, the bishop of Palencia, count Gomez, Lobdioz, Gomez, the son of Garsias, Garsias, the son of Garsias, Peter, the son of Peter, Gotteri Fernanz, the bishop of Pampeluna, Garsias Bermer, Sancho, the son of Ramiro, Espagnol de Taissonat, Peter, the son of Ramiro, and Ascenar de Chalez, we have been informed, it has pleased us by our judgment to bring to a termination the disputes that exist between you, with relation to certain castles and lands, together with the boundaries and appurtenances thereof. And for that purpose, we, receiving your trustworthy servants and your envoys with that respect which was their due, considering that peace being made between you would greatly conduce to the honor of God and the whole of Christendom, have both with reference to holy religion and our ordinary welfare, taken this upon us. Therefore, the trustworthy persons chosen by you in common, and your deputies, and the pleaders of your causes being summoned into our presence, and that of our bishops and earls and barons, we have carefully heard, and have come to a full understanding of, the petitions and allegations of both parties. Upon these points, those envoys to whom the cause of Alphonso, king of Castille, has been entrusted, have made allegation that Sancho, king of Navarre, did unjustly and by force take from the said king of Castille, while he was yet a ward and an orphan, certain castles and lands, namely, Logrono, Navarette, Andeva, Abtol, and Agosen,25 with all their boundaries and appurtenances, which his father, on the day of his decease, and which he himself for some years after had quietly enjoyed; in consequence whereof they claimed that restitution should be made to him of the same. But the envoys to whom the cause of Sancho,
1177.450 king of Navarre, was entrusted, contradicting nothing of what had been alleged by the others, asserted that Alphonso the before-mentioned king of Castille, had, by arms, and unjustly, taken from Sancho, the before-named king of Navarre, certain castles, namely, Legiun, Portela, and the castle that Godin holds, and the said other party, making no contradiction whatever thereto, demanded with like urgency that restitution should be made thereof to him. And further, it was stated in the letter written by you in common that you had, giving your word for the same, concluded a truce between you for a period of seven years, and the same was witnessed openly in court by your envoys. Having therefore held counsel with all due deliberation with our bishops, earls, and barons, and considering that peace between you is necessary, both for the propagation of the Christian faith and the confusion of the enemies of Christ, and receiving a full assurance, both from your own written declarations and the allegations of your envoys, that you will pay obedience to our counsel and advice both in establishing and preserving peace, before proceeding to pronounce our award as to the above-written complaints and truces, we do command you by your envoys, and do counsel and enjoin you, and in addition thereto, do, by this present writing, command you, to establish peace between yourselves, and faithfully for the future to observe the same. Now, as to the complaints above-mentioned relative to the castles and lands, with all the boundaries and appurtenances thereof, that have on each side been by force and injustice taken from the other, inasmuch as no answer was made by either side to the acts of violence alleged on the other side, and no reason was alleged why the restitution which they respectively demanded should not be made, we do decree that full restitution shall be made to each party of the places above-mentioned which have as of right been claimed. We do also by our award enjoin that the truces between you before-named, which, as already mentioned, have been ratified by you on your word, as appears from your written documents, as also from the public avowal made to us by your envoys upon trial, shall, until the time therein agreed upon, be inviolably observed between you. We do will also and command for the sake of peace, that king Alphonso, our dearly beloved son, shall pay to Sancho, king of Navarre, his uncle, every year for the space of ten years, three thousand
SLAIN.451 marabotins,26 such payments to be made at three periods in the year at the city of Burgos, namely; the first payment of one thousand marabotins to be made at the end of the first four months after the above-mentioned restitution shall have been made, the second payment of one thousand marabotins to be made at the end of the next succeeding four months, and another payment of one thousand marabotins to be made at the end of the next four months; the said payments so to be made that in each of the ten years next ensuing after the said restitution, there shall be paid to Sancho, king of Navarre, at the same periods and at the above-named place, three thousand marabotins. Also, the envoys of each of you have, before pronouncing our judgment, solemnly sworn that you will strictly observe our judgment aforesaid, both as to the restitution as well as to the observance of the treaty of peace; and that in case you shall not do so, they will surrender their persons into our hands and power. Witnesses hereto, Richard, archbishop of Canterbury, Hugh, bishop of Durham, Geoffrey, bishop of Ely, Roger, bishop of Worcester, Bartholomew, bishop of Exeter, Gilbert, bishop of London, Walter, bishop of Rochester, Reginald, bishop of Bath, John, bishop of Norwich, John, bishop of Chichester, Robert, bishop of Hereford, the bishop of Saint David’s, Master Ada, the bishop of Saint Asaph, the bishop of Bangor, Christian, bishop of Whitherne, Geoffrey, earl of Brittany, son of the king, William, earl of Aumarle, Robert, earl of Leicester, William de Mandeville, earl of Essex, William, earl of Gloucester, William de Arundel, earl of Sussex, Hugh, earl of Chester, and of the barons of England, Richard de Lucy, William de Vesci, Henry de Lacy, Odonel de Umfraville, Robert de Vals, Roger de Mowbray, Robert de Stuteville, Philip de Kimbe, Roger Bigot, and many others, both clergy and laity.”
During this council, the brother of the earl of Ferrers was slain by night at London, and thrown out from his inn into the mud of the streets, for which deed our lord the king took into custody many of the citizens of London; among whom there
1177.452 was arrested a certain aged man of high rank and great wealth whose name was John; he being unable to prove his innocence by means of the judgment of water, offered our lord the king fifty pounds of silver for the preservation of his life. But inasmuch as he had been cast in the judgment by water, the king refused to receive the money, and ordered him to be hanged on a gibbet.
In the same year Philip, earl of Flanders, in contravention of the oath which he had made to the king of England, gave the eldest daughter of his brother the earl of Boulogne in marriage to the duke de Saringes; shortly afterwards, leaving the duke de Saringes, she married the count de Saint Paul, and then leaving the count de Saint Paul, married the count Reginald de Dammartin, who received with her the earldom of Boulogne. The other daughter of the earl of Boulogne he also gave in marriage to Henry, duke of Louvaine.
In the same year the before-named earl of Flanders came over to England, to hold a conference with the king of England, and, receiving from him leave to go on the pilgrimage, he and William de Mandeville, earl of Essex, and many barons and knights of various countries assumed the sign of the cross, and set out for Jerusalem; where joining the brethren of the Temple and the Hospitallers, and Raymond, prince of Antioch, and nearly all the knights of the land of Jerusalem, they laid siege to Harang, a fortified place of the pagans. Having stayed a month before it while laying siege thereto, and having almost undermined it, by the advice of the Templars they received a large sum of money from the pagans, and so departed without accomplishing their object. On the day after their departure, a great part of the castle which they had been besieging fell down, and on returning home they found the money which they had received from the pagans to be nothing but copper and brass.
In the meantime, Saladin, king of Babylon, having united with him the kings and princes of the pagans, with more than five hundred thousand horse and foot entered the land of the Christians, and pitched his tents not far from the holy city of Jerusalem. On hearing this, the Templars, and Hospitallers, and knights of the king of Jerusalem, who had remained for the protection of the city, went forth to meet the pagans, together with the people of the city, who had taken up arms, while the bishop of Bethlehem carried before
KING.453 them the wood of the cross of our Lord. Making a bold attack upon the pagans, they forced them to give way, and, Oh supreme bounty of the Most High! the Christians, who were not in number more then ten thousand fighting men, gained the victory over five hundred thousand pagans, and that by the aid of the Most High. For it appeared in a vision to the pagans as though the hosts of the armies of heaven were descending by a ladder under the form of armed knights, and aiding the Christians in the attack upon them. The pagans being unable to endure their onset, were put to flight, on which, the Christians, pursuing them, put them to the edge of the sword, and slew of them more than a hundred thousand, and took a great number of prisoners. But Saladin, by means of his coursers, made his escape; however, in this battle he lost many of his nephews and kinsmen, and of the principal men of his army.
In addition to this, to the utter confusion of the pagans, and for the establishment of the Christian faith, it appeared to the pagans that the extremity of the wood of the cross of our Lord, which the bishop of Bethlehem was carrying, reached up to heaven, and that its arms were embracing the whole world; at which being greatly alarmed, they took to flight. The Christians, on gaining this glorious victory, returned with joyousness to Jerusalem, and filled the land with the spoils of the slain. This battle took place, to the praise and glory of our Lord Jesus Christ, upon the plain of Ramah, in the year of grace eleven hundred and seventy-seven, on the seventh day before the calends of December, being the feast of Saint Catherine the Virgin and Martyr. In the same year, the Christians fortified a very strong castle in the kingdom of Saladin, at the Ford of Jacob, beyond the river Jordan; but Saladin took it by storm, and with it was taken the grand Master of the Hospital at Jerusalem, who, being carried into the territory of Saladin, died there of hunger.
In the same year, our lord the king of England, the father, delivered to William de Stuteville the custody of the castle of Rakesburt,27 to Roger de Stuteville the custody of the castle of the Maidens,28 to William de Neville the custody of the castle of Norham, to Roger, archbishop of York, the custody of the castle of Scartheburg,29 to Geoffrey de Neville the custody of the castle of Berwick, and to Roger de
1177.454 Conyers, the custody of the fortress of Durham, which the king had taken from Hugh, the bishop of Durham, because he had only made a feint of serving him in the civil wars. In consequence of this, the bishop gave him two thousand marks of silver to regain his favour, on condition that his castles should be left standing, and that the king should give to his son, Henry de Pudsey, his royal manor of Wighton, with its appurtenances.
After this, the king went to Oxford, and, holding a general council there, created his son John king of Ireland, having a grant and confirmation thereof from Alexander, the Supreme Pontiff. To this council there also came, to meet the king, Rees, the son of Griffin,30 prince of South Wales, David, the son of Owen, prince of North Wales, who had married the sister of the said king of England, Cadewalan, prince of Delnain, Owen de Kevilian, Griffin de Brunfeld, and Madoc, the son of Gervetrog, together with many other of the noblemen of Wales, who all did homage to the king of England, the father, and swore fealty to him against all men, and that they would maintain peace with him and with his kingdom. At the same council, also, our lord the king of England gave to the above-named Rees, the son of Griffin, the land of Merioneth, and to David, the son of Owen, the land of Ellesmere.
1 St. James v. 16.
2 Matt. vii. 15.
3 This was an officer in France, who had the command of the soldiers in a county or earldom, and acted as deputy of the “comes,” “count,” or “earl.” The name does not seem to have any corresponding one in the English language. The same party is called “vicecomes,” “viscount,” or “sheriff,” at the conclusion of the proceedings, p. 436.
4 This is an error; he has not been previously mentioned.
5 St. Matt. v. 37; James v. 12.
6 St. Matt. v. 34, 35.
7 Rev. x. 5, 6.
8 Heb. vi. 13, 16.
9 Gen. xxii. 16. Isa. xlv. 23. Jer. xlix. 13. li. 14. Amos vi. 8.
10 Psalm cx. 4.
11 Rom. i. 9.
12 St. Matt. v. 37. James v. 12.
13 The meaning of this passage cannot be understood: it is in a hopelessly imperfect state.
15 Perhaps in allusion to earl Theobald.
17 “Portarius.” The officers who were so called, had probably somewhat similar duties to those of our sheriffs; in seeing that the royal commands were properly fulfilled. They were peculiar to Spain.
18 It will be seen, on comparison with the list of names previous, and in page 439, that Gunter is mentioned as one of the envoys and Peter de Rinoso as another, and no mention is made of de Torrela: here, however, Gunter is made the son of de Rinoso, and de Torrela is the fourth envoy.
19 Perhaps Ergavica, or Ergavia, towns of Spain in the middle ages.
20 This date is according to the Spanish era, which began from the conquest of Spain by Augustus, in the year B.C. 38.
21 See the last note. This treaty was made nine years before the preceding one.
22 This should be Navarette.
23 Probably, a mistake for a hundred thousand.
24 As to this person, see the note in p. 443.
25 They are more fully mentioned in the claim of the king of Castille, p. 445.
26 This was a gold coin of Spain, the exact value of which is now unknown. The name has been suggested to have been derived from “Butin de Maranes,” “The booty of the Moors,” as forming a large proportion of the spoils of the Moors when repulsed in their invasion of Spain. It is said that it was while energetically discussing the origin of this word at Caen, the learned Bochart was attacked with a fit of apoplexy, of which he shortly after died.
30 Rice ap Griffyd.