[In the following essay, Lees examines three letters traditionally believed to have been written by Eleanor to persuade the Pope to aid Richard the Lionheart. She finds that, instead, they were most probably rhetorical exercises by Peter of Blois.]

Of all the perils which beset the unwary historian none is more insidious than the rhetorical exercise masquerading in the guise of an historical letter; it deceives only the more effectually because it was written with no thought of deception, and is often close enough to fact and accurate enough in form to mislead all but the most minute and laborious of critics. The present article is an attempt to follow up the suggestion of M. Charles Bémont that the three letters from Eleanor of Aquitaine to Pope Celestine III, printed by Rymer in the Foedera, are rhetorical studies of this nature.

The letters in question purport to be addressed by Queen Eleanor to the pope, imploring his intervention on behalf of her son, Richard I, then a prisoner in the hands of the emperor Henry VI. Not only has their authenticity been accepted without question, but bibliographers have derived from them Eleanor's title to a place in the company of royal and noble authors,¹ while historians have built up on them a theory of the part played by the queen mother in the release of the captive king. Finding the letters to Celestine III under Eleanor's name, the modern historians of the twelfth century have connected them with a statement made by Roger of Hoveden to the effect that in the year 1193 the pope wrote to the clergy of England, ut imperator et totum ipsius regnum subiicerentur anathemati, nisi rex Angliae celerius liberaretur a captione illius.² The editors of the Recueil des Historiens de France³ mention Eleanor's letters and then quote Hoveden, leaving the connexion to be inferred. Mansi, in his notice of the life of Celestine III,⁴ goes further. Ad instantiam Aleonorae matris, he writes, Henricum imperatorem et Leopoldum ducem Austriae comminatione censurarum ecclesiasticarum monuit.⁵ Watterich also notes that the pope wrote the letter mentioned by Hoveden, monitus et flagitatus a matre regis Alienora, datis ad eum litteris ternis.⁶ Eleanor's earlier biographers, Isaac de Larrey in the seventeenth century, and Dreux de Radier in the eighteenth century, are still more circumstantial and confident. The Queen, according to Larrey,

obligea le pape à écrire à l’empereur, à qui elle fit offrir une rançon telle qu’il la voudroit demander.⁷

Dreux de Radier adds—

Elle ne se contenta pas d’écrire à l’empereur Henri … au prince son fils, au pape Célestin III, à Philippe-Auguste. Comme elle avançait peu par ses lettres, dont trois écrites au pape se trouvent encore dans le recueil de celles de Pierre de Blois, vice-chancelier ou secrétaire d’Henri II, elle passa elle-même en Allemagne.⁸

Even the most recent historian of the counts of Poitou, M. Richard, accepts and elaborates the old tradition.⁹ The silence of the contemporary chroniclers in itself goes far to render these theories suspicious. The letters from Celestine III to the emperor and the king of France are only mentioned by Hoveden, and have not been preserved, while of Eleanor's own letters, setting aside those to the pope, only three are known, and these do not belong to the period of Richard's captivity.¹⁰ Roger of Hoveden, Gervase of Canterbury, Ralph de Diceto, and Ralph of Coggeshall all speak of the share taken by the Queen-mother in governing the kingdom during Richard's absence, and in the collection and transmission of the ransom,¹¹ but they say nothing of any influence brought by her to bear upon Celestine III. It is significant too that in Richard's letter to his mother, written early in his captivity (30 March 1193), he thanks her for her management of the kingdom, but says no word of her negotiations with the pope, though he expressly mentions Hubert Walter's intervention on his behalf at the papal court.¹²

It seems, then, worth asking whether Eleanor's letters are evidence strong enough for the weight of proof which is laid upon them, and how far they bear the external and internal stamps of authenticity. Rymer published the three letters, without indication of source, in 1704, in the first edition of the Foedera,¹³ but, as Tanner points out,¹⁴ they had already been printed among the epistles of Peter of Blois, archdeacon of Bath and of London, the famous twelfth-century letter-writer, and later historians have generally assumed that they were written by him in the capacity of secretary to Queen Eleanor.¹⁵ The assumption that they were written by Peter of Blois, based on their inclusion in the early printed editions of his works,¹⁶ and in a large proportion of the very numerous manuscripts of his epistles,¹⁷ is borne out by the internal evidence of the letters themselves. They show, in a marked degree, the characteristics of the style of Peter of Blois, his elaborate, antithetic constructions, his twisted and affected turns of expression, his excessive fondness for Scriptural and classical quotations, and for puns and verbal conceits, and his outbursts of rhetorical enthusiasm. They are full, moreover, of his own peculiar phrases and of his pet texts and plays on words, which recur constantly in his writings.

But that the three letters were written by Peter of Blois at the instigation of Eleanor of Aquitaine, or in the capacity of her secretary, is highly questionable. His claim, indeed, to have been the Queen-mother's secretary, unhesitatingly maintained by his biographers,¹⁸ rests merely on three passages in his epistles and on the attribution to Eleanor of the letters to Celestine. Of the three passages the first occurs in Epistle 87,¹⁹ written by Peter of Blois in 1191 to William Longchamp, bishop of Ely: Ego autem, he says, ad dominam reginam me contuli, donec videam ultionem de inimicis tuis ut in statum pristinum cum gloria et honore revertaris. As the whole letter is concerned with Longchamp's troubles, and as it is probable that Eleanor was inclined to favour the exiled bishop,²⁰ Peter surely only means that he trusts to the queen for the furtherance of Longchamp's interests. The second passage is in Epistle 124, which is addressed to Walter of Coutances, archbishop of Rouen, and is assigned to 1195. Here Peter refers to the nuntii frequently sent from the pope to the Queen, and adds, penes quam eo tempore conversabar. Since these nuntii are cited as instances of faithful friends in adversity the passage does not seem particularly applicable to the period between 1191 and 1195, when Peter is supposed to have been in Eleanor's service, writing letters to reproach Celestine III with his lukewarmness in the queen's cause, nor does the phrase penes quam conversabar necessarily imply any official connexion, such as that of secretary. Finally, in Epistle 127, written about 1197 to Odo, bishop of Paris, Peter speaks of his grief and poverty after the death of his patron Henry II. ‘Ce fut vraisemblablement alors,’ according to the Histoire Littéraire de la France,²¹ ‘que la reine Eléonore le prit à son service en qualité de secrétaire. On voit au moins par plusieurs de ses lettres qu’il remplissait cette fonction depuis l’an 1191 jusqu’à l’an 1195.’²² The only letters which bear out this statement are the three to Celestine III, and if they are rejected they carry Peter's secretaryship with them. It is worth noting too that Peter was undoubtedly chancellor or chief secretary to Richard, archbishop of Canterbury, and to his successor Baldwin, and that he is careful to style himself, when serving Richard, modicus domini Cantuariensis cancellarius,²³ or Petrus Blesensis Cantuar. archiepiscopi cancellarius,²⁴ while he witnesses a charter of Richard and an inspeximus of Baldwin.²⁵ But he never speaks of himself as Eleanor's chancellor, nor even as her clericus, nor does he witness any of her extant charters.

It remains to show that the three letters from Queen Eleanor to Pope Celestine III were probably written by Peter of Blois as rhetorical exercises, at a time when the captivity of the king of England was interesting him keenly. The letters to Celestine III form part of a group of five epistles composed by Peter on the subject of Richard Cœur; de Lion's imprisonment. Of the remaining two, one is addressed to the pope in the name of the justiciar, Walter, archbishop of Rouen, and his suffragans.²⁶ The other, which is very similar in style and argument to the letters in the Queen's name, is directly addressed by Peter to his old fellow student Conrad, archbishop of Mainz.²⁷ It occurs in all the early printed editions of Peter's epistles and in a considerable number of the manuscripts,²⁸ and is printed by Rymer in the Foedera. None of these epistles can well have been written before the beginning of the year 1193, for Richard's capture was only certainly known in England after the Christmas of 1192, through a letter from the emperor to the king of France.²⁹ The treaty between Henry VI and Leopold of Austria, which stipulated for a ransom, was drawn up on 14 Febr. 1193, but Richard does not seem to have been formally delivered over to the emperor till 23 March.³⁰ On 26 March the captive king wrote to the prior and convent of Canterbury for money,³¹ and some time after Easter Day (28 March) his messengers arrived in England with tidings of the agreement concluded between him and the emperor, while on 20 April Hubert Walter landed with full and authentic news, confirmed somewhat later by letters from Henry VI and from Richard himself, written on 19 April.³²

The letters on the captivity, then, cannot have been written by Peter of Blois before January 1193. But their date may be still more closely fixed. It is improbable that any of them, except perhaps the letter from Walter of Rouen,³³ was written before April 1193, for they contain allusions, more or less hidden beneath a veil of rhetoric, to the surrender to the emperor, the treaty with Leopold of Austria, and the ransom, showing even a knowledge of the way in which the money was raised. Thus in the letter to Conrad of Mainz (Ep. 143) the treaty is alluded to in the phrases tam crudeliter venditus, qui eum vendidit, et qui emit, while in the second of the letters from Eleanor (Ep. 145, Taedet animan) Leopold vendidit et tradidit Richard to the emperor, and in the following letter (Ep. 146, Invidente locorum distantia) there are various references to the emperor. The ransom figures largely in all four epistles. In the letter to Conrad occur the following passages:—

Rex pacificus … cum populis suis tam cupida et detestabile exactione gravatus.

Filios avaritiae, servos mammonae.³⁴

O rubigo animarum avaritia!

Filii plorationis aeternae non de fiscali aerario, non de thesauris regalibus haec accipiunt, sed de patrimonio crucifixi, de sustentatione pauperum … de ecclesiarum utensilibus; de crucibus, de calicibus consecratis. Quot solidos sibi congregant, tot accumulant sibi maledictiones.

Quidquid ad decorem domus Dei venerandae antiquitatis munificentia erogavit, nunc inexplebilis avaritiae hiatus absorbet.

Epistle 144 (Silere decreveram), the first of the Queen's letters, has—

Quidquid ecclesiarum et pauperum necessitate subtrahitur, insatiabilis avaritiae devorat ingluvies.

Tyranni saevitiam, qui de fornace avaritiae arma iniquitatis incessanter fabricat contra regem.

Epistle 145 (Taedet animam) speaks of ecclesiarum spoliatio, et generalis denique pressura sanctorum, and in Epistle 146 (Invidente locorum distantia) Eleanor is made to say—

Non erit, qui liberationem filii mei studiose procuret, et, quod magis vereor, ad impossibilem pecuniae quantitatem delicatissimus adolescens tormentis urgebitur.

The accounts in the contemporary chronicles of the collection of the ransom agree closely with these passages. According to Gervase of Canterbury³⁵

factae sunt interea exactiones durissimae … pro redemptione regis. … Deinde calices ecclesiarum et ampullae, cruces et candelabrae … capsae etiam sanctorum excoriatae sunt et conflatae.

Ralph de Diceto³⁶ describes how, in July 1193,

maiores quidem ecclesiae thesauros ab antiquis congestos temporibus, ecclesiae parochiales argenteos calices praemiserunt,

and mentions that the emperor,

ut … ad immoderatam pecuniae quantitatem nomine redemptionis solvendam regem Anglorum terroribus et exemplis impelleret, eum retrudi praecepit in castello quod dicitur Trevelles.³⁷

Jean Busée (Busœus), the second editor of the works of Peter of Blois, was, then, right in attributing the letter to Conrad of Mainz (Ep. 143) and Silere decreveram (Ep. 144) to the year 1193, and Goussainville was mistaken in changing the date to 1192,³⁸ an error which was repeated by Giles.³⁹ It follows that, since Richard was actually released from captivity in February 1194, the letters from Eleanor to the pope, if they were ever really despatched, must have been sent off in extremely quick succession. The Queen-mother appears as an importunate widow, resolved to be heard for much asking. But a close comparison of the three letters, and of these letters with the epistle to Conrad of Mainz, raises a doubt whether any of them can have been intended for transmission, and makes it, to say the least, exceedingly improbable that all of them were written for this purpose. In view of the short intervals at which these letters, if genuine, must have been received by Celestine III their similarity of thought and expression is, in itself, suspicious. The same ideas and arguments, the same phrases and quotations, recur with a persistency which can hardly be attributed to chance or carelessness, for Peter of Blois, a disciple of the school of Chartres,⁴⁰ vain of his literary style⁴¹ and of his knowledge of the ars dictandi,⁴² would be likely to take special pains with a series of epistles on so important a subject, addressed to so distinguished a correspondent. In all the letters the theme is the same—an appeal to the pope's pity, his pride, his interest, and his gratitude, to induce him to intervene on behalf of the captive crusader king. In all the Queen takes a tone of mingled pathos and menace. But the likeness extends from the general argument of the letters to the materials of which they are composed. They seem to be rough drafts of a model letter from the Queen to the pope on Richard's imprisonment, and it is hard to say which is the finished copy. It is as if Peter of Blois had jotted down a number of suitable texts of Scripture, Biblical and classical allusions, of telling phrases and historical references from the rich store of which he was justly proud,⁴³ and had then combined these elements in various ways, elaborating here, curtailing there, omitting, adding, and ‘trying effects.’⁴⁴

Thus the phrase miserae matri exhibere se patrem, in the address of Epistle 144, becomes, in the address of Epistle 146, miserae matri exhibere se misericordiae patrem. Eleanor's description of herself as misera et nulli miserabilis, which is near the end of Epistle 145, opens the second paragraph of Epistle 146. The appeal to the promises made at Châteauroux is elaborated in Epistle 144 and curtailed in Epistle 146. The allusion to the rending of Christ's garment is, in Epistle 144, introduced into the account of Henry II's efforts on behalf of Alexander III; in Epistle 146 it forms part of the final appeal to the pope. The favourite passage from Job, Sagittae Domini in me sunt, and the quotation from the 83rd psalm, Respice in faciem Christi tui, occur in Epistles 144 and 146, the text Gladius spiritus quod est verbum Dei⁴⁵ in Epistles 144 and 145, Non est aversus furor eius sed adhuc manus eius extenta in Epistles 145 and 146.

The following passages are also closely parallel:—

Epistle 144.

[The pope] ‘vicarius Crucifixi, successor Petri, sacerdos Christi, Christus Domini.’

‘Ubi est zelus Eliae in Achab? Zelus Ioannis in Herodem? Zelus Ambrosii in Valentem? Zelus Alexandri tertii?’

Epistle 145.
[Richard] ‘militem Christi, christum Domini, peregrinum
Crucifixi.’
Of Richard Eleanor says—
‘A me viscera tyrannus avulsit.’
‘Taedet animam meam vitae meae.’
‘Ubi est ergo zelus Phinees? Ubi est auctoritas Petri? Ubi est
qui dicit Zelus domus tuae comedit me?’
‘Dimitte me, Domine, ut plangam paululum dolorem meum.’(46)
Epistle 146.
[Richard] ‘christum Domini.’
Of her sons Eleanor repeats twice—
‘Avulsa sunt a me viscera mea.’
‘Mors in voto mihi est et vita in taedio.’
‘Ubi est ergo nunc praestolatio mea?’
‘Necesse tamen est ut plangam paululum dolorem meum.’

But it may be urged that, even if two of these letters be rejected as rough copies, one at least may have been sent to Rome in Eleanor's name. It may have been so, yet objections can be raised to each letter in turn which tend rather to support the theory that all three are mere rhetorical exercises. Epistle 144, Silere decreveram, which has usually been regarded as the most authentic and valuable of the series,⁴⁷ may be attacked on both diplomatic and historical grounds. The curious phrase in the address, Alienor, in ira Dei regina Anglorum, which most historians have accepted as a touch of genuine feeling, the cry of an anguished mother,⁴⁸ gives the letter, from a diplomatic point of view, a suspicious character. It does not agree with the style of Eleanor's other extant letters, in which she is either humilis regina Angliae,⁴⁹ a style occasionally used by her in her charters,⁵⁰ and employed also by her daughter-in-law, Berengaria of Navarre,⁵¹ or Dei gratia, eadem gratia,⁵² or simply Regina Angliae.⁵³ On the other hand the same phrase is used, and the idea underlying it is further developed, by Peter of Blois in Epistle 102, where, writing to Hugh, abbot of Reading, he puts into his mouth these words: In ira Dei elatus in cathedram pastoralem, and again, Antequam hunc honorem aut potius hoc onus mihi imposuisset coelestis indignatio, ad hoc enim in ira Dei vocatus sum.⁵⁴ Nor is it without significance that in the manuscript collections of Peter of Blois' epistles this letter is frequently⁵⁵ attributed to Bartholomew, archbishop of Tours, and the form A. in ira Dei, &c., is replaced by the salutation, B. divina permissione Turonensis archiepiscopus salutem et misericordiae reminisci, while in three manuscripts preserved in the Bibliothèque Nationale one, Nouveau Fonds Latin, 18588, of the thirteenth century, one, Fonds Latin, 2954, of the fourteenth, and the third, Fonds Latin, 14171, of the fifteenth century, the scribe evidently had alternative forms, which he did not fully understand, before him as he wrote. The salutation of the first of these is addressed to the pope by both Queen and archbishop:

Reverendo patri ac domino Celest[ino] Dei gratia summo pontifici A. regina Anglorum B. divina permissione Turonen. archiepiscopus salutem et misericordie reminisci.

MS. 2954 attempts, not very happily, to combine the two forms—

Reverendo patri ac domino Celestino summo pontifici alia littera archiepiscopo Turon. &c. Salutem [‘ et misericordiae reminisci ’ written in the margin], A. in ira dei gratia Regina Anglorum ducissa Normannie, &c.

The salutation of MS. 14171 runs—

Reverendo patri ac domino Celestino dei gracia summo pontifici, B. Salutem a Regina celorum [for A. Regina anglorum] divina permissione Turon. archiepiscopus salutem et misericordiae reminisci.⁵⁶

The scribe of another fifteenth-century manuscript, in the British Museum,⁵⁷ transforms the troublesome phrase A. in ira dei into a proper name, and enriches England with a hitherto unknown queen, Amirade [A in ira de(i)] regina Anglorum. It may be added that Martène and Durand printed Epistle 144 (Silere decreveram) in the Thesaurus Anecdotorum,⁵⁸ from a manuscript belonging to the cathedral of Rheims, and attributed it to Peter of Blois, writing in the name of Bartholomew of Tours, and Tanner accepted the attribution in his Bibliotheca Britannico-Hibernica.⁵⁹

From the historical no less than from the formal point of view Silere decreveram is open to attack. The writer is represented as having been present when the emperor Frederick I was excommunicated by Alexander III,⁶⁰ and also at the Châteauroux meeting in 1162 between Alexander III and Henry II of England.⁶¹ Both these assertions fit in with what is known of the career of Peter of Blois, but they agree only fairly well with the attribution of the letter to Bartholomew of Tours,⁶² and they cannot be reconciled with the known facts of Eleanor's life; for though she may possibly have gone with her husband to Châteauroux she certainly was not present when Frederick I was excommunicated at Anagni in 1161, nor, again, at Montpellier and at Clermont in 1162.⁶³ It seems, then, reasonable to assume that Epistle 144, with its doubtful attribution, its diplomatic irregularity, and its historic inaccuracy, is not a genuine product of Queen Eleanor's chancery.

To turn now to Epistle 146, Invidente locorum distantia, which in style and argument is more closely connected than Epistle 145 with Silere decreveram. Although it has some telling passages it suggests a rough sketch, or a collection of notes, rather than a finished study. It is long, prolix, and full of repetitions. The phrase Quis mihi tribuat occurs in the second and again in the fourth paragraph. Avulsa sunt a me viscera mea is repeated twice. Misera et utinam miserabilis is found in the address, and Ego misera et nulli miserabilis at the beginning of the second paragraph. The passages Gravia quidem intulit, sed certissime potestis exspectare in proxime graviora, and Initia malorum sunt haec, sentimus gravia, graviora timemus, are in close juxtaposition. The Queen is made to describe twice over the pitiable condition of Richard and the ambition of John. In the second paragraph she pictures Richard in fetters, Vinculis arctatus, while John ipsius crudeli tyrannide sibi regnum exsulis usurpare molitur. At the end of the letter she again laments, Unus eum torquet in vinculis;⁶⁴alter terras illius crudeli hostilitate devastat. She speaks of her dead sons as rex iunior et comes Britanniae, a style used by Peter of Blois in writing to Geoffrey, archbishop of York,⁶⁵ but opposed to the practice of Eleanor's chancery, where she usually characterises her sons as filius meus, or dominus filius, with an additional epithet after death, carissimus, bonae memoriae, potens.⁶⁶

To Epistle 145, Taedet animam meam, these objections apply in a minor degree, and of the three letters this appears at first sight the most likely to be genuine. Yet it can hardly be said to ring altogether true. Not only is it exaggerated and rhetorical in style, but the arguments are weaker and less cogent than those used in the other two letters. Eleanor complains in querulous tones of her age and infirmities and weariness of life. She reminds the pope of her own previous importunity, multoties vobis scripsi, a phrase which implies a close connexion between this and the other two letters. She omits to base her appeal to Celestine's gratitude and interest on the historical grounds which form the strength of Epistles 144 and 146, where the part played by England in the struggle between empire and papacy is recalled, and the pope is warned of the danger which threatens him in the growing power of Henry VI, his intervention in ecclesiastical affairs, and his disregard for the Donation of Constantine, on which Celestine's Sicilian claims were based.

Taedet animam, moreover, in common with Silere decreveram and Invidente locorum distantia, and with the letter to Conrad of Mainz, has a practical defect which makes it almost certain that the epistles to Celestine III were written independently of the clear-headed, statesmanlike old Queen. All these letters misrepresent the circumstances of Richard's captivity to an extent which renders it hardly conceivable that they were ever intended seriously to influence a pope who was familiar with the true facts of the case. They all not only speak of the king as fettered, but insist on this point and work it up with considerable dramatic effect, as is shown by the following passages:—

Epistle 143. To Conrad.

‘Vir sanguinum et cruentae conscientiae dux Austriae non est veritus in christum Domini sacrilegas manus iniicere, et pedes calceatos in Evangelio pacis ferreis humiliare compedibus.’

‘Rex illustrissimus catenis carceralibus et fame torquetur; ferrum pertransiit animam eius; sedet enim in mendicitate et ferro … Pallescit ieiunio speciosa facies victualibus interdictis, virtusque corporis in robur animae migratura, et vernans in facie decor natura succumbente marcescit.’

Epistle 144. Silere decreveram.
‘Vinculis carceralibus coarctatum
tenet, occiditque tenendo.’
Epistle 145. Taedet animam.
‘O fera pessima … qui filium meum … vinculis alligatum imperatori vendidit et tradidit.’
Epistle 146. Invidente locorum.
‘Rex Ricardus tenetur in vinculis … Filii mei pugnant inter se; si tamen pugna est, ubi unus vinculis arctatus affligitur.’
‘Non vado, ut videam quem diligit anima mea vinctum in mendicitate et ferro.’
‘Qui filium meum ligatum in carcere
tenent.’
‘Filius meus torquetur in vinculis.’
‘Unus eum torquet in vinculis.’

So marked are these allusions that Goussainville assigned the letter to Conrad to 1192, expressly on these grounds, Scripta est hace epistola Anno Christi 1192, nempe quo in vinculis erat Richardus Anglorum Rex. This date is doubtless too early,⁶⁷ but there is, in truth, no real evidence for Richard ever having been fettered during his captivity, and there is some strong evidence to the contrary. Ralph de Diceto in two passages certainly speaks of the king as in vinculis,⁶⁸ but he also says that the duke of Austria would not fetter the feet of a king;⁶⁹ and we have the testimony of the author of the Itinerarium Regis Ricardi,⁷⁰ who is anxious to make the most of the unmerited sufferings of his hero, to the fact that Richard was not fettered. His account is confirmed by such good authorities as the German chronicler Ansbert, Gervase of Canterbury, a man closely connected with Hubert Walter, who had been with Richard in Germany, and Ralph of Coggeshall, whose account of the king's capture is so full and picturesque that if he could have heightened it by fettering the royal prisoner he would assuredly have done so. Ansbert speaks of the honourable fashion in which Leopold treated his captive.⁷¹ Gervase⁷² and Ralph of Coggeshall⁷³ mention the strict watch which the emperor kept over him, an unnecessary precaution if he had been in fetters. Finally there is the conclusive testimony of Richard's own letter to the prior and convent of Canterbury, written from Spires on 26 March 1193, in which he describes himself as in manu imperatoris, qui nos recepit in osculo pacis et dilectionis, promittens firmiter nobis et regno nostro consilium et auxilium impendere.⁷⁴ From this time onwards he was in constant communication with England, sending for money and ships,⁷⁵ writing letters, and receiving friends; and when, on 19 April, he wrote to the Queen-mother and the justiciars to authorise the collection of the ransom he could speak of his honourable reception by the emperor and empress at Hagenau, and of the mutuum foedus amoris et indissolubile which Henry VI had concluded with him.⁷⁶ In any case it is quite certain that after the agreement made between Richard and the emperor in March 1193 he was, if strictly guarded, neither in ferro nor in mendicitate. Since it is improbable that the letters to Celestine III were written before this date⁷⁷ the pathetic picture of the fettered king languishing in misery must be regarded as a mere rhetorical device on the part of Peter of Blois, and a device ill-calculated to impress a pope who was in close touch with England at the time,⁷⁸ and must have been well acquainted with the details of Richard's imprisonment.

The tradition, then, that Queen Eleanor caused the three letters to Celestine III to be drawn up in Latin by her secretary, Peter of Blois, and that the pope was thereby induced to intervene in Richard Cœur; de Lion's cause,⁷⁹ is not borne out by the internal evidence of the letters themselves. From the literary point of view they are too tautological and diffuse, from the diplomatic point of view they are too fanciful and unusual, from the historical point of view they are too inaccurate and exaggerated to be accepted as genuine. When to this positive evidence is added the negative evidence that they have only been preserved among the Epistolae of Peter of Blois a strong presumption will be created in favour of regarding them as fresh examples of those ‘imaginary letters,’ or scholastic exercises in epistolary form, which were so much in vogue in the twelfth century⁸⁰ with the professors of that Ars dictaminis of which Peter of Blois was an accomplished exponent. They appear, however, to be rather models, drawn up by the master's hand, than exercises written by students for correction by a master, and it may be assumed that they were added by Peter of Blois himself to the Summa or collection of his letters which he began at the express command of Henry II,⁸¹ and that they represent three variations on one theme, the historical theme, which the versatile archdeacon elsewhere treated in a poetic vein, of the unlawful imprisonment of an English king who was also a crusader.⁸² With their authenticity will vanish Queen Eleanor's claim to be, in John Bale's words, mulier erudita, and the theory that Peter of Blois lived at the Queen's court as her secretary will lose its chief support.

Yet even this destructive criticism is not without a constructive side. In clearing away the accumulations of historical tradition the foundations of historical truth are sometimes laid bare. The three letters to Celestine III may be used as the basis of a theory which helps to fill an unexplained gap in the biography of Peter of Blois, and they go far, also, to clear up a doubtful point in the itinerary of Henry II. In the year 1162, during the papal schism and the struggle between the emperor Frederick I and the papacy, Alexander III took refuge in France. After solemnly excommunicating the anti-pope, Victor IV, and the emperor at Montpellier he proceeded by way of Clermont, where the excommunication was renewed,⁸³ to the monastery at Dol, or Déols,⁸⁴ on the Indre, on the opposite bank of the river to the famous stronghold of Châteauroux (Castrum Radulphi).⁸⁵ Here he is said to have had an interview with Henry II, who remained with him for three days (18-20 Sept. 1162), and loaded him with gifts. From Dol the pope went on to Tours, where he spent Christmas, and thence to Paris, returning to Tours for the council in the spring of 1163.⁸⁶ For these details we have the authority of the biographer of Alexander III, Boso, cardinal-deacon of SS. Cosmo and Damian,⁸⁷ who was with the pope at Dol, where he witnessed the papal grants of privileges on 20 Sept. and 24 Sept. 1162.⁸⁸ The contemporary chroniclers, English and French, scarcely mention the meeting between Alexander III and Henry II. Even the Chronicle of Tours only notes the fact of the king's visit, without giving details,⁸⁹ and modern historians have doubted whether it ever really took place.⁹⁰ But Peter of Blois writes of it with full knowledge, and his account is in complete accordance with the description of the interview given by Boso. Haec apud castrum Radulphi vidimus, writes Peter, ubi etiam Romanorum votis … plenioribus xeniis auri et argenti regia munificentia satisfecit.⁹¹ Some thirty years earlier Boso had written—

In diebus illis predictus rex Anglorum domnum Alexandrum papam apud Dolense monasterium corporali praesentia visitavit. … Sed post oscula pedum aureis oblatis muneribus ad oscula eiusdem pontificis est receptus … et largitis magnis muneribus sibi et fratribus suis, cum laetitia recessit ab eo.⁹²

It is a tempting hypothesis, though it cannot be absolutely proved, that Peter of Blois was himself present at the meeting at Dol. He went to Rome about 1161, to do honour to Alexander III, and was ill-treated by the followers of the anti-pope.⁹³ After this his biographers lose sight of him, until they find him a few years later studying at Paris. What is more likely than that he returned to France in the train of Alexander III, journeyed with him to Dol, and on to Tours, in his own country, near to his birthplace, Blois, and the scene of his early studies, and so to Paris?⁹⁴ Such a theory would supply a missing link in the biography of Peter of Blois, and would explain his use of the first person when, in Epistle 144, he wrote of the emperor's excommunication, and of the interview with the English king at Châteauroux. Be this as it may, the letters written by Peter of Blois in 1193,⁹⁵ by their incidental agreement with the contemporary biography of Alexander III, lend weight to the testimony of Boso, establish the fact of the meeting at Dol, and set at rest the vexed question of the whereabouts of Henry II from 18 to 20 Sept. in the year 1162.

Notes

1. Bale, Mai. Brit. Script. Catal. no. liv. p. 247 (1559); Tanner, Bibl. Brit. Hibern., ed. Wilkins (1748), p. 28; Hist. Litt. de la France, tome xxi.; T. Duffus Hardy, Descr. Catal. vol. iii. no. xxiii. p. 19.

2. R. Hoveden, iii. 208.

3. Tome xix. p. 279.

4. Concil. xxii. 594.

5. For Leopold's excommunication see R. Hoveden, iii. 274, 275, n. 1, 277. For the pope's letter of 6 June 1194 see R. de Diceto, ii. 119.

6. J. M. Watterich, Pontificum Romanorum Vitae, ii. 733, note, Leipzig, 1872.

7. Hist. d’Eléonor de Guyenne, Duchesse d’Aquitaine, 1691.

8. Ibid. ed. Cussac (1788), ‘Supplément,’ pp. 437-8.

9. A. Richard, Hist. des Comtes de Poitou, ii. 282-3. Ce n’est qu’aprės avoir reçcu trois lettres d’Aliénor que le pape se décida d’agir, &c.

10. Two, to Pope Alexander III and to the cardinal-deacon Jacincta (Hyacinth) of Sancta Maria in Cosmedin (afterwards Pope Celestine III) in D’Achery, Spicilegium, ed. Paris, 1723, the third, written in the year 1200 from Fontevrault to her son King John, in Rymer's Foedera, taken from the charter rolls.

11. R. Hoveden, iii. sub ann. 1192-4; Gerv. Cant. i. 515-9; R. de Diceto, ii. sub ann. 1192-4; R. Coggeshall, sub ann. 1192-4.

12. Memorials of Rich. I, ii. (Epp. Cantuar.), 352, 353.

13. Rymer, Foedera, vol. i. London, 1704. The editors of the Record edition of the Foedera place in the margin, instead of a citation of the authority, a reference to the preface to the book, from which we may conjecture that they were suspicious of these letters. The preface, however, was never written.

14. Bibl. Brit. Hibern. p. 28.

15. Cf. Hist. Litt. de la France, xxi. 786 seq.

16. J. Merlin, Paris, 1519; Jean Busée, Mainz, 1600; Pierre de Goussainville, Paris, 1667.

17. I have examined fifty-five manuscripts of Peter of Blois in the libraries of Oxford and Cambridge, in the British Museum, and in the Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris. Of these twenty-one contain all three letters, three have two out of the three, three have only one letter, and in twenty-eight none of the letters are included.

18. Cf. Dict. of Nat. Biogr. art. ‘Peter of Blois;’ A. Molinier, Sources de l’Histoire de France, ii. 201 (1913).

19. The references are to J. A. Giles's edition of the works of Peter of Blois, Oxford, 1847; but the same order in the arrangement of the letters, which is that of Goussainville, is preserved in Migne's reprint (Patrol. Lat. vol. 207).

20. Gerv. Cant. i. 512; R. Hoveden, iii. Pref. p. lxxxix. But cf. W. Newburgh, in Chronicles of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I (Rolls Series), i. 346.

21. Tome xv. p. 344.

22. Kingsford in the Dict. of Nat. Biogr. xlv. 48. ‘After 1191 he went to Queen Eleanor in Normandy, and during the next few years acted as her secretary.’ Eleanor's three letters (nos. 144-6) are the only authority given for this statement.

23. Ep. 38.

24. Ep. 130.

25. Round, Cal. of Documents, France, i. no. 459, p. 162; no. 854, p. 307.

26. Ep. 64.

27. Ep. 143.

28. Twenty-five out of the fifty-five manuscripts I have consulted. One of these, a fifteenth-century manuscript (New College, Oxford, MS. 127, ep. 129. f. 189 r°), has an unusual and incoherent address which points to some confusion with the letters to the pope on the same subject. It runs thus: Reverendo papae et domino C. dei gratia C. archiepiscopo P. B. salutem in Auctore salutis.

29. R. Hoveden, iii. 194 seq.

30. For the treaty see Pertz, Mon. Germ., Leges, ser. iv. 2, A.D. 1193; cf. R. Hoveden, iii. 194 seq.; R. de Diceto, ii. 106 seq.

31. Mem. of Rich. I, ii (Epp. Cant.), 362.

32. R. Hoveden, iii. 199, 205, 208-11.

33. And even here there is mention of the enormity of compelling a pilgrim to ‘redeem’ himself.

34. Referring to the duke and the emperor.

35. Vol. i. p. 519.

36. Ibid. ii. 110.

37. Ibid. ii. 106-7.

38. Petri Blesensis Bathoniensis in Anglia Archidiaconi Opera Omnia (Paris, 1667), ‘Variae Lectiones et Notae’ (notes by Busée in his edition of 1600 supplemented by those of Goussainville).

39. The letters themselves are not dated.

40. Chartres was famous for its letter-writers: see Clerval, Ecoles de Chartres au Moyen Age (Paris, 1895), p. 293 seq. This connexion is not noticed in the article on Peter of Blois in the Dictionary of National Biography.

41. Ep. 92.

42. Cf. his ‘Libellus de Arte Dictandi’ (Patrol. Lat. p. 207, col. 1127).

43. Ep. 92.

44. This is the more probable because many of the same phrases occur in Peter's other ‘crusade’ writings—the ‘Passio Reginaldi Principis olim Antiocheni’ (Patrol. Lat. 207, col. 958) and the ‘De Hierosolymitana Peregrinatione’ (Ibid. col. 1057). They are also worked up into his verses on Richard's captivity in the ‘Cantilena de Luctu Carnis et Spiritus’ (ibid. col. 1128 seq.)

45. Eph. vi. 17.

46. Judges xi. 37.

47. Hist. Litt. de la France, xxi. 786 seq.: Epp. 145 and 146 are called moins vives et plus diffuses. Historiens de France, xix. 279 note: Epp. 145 and 146 are described as amplioris prolixitatis et minoris sobrietatis, et parum admodum ad historiam conducentes.

48. Hist. Litt. de la France, xxi. 786: La malheureuse mère révèle ainsi ses chagrins et ses terreurs; cf. Historiens de France, xix. 279, note; Tamizey de Larroque, Observations sur l’histoire d’Eléonore de Guyenne (extrait de la Revue d’Aquitaine), Paris, 1864; A. Richard, Hist. des Comtes de Poitou, ii. 439, La phrase … qui est bien le cri du Cœur; d’une mère affligée. Moi Aliénor, par la colère de Dieu, reine des Anglais.

49. D’Achery, Spicilegium, iii. 528, letter to Alexander III.

50. Round, Cal. of Documents, France, i. nos. 1096, 1098.

51. Ibid. no. 1317.

52. Cf. Eleanor's letter to King John, A.D. 1200, in Rymer, Foedera, i.

53. D’Achery, Spicilegium, iii. 528, letter to Cardinal Jacincta (Hyacinth).

54. Ep. 102.

55. Out of thirty-two manuscripts which contain this epistle fifteen have the in ira dei form of address, seven are in the name of Bartholomew of Tours, three combine the two addresses, one has the corrupt form Amirade regina Anglorum, and six are without address or salutation. It is, perhaps, worth notice that all the manuscripts in which the letter is attributed to Bartholomew of Tours, and also the three manuscripts with the double attribution, are in the Bibliothèque Nationale.

56. Goussainville, in his notes on Ep. 144, gives these combined addresses, which he found in three manuscripts, as in his opinion ‘corrupt.’

57. Harl. MS. 3672, f. 155, r°, col. 1, Ep. 144. The mistake could easily be made by an ingenious and ignorant scribe. In a fourteenth-century manuscript belonging to St. John's College, Cambridge (C, 5), which contains this letter (no. 134), the A in ira might be read either Amira or Anura, since the ‘i's’ are not dotted, and the jambages of the ‘n’ and the two ‘i's,’ ini[ra], are connected. In MS. Ff. v. 46, 1, in the Cambridge University Library, also of the fourteenth century (f. 196, r°, no. 129), the A. in ira has been underlined, and a later hand has written in the margin A m ira, as if puzzled by the unusual form. These confusions all point to the unfamiliar character of the address, and render the letter in which it occurs still more suspicious.

58. Tome i. col. 639. Paris, 1717.

59. P. 28. Hae tres epistolae primo impressae sunt inter Petri Blesensis epistolas no. 144, 145, 146. Primam vero rectius edidere Martene et Durand sub nomine B. archiepiscopi Turonensis.

60. Zelus Alexandri tertii, qui, sicut audivimus et vidimus, patrem istius principis [Henry VI] Fredericum plena auctoritate apostolicae sedis solemniter et terribiliter praescidit.

61. Haec apud castrum Radulphi vidimus.

62. Barthélemy de Vendôme, son of Geoffroy Grise-Tunique, comte de Vendôme, was dean of Tours from 1155 to 1174, and archbishop from 1174 to his death in 1206 (Liron, Bibl. Chartraine, pp. 96-7; Ulysse Chevalier, Bio-Bibliographie, Paris, 1903). He may have been at Châteauroux, which is not far from Tours, and he was doubtless present, if not at Montpellier, at least at the council of Tours in May 1163, when the excommunication of the ‘schismatics’ was repeated, though, according to Draco Normannicus, the emperor was specially excepted (Historiens de France, xii. 476); Draco Normannicus, lib. iii. c. xv. in Chron. of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, ii. 751.

63. Jaffé-Wattenbach, ii. nos. 10626, 10627, 10628, 10718, pp. 150-7.

64. A phrase which occurs three times in this letter.

65. Ep. 113. He calls Geoffrey of Brittany dux, however: Rex iunior duxque Britanniae.

66. Round, Cal. of Documents, France, i. nos. 1080, 1093, 1096, 1097, 1099, 1101.

67. See above, p. 83.

68. Ymagines Hist. (Opp. ii. 106-7): Iohannes Moritonii comes cum audisset fratrem suum … in vinculis, illectus est spe magna regnandi … Ricardus … rex Anglorum dum teneretur in vinculis … scripsit. …

69. Ibid.: Qui licet pedes regis in compedibus non humiliaverit, importunitate tamen custodum plus ad malam mansionem perduxit quam si duris artasset in vinculis.

70. Itin. Reg. Ric. (Mem. of Ric. I, i. 444): Ille rex inclitus tractatur indignis, et si non vinculis sed ineptis custodiis.

71. Hist. de Expug. Frid. Imp., in R. Hoveden, iii. Pref. p. xci.

72. Manu militum armatorum die noctuque vicissim vigilantium sub artissima tentus custodia (Opp. i. 516).

73. Dux … regem … strenuis militibus suis custodiendum tradidit, qui die noctuque strictis ensibus arctissime eum ubique custodierunt. … Dux Austriae regem Ricardum imperatori … tradidit custodiendum, qui diligentissime custodi fecit eum … copiosam militum et servorum turbam … deputans, qui eum in omnibus locis die noctuque gladiis accincti comitarentur, et lectulum regis ambirent, &c. But after the conference in March 1193, coepit imperator regem vehementer honorare (R. Coggeshall, pp. 56, 58, 60).

74. Mem. of Ric. I, ii. (Epp. Cant.), 362.

75. R. Hoveden, iii. 206 seqq.

76. Ibid. iii. 208 seq. It is here that Hoveden mentions the letter from the pope to the English clergy which is supposed to have been written in response to Eleanor's appeals. After speaking of the letter from Celestine and his threats of excommunication he adds, His et aliis admonitionibus domini papae et universorum cardinalium, et consilio virorum sapientium, imperator Romanorum et rex Angliae facti sunt amici. But if Eleanor's letters were not written till the beginning of April it is impossible that they should have produced this result.

77. See above p. 82.

78. In connexion with the election of Hubert Walter to the archbishopric of Canterbury. Cf. Mem. of Ric. I, ii. (Epp. Cant.), 358 seq.

79. So Busée, in his Epistola Dedicatoria to his edition of the works of Peter of Blois, writes, Quis tunc aut crebrius, aut vehementius, nomine Reginae Anglicanae, Celestini ecclesiae Monarchae aliorumque Principum aures, quam Blesensis pulsavit, ut florentissimi adolescentis, qui cum tanta sui Christianique nominis gloriae [leg. gloria] contra infestos humani generis hostes in Oriente depugnasset, tandem misererentur?

80. See A. Cartellieri, Ein Donaueschinger Briefsteller: Lateinische Stilübungen des XII. Jahrhunderts aus der Orleans'schen Schule, Innsbruck, 1898; L. Rockinger, Briefsteller und Formelbiicher des 11ten bis 14ten Jahrhunderts (Quellen und Erörterungen zur Bayerischen und Deutschen Gesch. ix. 1, München, 1863).

81. See his first or introductory epistle.

82. Cf. the ‘Cantilena de Luctu Carnis et Spiritus,’ Patrol. Lat. 207, col. 1128 seq. (ante, p. 84, n. 44).

83. April 1162. Jaffé, ii. nos. 10707, 10718, 10719, 10729; Patrol. Lat. 200, col. 19, ‘Vita Alex. III.’ Not. Hist.

84. Or Bourg-Dieu (Monasterium Burgi Dolensis).

85. The castle of Ralph of Déols.

86. Jaffé, sub ann. 1162-3; Boso, Vit. Alex. III, in Watterich, Pont. Rom. Vit. ii. 393.

87. Watterich, op. cit. ii. 389 seq.

88. Patrol. Lat. 200, col. 168-74.

89. Historiens de France, xvii. (Chron. Turon.)

90. Jaffé, ii. no. 10757, p. 161, and Patrol. Lat. 200, col. 168, give a letter written by Alexander III to Louis VII of France on 17 Sept. 1162, in which he says that he hopes to see Henry II at Déols, in Berri, where he is sojourning, in proxima tertia feria—that is, on 18 Sept. On the strength of this letter Stubbs (Gesta Henr. II, vol. ii. ‘Outline Itinerary of Hen. II,’ p. cxxxiii) and Eyton (Court, Household, and Itinerary of Henry II, sub ann. 1162) place the king at Déols on 18 Sept. 1162, but hesitatingly, with a note of interrogation.

91. Ep. 144; cf. the opening of the passage: Quare non appenditis in libra iustitiae beneficia quae bonae memoriae Henricus pater istius regis vobis, sicut vidimus, in articulo summae necessitatis exhibuit?

92. Watterich, Pont. Rom. Vit. ii. 393.

93. Ep. 48.

94. It is perhaps fanciful to see a confirmation of this theory in Ep. 48, where he mentions Cardinal Jacincta (Hyacinth), who travelled to France with Alexander, and speaks of the schism as a storm threatening the ship of St. Peter, a simile used by Alexander III himself in a letter to the patriarch of Grado, written in 1161 (Watterich, op. cit. ii. 515), and also used by Peter of Blois in Ep. 144 in connexion with the Châteauroux incident.

95. Epp. 144 and 146. Ep. 145 does not mention the Châteauroux incident.