Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T23:44:54.877Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Alleged Condemnation of King John by the Court of France in 1202

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2009

Kate Norgate
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The scope of this paper is strictly defined by its title; its subject is the judgment said to have been pronounced upon John Lackland in 1202, and nothing else. I do not intend to discuss that other judgment which John is said to have undergone, in 1203 or later, for the murder of Arthur; nor the composition of the court before which the trial, on either or both of these occasions, is supposed to have been held. With respect to the so-called ‘second condemnation’ I will only say—for the sake of making my own attitude clear—that, notwithstanding the arguments recently put forth by M. Guilhiermoz in support of its reality, I am still content to abide by the conclusion which the generality of historical scholars, on both sides of the Channel, have for the last six teen years regarded as established by M. Bémont: that the ‘condemnation of 1203’ is fictitious. My study of the evidence relating to the matter has, however, led me to form the opinion that the condemnation of 1202 is fictitious likewise. It is with reference to this point alone that I venture to offer a few considerations.

Type
Research Article
Information
Transactions of the Royal Historical Society , Volume 14 , December 1900 , pp. 53 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Historical Society 1900

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 53 note 1 Bibliothèque de l' Ecole des Charles (1899), t. lx. pp. 45–85.

page 53 note 2 De Johanne, cognomine Sine Terra, Angliœ rege, Luteliœ Parisiorum anno 1202 condemnato (Paris, Picard, 1884)Google Scholar; Revue historique, Sept.–Dec. 1886, t. xxxii. pp. 33–72, 290–311. See also Bibliothèque de l' Ecole des Chartes, 1899, t. lx. pp. 363–372, and Revue historique, Sept. 1899, t. lxxi. pp. 33–41.

page 54 note 1 Œuvres de Rigord et de Guillaume le Breton, ed. Delaborde, (Soc. de l' Hist. de France), vol. i. pp. 151–2Google Scholar.

page 54 note 2 20 Phil. Aug. (= Oct. 31, 1201—Oct. 30, 1202).

page 54 note 3 From Soissons, where he was in December 1201; see M. Delaborde's note, p. 151.

page 54 note 4 Œuvres de Rigord et de Guillaume le Breton, ed. Delaborde, , vol. i. pp. 207, 209–10Google Scholar.

page 55 note 1 William, has left another account of these matters in his Philippis 1. 6, vv. 82–205Google Scholar (Œuvres, ed. Delaborde, , vol. ii. pp. 154–9Google Scholar). It differs slightly in detail from the passage which I have quoted from his prose history, but agrees with it in omitting all allusion to a ‘sentence’ upon John.

page 55 note 2 Ed. Stubbs, ii. pp. 93, 94.

page 55 note 3 I.e. after John's visit to Paris (July, 1201).

page 55 note 4 Ed. Stevenson, pp. 135, 136.

page 56 note 1 Ed. Hewlett, vol. i. pp. 313.

page 56 note 2 I.e. 1201 in modern reckoning; Roger's years begin on Christmas Day.

page 57 note 1 Epist. 1. vi. no. 167, addressed to King John, and dated October 29, 1203; Migne, , Patrol. Lat. vol. ccxvi. cols. 183, 184Google Scholar.

page 58 note 1 Roger's statement is confirmed by Ralph de Diceto (ed. Stubbs, ii. 173), who says that a conference took place at Gouleton on March 25.

page 61 note 1 Archbishop Hubert of Canterbury was, as has been seen, actually at the French court at the time when the sentence is supposed to have been passed.

page 61 note 2 Such an omission would be strangest of all on the part of William the Breton, if Guilhiermoz, M. be right in supposing that this author, at any rate when writing his Philippis, ‘ait eu sous les yeux des pièces de la procédure’ (Bibl. de l' Ecole des Chartes, t. lx. p. 76, note 2)Google Scholar.

page 62 note 1 I.e. from the opening of 1201 to the Lent of 1202. I may observe, in passing, that Ralph of Coggeshall dates the appeal of the Lusignans to Philip a year too late. He represents it as having been made in 1202. But Innocent represents Philip as stating that when he issued his citation to John—the date of which is fixed by other evidence to Lent 1202—he had been ‘for more than a year,’ in consequence of complaints made to him by the injured barons, vainly remonstrating with John in their behalf. It is certain that John's spoliation of the Lusignans had begun quite early in 1201; see Rot. Chart. p. 102 (March 6 and 8, a. r. 2).

page 64 note 1 Innoc. III. Epist. 1. 8, no. 7 (Migne, , Patrol, vol. ccxvi, col. 564Google Scholar).

page 64 note 2 Bibl, de l' Ecole des Chartes, t. Ix, p. 49, note 1.

page 64 note 3 Ibid. p. 46.

page 64 note 4 Ibid. p. 48, note 3.

page 64 note 5 Ibid. p. 46.

page 65 note 1 Ibid. p. 48.

page 65 note 2 See , M. Bénont's commentary, Revue historique, t. xxxii, p. 307Google Scholar; and that of M. Petit-Dutaillis, t. lxxi (Sept. 1899), pp. 34, 35.

page 65 note 3 I am happy to find myself on this point in complete accord with M. Petit-Dutaillis. I leave the above paragraph as I wrote it in July 1899, before I had teen his article, published in the Revue historique, Sept. 1899.

page 66 note 1 I allude to the distinction drawn by M. Guilhiermoz (p. 65) between ‘real’ and ‘official’ ignorance on the part of the Pope. M. Guilhiermoz draws this distinction in connection with the Pope's silence respecting the murder of Arthur and its (real or supposed) juridical consequences. My point is that with regard to the alleged condemnation in 1202, ‘official’ ignorance would have been as impossible as ‘real’ ignorance, had that condemnation actually taken place.