^{page 1 note 1} It should be noted that, although Bémont, M., in the English edition of his book (Oxford, 1930), uses the important essay in Davidsohn's Forschungen, he does not use the equally suggestive material noted by Davidsohn in the course of his History.Google Scholar

^{page 2 note 1} Bémont, (Eng. ed.), pp. xiv–xvi.Google Scholar The manuscript compiled by Pierre Clairembault, now fonds Clairembault, no. 1188, was one of a great collection formed by Clairembault for the purpose of a history of the Order of the Holy Ghost, and was originally no. 78 in this series. It contains a few originals, which are pasted in, and copies of documents which were in the Montfort archives. These archives came to Clairembault in 1707 and 1708. Bémont printed some of the contents of the Clairembault MS. in the first edition (Paris, 1884) of his book on Simon de Montfort (Appendix, nos. ii, xxviii bis, xxx, xxxi, xxxiii, xxxiv, xxxviii, xxxix, xlviii–liv).

^{page 3 note 1} The archbishop gave Amaury the prebend on 5 July, 1260, while he was in London “pro negotio domini regis Francorum,” and installed him at Rouen on 14 August (Journal des visites pastorales d'Eude Rigaud, edit. Th. Bonnin, Rouen, 1852, pp. 369, 370). Amaury obviously accompanied him back to Normandy.Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 2} Bacon, Roger, Opus Tertium, edit. Brewer, J. S. (Rolls Series), p. 35.Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 3} I deduce this from a combination of the evidence given by Bénont, , first edition, pp. 251, 372, and English edition, p. 259.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 1} Amaury was treasurer of the church of York, and was believed to have taken the treasure with him. Pope Clement IV refused to recognise the validity of the act of deprivation issued by King Henry after Evesham: see the papal letters, dated Viterbo, 19, March, 1267 (Cal. Pap. Letters, i, 434). Amaury by this time was apparently in Viterbo.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 2} See the letter to the Friars Minor of London, Cronica maiorum et vicecomitum Londoniarum (London, 1846), p. 134.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 3} Flores Historiarum, ed. Luard, (Rolls Series), iii, 67.Google Scholar Professor Vinaver tells me that the traitor Guenelon appears in the following epic poems: Saisnes, Macaire, Fierabras, Girart de Vienne, Gaufrey, Renaut de Montauban, Gisbert de Metz. Cf. Dante, , Inferno, xxxii, 123.Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 1} Although evidence can be found for this statement (cf. below, p. 19), it should be pointed out that Richard's good offices were promised under duress, when he was in the younger Simon's power at Kenilworth after the battle of Evesham. Some days before he was released (he reached his manor of Wallingford on 9 Sept., 1265) he entered into a written obligation, which was sealed with the seals of three pledges, to befriend, aid and counsel Eleanor, her children and household. The instrument, which survives in the French archives (Trésor des Chartes, J. 1024, no. 14; cf. Bemont, (Eng. ed.), p. xvii),Google Scholar is dated from the friary at Kenilworth, the Sunday before the feast of the Nativity of Our Lady, in the forty–ninth year of King Henry, i.e., 6 Sept., 1265. The inference that Richard was asked to make this promise as a condition of his release is obvious. Blaauw, , who printed the document (ed. 1871, pp. 363–4),Google Scholar missed the point of it (p. 331).

^{page 6 note 1} Col. Pat. Rolls, 1266–7, pp. 140, 141Google Scholar (letters of 24 May and 2 June, 1267); and Royal Letters, edit. Shirley, (Rolls Series), ii, 315Google Scholar (letters close of 6 Sept., 1267). On 21 February King Henry had agreed to abide by the judgment of King Louis if it were given by Easter (ibid., p. 130). On 6 April, 1268, the time-limit was extended to Michaelmas, 1268 (ibid., p. 217). Bémont deals too cursorily with these negotiations (Eng. ed., p. 263).

^{page 6 note 2} See Edward's letter to Charles of Salerno, 11 April, 1279 (Rymer ed. 1816, I, ii, 568), the letter from the bishop of London to Archbishop Pecham, 14 Feb., 1282, reporting a conversation with the King at Bibury (Registrum Epistolarum fratris Johannis Peckham, Rolls Series, i, 298)Google Scholar and the letter from the archbishop and his suffragans to Martin IV, 23 April, 1282 (ibid., p. 327).

^{page 7 note 1} I hope at some later date to deal with the career of Amaury de Montfort.

^{page 9 note 1} Blaauw, p. 339, note 4. The document was printed later in the Layettes du Tresor des Chartes, vol. iii (ed. Laborde, J. de, Paris, 1873), p. 456,Google Scholar no. 4476. It is dated the Wednesday before Easter, 1258, “apud Nonacuriam” (probably Nonancourt in Normandy). As Earl Simon used the “Easter” style in dating, this is 6 April, 1259, according to modern usage, not 1258 as Blaauw thought. Simon was in France at this date, but not on the corresponding date in 1258.

^{page 9 note 2} Davidsohn, , Geschichte von Florenz, II, i, 612.Google Scholar Charles was accepted as the podestà of Florence, and quietly displaced Clement IV as ruler of the city and of Tuscany. Villani, to whom the name of Guy was familiar and that of Philip unknown, says that it was Guy who acted on this occasion for King Charles. Guy was probably still in France early in 1267. For the career of Philip in Italy, see Jordan, E., Les Origines de la domination Angevine en Italie (Paris, 1909), pp. 403, 574, 591, 594.Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 3} Bémont, who overlooks the career of Philip de Montfort, thinks that the name Philip is a mistake for Simon, and that the two brothers, Simon and Guy, were sent by Charles to Sicily.

^{page 10 note 1} Charles, in his deeds, frequently refers to Philip and also to Guy as his cognati.

^{page 10 note 2} The evidence given by Blaauw (p. 338) from Landinus, a commentator of Dante, that Guy was arrested by the pope on his arrival in Italy and was released at the instance of Charles early in 1267, cannot be trusted. It was easy for later writers to confuse Guy with Philip (as we have seen) and to ascribe later enmity to an earlier period. Villani's chronology, for example, is hopeless.

^{page 11 note 1} Primat, , in Mon. Germ. Hist. Scriptores, xxvii, 662;Google Scholar also Nangis, GuiUaume de, in Rec. des Historiens de France, xx, 434, 436. These chronicles of St. Denis are not independent of each other. Probably Primat was followed by Nangis. Primat survives in a later French translation (after 1328), Nangis in Latin and his own French translation.Google Scholar

^{page 11 note 2} Simon was apparently in France in the spring of 1268 (Bémont, ed. 1, p. 251 note) and may still have been negotiating with Henry III in the course of the year (cf. above, p. 6, n. 1). In 1270 he acted as Guy's unofficial colleague in Tuscany (see the register compiled by Davidsohn, from the Florentine archives, Forschungen, ii, no. 1204, 9 Oct., 1270).Google Scholar

^{page 12 note 1} See the Additional Note at the end of this paper. It appears from a letter of John de Montfort, written on Guy's behalf in 1289 (Rymer wrongly printed it under the year 1274; cf. Bémont, , Eng. ed., p. 272Google Scholar note), that Guy had fiefs at Reggio: Guy might get 1,000 florins towards his ransom “ab uno vassallorum suorum in terra sua Rheggii” (Rymer, , I, ii, 512–13).Google Scholar

^{page 12 note 2} Giudice, Del, Codice diplomatico del Regno di Carlo I^o e II^v d' Angiò. Naples, 1863, iii, 223;Google ScholarDavidsohn, , Geschichte, II, ii, 64–5.Google Scholar

^{page 13 note 1} According to a note in the Domus Caietana, i, 142Google Scholar (for this book, see note below) the monastery of St. Anastasia made a concession to this effect in May, 1269. This really meant that, although its privileges had imperial sanction, the county was held of the Holy See. It was on this ground that Pope Nicholas IV in 1291 entrusted Margherita to the protection of Cardinal Benedict Gaetani, the later Pope Boniface VIII. Guy was then in prison in Sicily: the pope says that since Guy “regimen et custodiam comitatus Soane, qui ab ecclesia Romana tenetur in feudum, quique ad dilectam in Christo filiam, nobilem mulierem Margaritam, uxorem suam, ex paterna successione devenit, personaliter exercere non potest, tibi (i.e. Benedicto Gaetani) procurationem et curam eiusdem Margarite et comitatus et aliorum castrorum terrarum et locorum ad eundem Guidonem ratione uxoris … spectantium … committimus” (Registres de Nicolas IV, edit. Langlois, E., no. 5752, 2 Aug., 1291).Google Scholar For the connection with St. Anastasia, see also Davidsohn, , Forschungen, iv, 377–8.Google Scholar Similarly, the Vexin was held of the abbot of St. Denis, and Bigorre of the bishop and chapter of le Puy.

^{page 14 note 1} Confirmation by Rudolf at Niirnberg, 24 Aug., 1281. This act survives, with other fragments from the imperial chancery, in the Pisan archives; see Ficker, , in Sitzungsberichte of the Vienna Academy, phil.-hist. Kl., xiv (1854), 169.Google Scholar Count Rosso died on 18 May, 1284.

^{page 14 note 2} Davidsohn's account of the Aldobrandine lands, and also of the life of Margaret, (Forschungen, iv, 377–86),Google Scholar may be corrected and expanded by the work of the late Caetani, Don Gelasio, Domus Caietana: storia documentata della famiglia Caetani, I, i (Sancascino Val di Pesa, 1927),Google Scholar especially pp. 132–44, 216–20, and of the authorities whom he uses. The lands of Ildebrandino Rosso, the first count of Soana and Pitigliano, were defined by the division of the patrimony between him and his uncle, Bonifacio, on 11 Dec, 1274. (Bonifacio's son Ildebrandino was the first count of Santa Fiora.) The red count's share comprised an area roughly defined by a line drawn from Monte Argentario on the west, with the adjacent islands and the town of Orbotello, to Monte Amiata (leaving Santa Fiora to the west) down the valley of the Paglia to the neighbourhood of the lake of Bolsena, thence in a south-westerly direction to the coast again. The countess Margaret, in later years, had to face claims on this territory from the papacy, the city of Orvieto, her cousins of Santa Fiora and others.

^{page 15 note 1} During the negotiations with Pope Gregory X in March, 1273, Guy seems to have withdrawn further north to be out of the reach of King Edward, who was with the pope at Orvieto. After the bull of excommunication (1 April, 1273) he fled still further north to the castle of Monte Gemoli, in the Cecina valley, not far from Volterra. This castle was an outlying Aldobrandine property. See Davidsohn, , Forschungen, iv, 205.Google Scholar

^{page 15 note 2} Ibid., p. 204 (from the State archives at Siena).

^{page 15 note 3} Ibid., p. 206. The date of this interview is uncertain.

^{page 16 note 1} The conflicting evidence on date and place is examined by Davidsohn, , Forschungen, iv (Berlin, 1908), 201 ff.Google Scholar Davidsohn gives a list of the texts which refer to the murder, but attempts no critical examination of their value. The chronicles most likely to have reliable information were Guido de Corvaria, the official Genoese chronicle or Annales Januenses (M. G. H. Scriptores, xviii, 271)Google Scholar and Gerard, , canon of Clermont (Rec. des Historiens de France, xxi, 217).Google Scholar In his excellent article on Henry of Almaine in the Dictionary of National Biography, the late Professor Tout seems to me to weave the texts together without sufficient discrimination.

^{page 17 note 1} Histories Pisanœ fragmenta, in Muratori, , Scriptores, xxiv, col. 679.Google Scholar

^{page 17 note 2} This is definitely stated by King Philip of France in his letter to Richard of Cornwall, and in the later bull of excommunication issued by Gregory X in 1273.

^{page 17 note 3} Bémont, (ed. 1), Appendix, pp. 365–7,Google Scholar an attestation from the bishop, chapter and university of Padua. authority must have been contemporary. For example, Henry of Almaine was absent when the battle of Evesham was fought; he was in France; and he had acted as one of the younger Simon's pledges, as did his father, in 1266. But it seems to me to be impossible to accept his story that at Viterbo Simon had undertaken not to attack Henry. A fact of such importance would have been mentioned at the time, and in the course of the papal inquiry two years later. It would imply that on the 12 March the Kings of France and Sicily were aware that Henry was in danger, and that an attack upon him was meditated. Moreover it would imply that Henry had already had an opportunity to open his mission of reconciliation, and that he had only succeeded in infuriating the brothers still more. All this seems most improbable.

^{page 18 note 1} In 1273 Pope Gregory X at first excepted the count from his summons (1 March) to the murderers to appear before him, then, on 6 March, included him, with safeguards (Rymer, I, ii, ed. 1816, p. 500). Later, on 4 Sept., the cardinals were entrusted with his submission to penance (Registres de Gregoire X, ed. J. Guiraud, no. 338)

^{page 18 note 2} Blaauw, p. 344 note.

^{page 18 note 3} Some Norman jottings, added to a fifteenth century fragment of the twelfth century chronicler, Robert of Torigny (Bibl. Nat., Lat. MS. 14663), give an account of the murder which, if it could be accepted, would put the crime in an entirely different light. Unfortunately we do not know from what source these “annales Normannici” come nor when they were first written : “filii Simonis de Monteforti Simon et Guido cum auxilio comitis Ruffi in ecclesia Henricum de Alamannia, filium regis Ricardi, cognatum suum, hominem prudentem et pium, qui nec in bello fuerat ubi pater illorum occisus fuerat, et pro illorum revocatione laboraverat, nequissime occiderunt, quamvis in custodia regum esset et coram eis Simon primogenitus eundetn assecurasset, et eo occiso in ecclesia apud Viterbium, recesserunt libere in terram comitis Ruffi, qui Guidoni filiam suam dederat in uxorem” (edit. Holder-Egger in M. G. H. Scriptores, xxvi, 517). The annalist is so well informed and in general so accurate that he or his authority must have been contemporary. For example, Henry of Almaine was absent when the battle of Evesham was fought; he was in France ; and he had acted as one of the younger Simon's pledges, as did his father, in 1266. But it seems to me to be impossible to accept his story that at Viterbo Simon had undertaken not to attack Henry. A fact of such importance would have been mentioned at the time, and in the course of the papal inquiry two years later. It would imply that on the 12 March the Kings of France and Sicily were aware that Henry was in danger, and that an attack upon him was meditated. Moreover it would imply that Henry had already had an opportunity to open his mission of reconciliation, and that he had only succeeded in infuriating the brothers still more. All this seems most improbable.

^{page 19 note 1} “Ad quos (Simon and Guy) restituendos ad carissimi in Christo filii nostri Edwardi Regis Angliae illustris gratiam, qua ipsos fertur eorum gravis culpa privasse, idem Henricus de voluntate memorati Siciliae ac cum mandato eiusdem Angliae Regum venerat” (Bull of excommunication, 1 April, 1273, Rymer, , I, ii, 501).Google Scholar

^{page 21 note 1} Scandone, F., Ricerche novissime sulla scuola poetica siciliana (Avellino 1900), p. 80,Google Scholar cited by Pontieri, E. in the Archivio storico per la Calabria e la Lucania, i (1931), 288.Google Scholar

^{page 21 note 2} See Sthamer, E., “Bruchstücke mittelalterlicher Enqueten aus Unteritalien,” in the Abhandlungen d. Preuss. Akad. d. Wissenschaften, 1933, Phil.-hist. Kl., fasc. 2, pp. 36, 37, for the efforts of Conrad Capece on behalf of Corradino, as revealed by King Charles's inquests.Google Scholar