^{page l note 4} Epp. nos. 313 and 314, M.P.L., cxcix, 37.Google Scholar

^{page l note 5} See below, p. 145, n. a.

^{page l note 6} Epp. nos. 92, 94–6 and 98.

^{page l note 7} The ambassadors' report to Henry was written by Peter of Blois who accompanied them (inserted in Arnulf's letters by Giles, no. 67, M.P.L., cci, 95Google Scholar; Peter, ep. no. 153, M.P.L., ccvii, 446).Google Scholar

^{page li note 1} i, 278; this later charge of complicity caused his name to be inserted earlier in one of the MSS. among the adherents of the young Henry (Benedict, , i, 51, n. 4Google Scholar). Hoveden (Chronica (Rolls Series), ii, 260Google Scholar) cuts Benedict's narrative to omit mention of Arnulf's complicity.

^{page li note 2} See below, p. 169.

^{page li note 3} See below, p. 185.

^{page li note 4} Arnulf, poem no. 14.

^{page li note 5} Cf. below, p. 42.

^{page li note 6} See above, pp. xxv, seqq.

^{page li note 7} See above, p. xiv.

^{page li note 8} See above, p. xlviii.

^{page lii note 1} See below, pp. 75 and 104.

^{page lii note 2} Ep. no. 76.

^{page lii note 3} ‘Quern semel exosum habuerat, vix in amorem; quern semel amaverat, vix in odium revocabat’, Gerald of Wales (‘Expugnatio Hibernica’), v. 304; cf. Peter of Blois, ep. no. 66, M.P.L., ccvii, 198Google Scholar. It is to be feared that only the first part is a true estimate of Henry's character.

^{page lii note 4} Benedict, , i, 77.Google Scholar

^{page lii note 5} The chronological framework is based on Eyton.

^{page liii note 1} Arnulf witnesses a royal charter at Rouen in this period (Round, , Calendar p. 34).Google Scholar

^{page liii note 2} See below, pp. 171–2.

^{page liii note 3} Below, p. 165.

^{page liii note 4} Ep. no. 106.

^{page liii note 5} Ep. no. 105.

^{page liii note 6} Epp. nos. 107 and 109.

^{page liii note 7} Ep. no. 110.

^{page liii note 8} Below, p. 166.

^{page liii note 9} Ep. no. 108.

^{page liii note 10} Ep. no. 107.

^{page liii note 11} Below, pp. 173 and 187.

^{page liv note 1} See below, p. 174, n. a, and p. 175, n. a.

^{page liv note 2} Becket to Alexander, Materials, vii, 241–2Google Scholar; Great Rolls of the Pipe, 2, 3, 4 Henry II, ed. Jos. Hunter (London, 1844), p. 61.Google Scholar

^{page liv note 3} Benedict, , i, 181Google Scholar, and ep. no. 111.

^{page liv note 4} Ep. no. 111.

^{page liv note 5} Benedict, , i, 190Google Scholar; Gervase, , i, 271.Google Scholar

^{page liv note 6} See below, p. 136, n. a.

^{page liv note 7} See below, p. lxxxii.

^{page liv note 8} Benedict, , i, 199Google Scholar, and Delehaye, ‘Pierre de Pavie, légat du pape Alexandre III en France’, in Rev. des Questions hist., vol. xlix (1891).Google Scholar

^{page liv note 9} Peter and Arnulf witness a royal charter at Caen (Round, , Calendar, p. 118).Google Scholar

^{page liv note 10} See below, pp. 183, 186–7, 189, 191 and 193.

^{page liv note 11} See below, pp. 183, 187, 189, 191 and 193.

^{page lv note 1} See below, pp. 183, 187 and 191.

^{page lv note 2} Ep. no. 120.

^{page lv note 3} Ep. no. 119.

^{page lv note 4} Below, p. 209. Walter was deputy-chancellor and keeper of the king's seal. Doubtless he looked at the matter from a purely professional stand point. As bishop of Lincoln and archbishop of Rouen he obtained the praise of Peter of Blois, ‘De Institutione Episcopi’, M.P.L., ccvii, 1099.Google Scholar

^{page lv note 5} See below, pp. 182, 189, 191, 192, 204 and 209.

^{page lv note 6} Ep. no. 131.

^{page lv note 7} See below, p. 192. Arnulf calls the charge against his nephew an ecclesiastica causa.

^{page lv note 8} He appears to have been captured later and imprisoned. See below, p. 194.

^{page lv note 9} See below, pp. 183, 189, 191 and 193. The jurors of the famous inquest of 1205 regarding royal rights at Lisieux and elsewhere, said inter alia, ‘Item diximus per sacramentum nostrum, quod vidimus Henricum et Richardum quondam Reges Angliae tenentes placitum spatae in civitate, et banleua Lexovji, postquam Arnulfus Lexoviensis Episcopus recessit a Normania exul hac de causa. (Pommeraye, F., Sanctae Rotomagensis Ecclesiae Concilia ac Synodalia Decreta (Rouen, 1677), pp. 194Google Scholarseqq.) See also Round, Calendar, pp. 476Google Scholarseqq. This certainly was the occasion of Arnulf's departure; but it seems rash to assume, as Deshays and de Formeville (op. cit. (supra p. xiii), i, dxlviij and ii, 67), that the question of jurisdiction was of long standing and the sole substance of the quarrel between Arnulf and the king. For the bishop of Lisieux's secular jurisdiction, see de Formeville, op. cit., i, dxliv seqq.

^{page lvi note 1} See below, pp. 183 and 193.

^{page lvi note 2} See below, pp. 183 and 193.

^{page lvi note 3} Below, p. 191; cf. p. 183.

^{page lvi note 4} de Formeville, H., ‘Notice sur les Chanoines de l'ancienne cathédrale de Lisieux’, pp. 477–99Google Scholar, and Histoire de l'ancien évéché-comté de Lisieux, i, cxxxvi.

^{page lvi note 5} They were both nephews of Arnulf, and Hugh was the son of the bishop's sister. But Arnulf never states that the two were brothers. Hugh must have been much younger than Silvester.

^{page lvi note 6} See above, p. xxxv.

^{page lvi note 7} Epp. nos. 33 and 132.

^{page lvi note 8} Ep. no. 132.

^{page lvi note 9} See below, p. 146.

^{page lvii note 1} See below, p. 200.

^{page lvii note 2} See below, p. 187. For the summons, see Benedict, i, 101. Arnulf had consulted Peter of Blois about resigning (Peter, ep. no. 44, M.P.L., ccvii, 128).Google Scholar

^{page lvii note 3} See below, pp. 188, 190 and 192.

^{page lvii note 4} Ep. no. 123.

^{page lvii note 5} Ep. no. 124.

^{page lvii note 6} See below, p. 192.

^{page lvii note 7} See below, p. 195.

^{page lvii note 8} Ep. no. 129.

^{page lvii note 9} Ep. no. 128.

^{page lvii note 10} ‘Translatio Corporis S. Romani in Augustiorem Thecam, Ex Archivo Cathedralis Ecclesiae’, Pommeraye, S. Rothomag. Eccl. Concilia, pp. 162–3Google Scholar, and Bessin, , Concilia Rotomag. Prov., ii, 31.Google Scholar

^{page lviii note 1} See below, pp. 208–9.

^{page lviii note 2} Benedict (i, 278) says that he collected money from every source to take to Paris.

^{page lviii note 3} See above, p. xlix, and below, pp. 209–10.

^{page lviii note 4} See below, p. 210.

^{page lviii note 5} See below, p. 201.

^{page lviii note 6} Ep. no. 103.

^{page lviii note 7} See below, p. 201.

^{page lviii note 8} It is likely that poem no. 14 was addressed to Hugh.

^{page lviii note 9} See below, p. 212.

^{page lviii note 10} See below, pp. 202 and 212.

^{page lviii note 11} See below, p. 201, note c.

^{page lviii note 12} See below, p. 202.

^{page lix note 1} Arnulf says in 1181 (below, pp. 212 and 213) that the canons have lately possessed the church for two or three years, and that their predecessors possessed it from ancient times. It is very unusual for a monastery to lose its patronage; but Gace is in the area where the boundaries between the dioceses of Lisieux and Séez were often in dispute, and it is possible that the church may once have been in the diocese of Séez, and may have been alienated by St. Victor when Séez was colonized from the Paris house.

^{page lix note 2} G.C., xi, instr. col. 210.

^{page lix note 3} Benedict (i, 278) says that Arnulf had deserted his bishopric before his resignation, and it is significant that Henry and Arnulf should have had their final interview at Gisors, on the Norman-French boundary.

^{page lix note 4} See below, pp. 213, 214 and 215. Henry was at Gisors at least three times during his stay in Normandy, in June and September 1180, and c. July 1181 (Eyton). Both Benedict (i, 278) and Torigni (p. 298) give the resignation under 1181, and Torigni says that Arnulf ruled for forty years. The last date is therefore preferable.

^{page lix note 5} Benedict, , i, 278.Google Scholar

^{page lix note 6} See below, pp. 215–6.

^{page lix note 7} Benedict and Torigni, loc. cit. He gained a reputation for great meanness, and Peter of Blois compares him unfavourably with his munificent predecessor (ep. no. 91, M.P.L., ccvii, 289).Google Scholar

^{page lix note 8} See page references, note 4.

^{page lix note 9} See below, p. 216.

^{page lix note 10} No. 141.

^{page lix note 11} Obit, given in Delisle's Chronique de R. de Torigni, i, 107Google Scholar, note 1.

^{page lix note 12} c. 1190, see G.C., xi, instr. col. 210.

^{page lx note 1} Caesarius of Heisterbach, Dialogus miraculorum, i, 138.Google Scholar

^{page lx note 2} See below, p. 67.

^{page lx note 3} Below, p. 217.

^{page lx note 4} ‘suos dies dimidiaturus apud Sanctum Victorem in domibus pulcherrimis, quas ibi ad opus suum construxerat’, Torigni, , p. 298Google Scholar, and see below, p. 210.

^{page lx note 5} Gautier, L., Œuvres poétiques d'Adam de St. Victor (Paris, 1858–1859).Google Scholar

^{page lx note 6} H.L., xiv, 549.Google Scholar

^{page lx note 7} H.L., xv, 69.Google Scholar

^{page lx note 8} See below, p. 192.

^{page lx note 9} For the month, see the Obit. The year of his death is given only by the Annales Uticenses, v, 163Google Scholar, where the cui successit rather weakens the date.

^{page lx note 10} Obit, loc. cit.

^{page lx note 11} Jean de Thoulouze, quoted by Franklin, Alfred, Histoire de labibliothèque de l'abbaye de St. Victor (Paris, 1865), p. 49Google Scholar, note 4.

^{page lx note 12} Arnulf, poem no. 14.