[1033] Geoff. Vigeois, l. i. c. 70 (Labbe, _Nova Biblioth._, vol. ii. p. 324). [1034] _Ib._ c. 72 (p. 326). [1035] _Ibid._ He was their half-brother, the only son of their mother’s first marriage. [1036] Cf. _Gesta Hen._ (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 292, with Gerv. Cant. (Stubbs), vol. i. p. 303, and Gir. Cambr., _De Instr. Princ._, dist. iii. c. 8 (Angl. Christ. Soc., p. 105). [1037] Clédat, _Bert. de Born_, pp. 44, 45. One of the most puzzling figures in the history of the time is that of the younger Henry of Anjou--the “young king,” as he is usually called. From the day of his crowning to that of his death not one deed is recorded of him save deeds of the meanest ingratitude, selfishness, cowardliness and treachery. Yet this undutiful, rebellious son, this corrupter and betrayer of his younger brothers, this weak and faithless ally, was loved and admired by all men while he lived, and lamented by all men after he was gone.[1038] The attraction exercised by him over a man so far his superior as William the Marshal[1039] is indeed well-nigh incomprehensible. But the panegyrics of the historians, unaccountable as they look at first glance, do throw some light on the secret of young Henry’s gift of general fascination. It was a gift which indeed, in varying degrees, formed part of the hereditary endowments of the Angevin house. But the character which it took in Fulk Nerra or Henry Fitz-Empress was very different from that which it assumed in Henry’s eldest son. The essence of the young king’s nature was not Angevin. He had little either of the higher talents or of the stronger and sterner qualities of the Angevin race; he had still less of the characteristics of the Norman. It is by studying his portrait as drawn in contrast to that of Richard by a hand equally favourable to both that we can best see what he really was. “The first was admired for his mildness and liberality; the second was esteemed for his seriousness and firmness. One was commendable for graciousness, the other for stateliness. One gained praise for his courtesy, the other for his constancy. One was conspicuous for mercy, the other for justice. One was the refuge and the shield of vagabonds and evil-doers, the other was their scourge. One was devoted to the sports of war, the other to war itself; one was gracious to strangers, the other to his own friends--one to all men, the other only to good men.”[1040] Henry in fact was at bottom what Richard never was but on the surface--a careless, pleasure-loving, capricious, but withal most gracious and winning child of the south. The most philosophic English historian of the day was reduced to account for the young king’s popularity by the simple and comprehensive explanation that “the number of fools is infinite.”[1041] But it was not folly, it was a shrewd perception of their own interest, which led the Aquitanians writhing under Richard’s