[1180] R. Coggeshall, p. 180. [1181] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 360, who, however, has confused this contingent with the former ones. [1182] _Ib._ p. 363. [1183] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 354–6. [1184] R. Coggeshall, p. 179, mentions its arrival just after the death of Geoffrey de Mandeville, which occurred on February 22. [1185] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 357. [1186] R. Coggeshall, p. 180. [1187] _Itin._ a. 17. [1188] Cf. _Hist. des Ducs_, p. 165, and _Itin._ a. 17. [1189] R. Coggeshall, p. 180. [1190] _Itin._ a. 17. [1191] _Rot. Pat._ p. 176. [1192] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 260. [1193] _Rot. Pat._ pp. 170, 170 b, 171. [1194] _Ib._ p. 172 b. [1195] R. Coggeshall, pp. 180, 181. [1196] _Rot. Pat._ vol. i. p. 175 b. [1197] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 229. [1198] _Rot. Pat._ p. 176. [1199] _Ib._ p. 179. [1200] See _Revue historique_, vol. xxxii. p. 49, note 2. [1201] R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 364–7. The version of M. Paris, _Hist. Angl._ vol. ii. pp. 176, 177, is as M. Petit-Dutaillis says (_Louis VIII._ p. 95, note), obviously nothing but an oratorical amplification. [1202] _Rot. Claus._ vol. i. p. 270. [1203] _Ib._ p. 270 b. [1204] _Itin._ a. 17. [1205] _Rot. Pat._ p. 178 b. [1206] _Itin._ a. 17. [1207] R. Coggeshall, p. 181. [1208] _Hist. des Ducs_, pp. 167, 168. Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 181. [1209] _Hist. des Ducs_, pp. 168, 169. Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 368, and _Ann. Winton._ a. 1216, both of which give the same date for Louis’s arrival. R. Coggeshall, p. 181, gives a date which, though self-contradictory, is, I think, meant for the same--“die sabbati post Ascensionem Domini, scilicet xiiii kalendas Junii.” W. Coventry, p. 229, is quite wrong. John had gone on May 19 (Ascension Day) to Folkestone; on the 20th and 21st he was at Canterbury. _Itin._ a. 17, 18. [1210] _Hist. des Ducs_, p. 169. [1211] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 368; W. Coventry, vol. ii. pp. 229, 230. [1212] _Ann. Dunst._ a. 1215. [1213] _Hist. des Ducs_, p. 170. The assertion of William the Breton, _Gesta P. A._ c. 221, that John actually did await the attack of the French, and was driven away by their vigorous onset, certainly is, as M. Petit-Dutaillis says (_Louis VIII._ p. 100), an error. That error is grounded, like the sneering comments of Ralf of Coggeshall (p. 181), the _Ann. Winton._ (a. 1216), and some later writers, on the mistaken idea that John was on the spot when Louis first landed on the 21st. [1214] _Hist. des Ducs_, p. 170. [1215] _Rot. Pat._ p. 184. [1216] _Itin._ a. 18.