[1217] Thorne, _Gesta Abb. S. Aug. Cant._ in Twysden, _X Scriptt._ cols. 1868–70. The letter as there given is addressed to the abbot and convent of S. Augustine’s, but it was evidently a manifesto of which copies were sent, or intended to be sent, to all the religious houses of note, probably also to the secular clergy, and perhaps to be distributed among the laity as well. The character of Louis’s “case” as set forth in this letter, and in the arguments of his envoys at Rome (R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 371–8), has been sufficiently exposed by M. Petit-Dutaillis, _Louis VIII._ pp. 75–87. [1218] _Hist. des Ducs_, pp. 170, 171; cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 181, and _Ann. Dunst._ a. 1216. [1219] Thorne, _l.c._ cols. 1864, 1870. [1220] _Hist. des Ducs_, p. 171. [1221] _Chron. Merton._ in Petit-Dutaillis, _Louis VIII._ p. 514. [1222] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 230; R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 370. [1223] _Ann. Winton._ a. 1216. [1224] W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 230. Cf. R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 369, 370. [1225] _Hist. des Ducs_, p. 171; W. Coventry, _l.c._; _Liber de Antiq. Legibus_, Appendix, p. 202. [1226] _Hist. des Ducs_, _l.c._; _Liber de Antiq. Legibus_, _l.c._ [1227] _Chron. Merton._ in Petit-Dutaillis, _Louis VIII._ p. 514. Cf. _Hist. des Ducs_, pp. 171, 172; R. Coggeshall, pp. 181, 182, and R. Wendover, vol. iii. pp. 368, 369. [1228] R. Wendover, vol. iii. p. 369. [1229] _Hist. des Ducs_, pp. 171, 172. [1230] R. Coggeshall, p. 182. [1231] _Itin._ a. 18. This disposes of R. Coggeshall’s story (_l.c._) that John “cognito ejus adventu, draconem suum deposuit et aufugit.” [1232] _Ann. Winton._ a. 1216. [1233] _Ann. Waverl._ a. 1216. [1234] _Ib._ a. 1216. The _Ann. Winton._ a. 1216 give a wrong date. [1235] Cf. _Ann. Winton._ a. 1216, and _Hist. des Ducs_, p. 173. Whichever version be the correct one, both alike show that Ralf of Coggeshall (_l.c._) is wrong in attributing the fire to John himself. [1236] “Li grans castiaus le roi,” “le maistre castiel,” _Hist. des Ducs_, p. 173. [1237] _L.c._ [1238] Cf. _Hist. des Ducs_, p. 174; _Rot. Pat._ p. 188 b, and _Ann. Waverl._ a. 1216. [1239] _Hist. des Ducs_, _l.c._ Cf. R. Coggeshall, p. 182, and W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 231. [1240] “Qui tamen cito rediit,” W. Coventry, vol. ii. p. 231. [1241] William of Armorica, _Gesta Phil. Aug._ c. 222, says that Salisbury changed sides because “ei certo innotuit relatore” that during his own captivity in France his royal brother had made an attempt on the honour of his wife (the well-known Countess Ela). As, however, we shall see that Salisbury “went back” almost as promptly as Albemarle, and the story seems quite unknown to the English chroniclers, its truth may be doubted, though the mere fact that such a story could be told of John with reference to his own sister-in-law illustrates the character for reckless wickedness which he had earned for himself. [1242] _Hist. des Ducs_, p. 174.