[287] _Gesta_, ii. 40. It is noticeable that the Angevin princes are at this period always represented as describing their Toulousan rival only by his ancestral title derived from the little county of S. Gilles which was the cradle of his family, thus tacitly reserving their own claim to be the rightful holders, not merely overlords, of his greater possession, Toulouse. [288] Montrichard, Montrésor, Coulangé; Rigord, 91, 92. [289] Date from R. Diceto, _l.c._ Cf. _Gesta_, ii. 39, and Rigord, _l.c._ [290] Gerv. Cant. i. 432, 433; cf. _Gesta_, ii. 40. [291] Rigord, 92. [292] _Gesta_, _l.c._ [293] _Ib._, ii. 45. [294] “Ne nihil ageretur,” Gerv. Cant., i. 434. [295] Gerv. Cant., i. 434. [296] Rigord, _l.c._ [297] _Gesta_, ii. 45; cf. _ib._, 39, 40. [298] R. Diceto, ii. 55; cf. W. Armor., _Gesta Phil. Aug._ (ed. Delaborde), 188, 189. [299] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 7389-405, 7610-40. [300] _Gesta_, ii. 46. William the Breton in his _Philippis_, lib. iii. ll. 410-624, gives a much longer account of this affair, with a minute description of the personal struggle between Richard and William des Barres, and no mention at all of the capture of William. There can hardly be a doubt that the English prose writer’s brief version is more trustworthy than the French poet-historiographer’s lengthy elaboration. The latter has, however, one interesting touch; in ll. 445-6 the poet makes William des Barres say of Richard: “Rictus agnosco leonum Illius in clypeo.” [301] _Gesta_, ii. 46. [302] This is an inference from the fact that Philip is said to have taken Palluau after the conference in October, _Gesta_, ii. 49. [303] _Gesta_, ii. 49. [304] _Ib._ [305] “Fo ordenatz per lor us parlamens ou foron ensems en la marcha de Torena e de Beiriu, els reis Felips si fetz mains reclams d’en Richart, dont amdui vengron a grans paraulas e a malas, si qu’en Richartz lo desmenti el clamet vil recrezen, e sis desfieron e sis partiron a mal.” _Razo_ of B. de Born’s _sirventes_ “Al dous nous,” Thomas, 69, 70. Cf. Bertrand’s own words in the same _sirventes_, ll. 28-31: “Guerra sens fuoc e sens sanc De rei ni de gran poesta Cui coms laidis ne desmenta Non es ges paraula genta.” [306] _Gesta_, ii. 49. [307] R. Diceto, ii. 57. [308] Gerv. Cant., i. 435. [309] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 8116-39. This writer’s story is here somewhat confused; he gives to the conference a date which is certainly wrong—“a cluse Pasque, le mardi” (l. 8069), _i. e._, Tuesday, April 18, 1189, instead of November 18, 1188.