[171] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 20. He makes seven divisions, or “battles,” instead of four, but gives no details of their arrangement. It is possible that either he or the Marshal’s biographer may have put the crossbowmen in a wrong place. [172] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16418–24. [173] Cf. _ib._ ll. 16427–32 and R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 21, 22. [174] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16434–60. [175] R. Wend., vol. iv. pp. 20, 21. Cf. _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16341–72. [176] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16373–97. [177] _Ib._ ll. 16998–9. [178] “Whom God preserve both in body and soul!” prays the Marshal’s biographer, l. 16492. The other party called her “molt engigneuse e mal querans e vighereuse vielle,” _Anon. Béthune_, quoted by Petit-Dutaillis, p. 148. [179] _Hist. G. le Mar._, vol. iii. p. clix. [180] _Ib._ ll. 16467–510. [181] On the “blocked gate” see Note II. [182] The whole city above hill, except the minster precincts, was in the “bail” or jurisdiction of the castle. [183] It had at least seven, without counting the two Bar-Gates beyond the river. [184] I think this is to be inferred from _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16544–52; see Note II. [185] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16521–34. [186] E. Mansel Sympson, _Lincoln_, pp. 24, 25. [187] “At illi” [_i.e._ majores exercitus] “per eam” [the “little back door” of the castle, “posterulam quae propter adventum eorum fuerat jam aperta,” cf. above, p. 36] “noluerunt omnes intrare, sed miserunt Falcasium cum agmine toto cui praeerat et cum balistariis omnibus, qui portam civitatis saltem unam exercitui aperirent. Deinde omnis multitudo ad portam se aquilonarem conferens illam confringere vacavit ... Falcasius interim castrum cum agmine cui praeerat ac balistariis omnibus ingressus,” &c. R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 22. [188] R. Wend., _l.c._ See Note III. [189] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16541–55. See Note III. [190] “Mes soufrez que entor la tor Augent dui home tot entor De chascune de nos batailles Qui enquerront les repostailles,” ll. 16563–66. _La tor_ ought of course to mean the castle. But the castle was known to be surrounded on three of its sides by enemies in open action against it; to send men to look for “ambushes” round it seems therefore absurd, and would certainly have been impracticable. Can _la tor_ be a scribe’s error for _le mur_, and did the poet mean “round the wall of the city”? Or can “entor la tor” be a sheer blunder for something wholly different, and should ll. 16564–5 be construed together--“Let two men go all round each of our battles,” &c.? [191] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16567–16628. [192] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 22. [193] _Hist. G. le Mar._, ll. 16643–77. [194] R. Wend., _l.c._ [195] The poet in ll. 16335–40 excludes the English rebels from his reckoning; but in ll. 17026–7 he seems to include the English knights fighting on the French side in the six hundred and eleven. The _Hist. Ducs_, p. 191, makes only seventy French knights. [196] R. Wend., vol. iv. p. 25.