French alliance, but the young count answered him haughtily. It is said that after John's attempt to blind and mutilate him had been foiled [see under Arthur, Count of Brittany], a report was spread that he had died. The report was believed by the Bretons, and they invaded Anjou and took Angers. In order to appease them the report was contradicted, and the true story became known. Arthur was then removed to Rouen, and though his fate is involved in mystery there can be no reasonable doubt that his uncle slew him there. It is probable that he killed him in a fit of drunken rage, and threw his body into the Seine on 3 April 1203 (Margam Annals, a. 1204). John had been wasting his time in feasting and sloth, usually lying in bed until dinner. It is stated, apparently in error, that on Arthur's death the Breton lords assembled at Vannes, and sent to Philip charging John with his murder, and demanding that he should be summoned to answer for it (Le Baud, Histoire de Bretagne, p. 210, quoting Robert Blondel, who can scarcely be recognised as an authority on the matter), and that on his non-appearance the court of peers of France sentenced him to be deprived of all his fiefs for the murder. Louis and his agents in 1216 asserted this condemnation, and their assertion was believed in England (Fœdera, i. 140; Wendover, iii. 373; Matt. Paris, iii. 652, 657; Thorn, col. 2420). On the other hand it is argued with great probability that the story was invented by the French in 1216; there is no earlier authority for it. A letter of Innocent III, written 7 March 1205, proves that the pope, though informed that sentence had been pronounced against John, did not know that it was for the murder of Arthur. It is improbable that the Bretons knew the date of the murder; Philip certainly was not sure whether Arthur was dead or alive some months later (Coggeshall, p. 145). The meeting of the Bretons at Vannes may have taken place on the false news of Arthur's death. John was there condemned to forfeiture in 1202; he killed his nephew subsequently, and it was readily believed in 1216 that he had been condemned to forfeiture and even to death for the murder (the subject has for the first time been worked out by M. Ch. Bémont, see 'La Condemnation de Jean Sans-terre,' Revue Historique, xxxii. 33-74, 290-311).
After giving help to the Bretons and Poitevins, Philip continued his conquests in Normandy, and the Norman lords seeing John's inactivity began to go over to the French side. To all their remonstrances John would only reply, 'Let him go on; whatever he takes I shall retake it in a single day,' and he remained so careless and cheerful that men thought he must be bewitched. In August, however, he laid siege to Alençon, which had been delivered to the French, and both there and at Bressoles was disgracefully put to flight. At last Philip laid siege to Château Gaillard, the fortress which Richard had built to keep the Seine and defend Rouen. A large force gathered by John and sent under the command of William Marshall failed to intercept the French, and John apparently made no effort on behalf of the Château (Hardy, Itinerary, Pref. to Patent Rolls; Angevin Kings, ii. 419). On 6 Dec. he returned to England, and at a council at Oxford on 2 Jan. 1204 obtained from his lords the grant of a seventh of movables, on the plea that their desertion of him had caused the loss of his castles; they had returned home when they found it impossible to rouse him to action. This grant was general, and even the goods of the parish churches were not exempt. He further took two marks and a half on the knight's fee, and this ecclesiastics were bound to pay as well as laymen. Château Gaillard fell on 6 March. John sent an embassy to ask peace of Philip, who replied that he would grant none until Arthur were delivered to him alive, or if he were dead, until his sister Eleanor was sent to him to dispose of in marriage, along with all the continental fiefs. The constables of his castles abroad asked whether they were to expect help from him, and he answered that they must provide for themselves. By 1 July Philip had become master of the whole duchy, John remaining at his ease in England, and declaring that he would recover all his losses by the help of the money that he was extorting from his people (Wendover, iii. 181). The loss of Normandy owing to his pusillanimity disgusted his barons with him. Those of them who, having lands on both sides of the Channel, chose to keep what they had in England, became wholly English in feeling, and their policy was thenceforward solely decided by the course of affairs in England. John's evil rule became specially grievous when he was constantly present. He and his people were brought close together, and the result was that they forced him to yield to their just demands, and finally rejected him altogether.
The fear of losing all that he had in Poitou and Anjou so far roused John that at a council at Northampton in May 1205 he summoned his forces to meet him at Porchester at Whitsuntide. When all was ready he was with difficulty dissuaded from the expedition by Archbishop Hubert and William Marshall;
