England. His ambition, however, was still unsatisfied, and he aspired by a fresh treason to play the part of king-maker. He accordingly began to intrigue with the empress, who was preparing to make a fresh effort on behalf of her cause. Meeting her at Oxford some time before the end of June (1142), he extorted from her in a new charter concessions even more extravagant than those he had wrung from Stephen. He also obtained from her at the same time a charter in favour of his brother-in-law, Aubrey de Vere (afterwards Earl of Oxford), another Essex magnate. But the ill-success of her cause was unfavourable to his scheme, and he remained, outwardly at least, in allegiance to the king. His treasonable intentions, however, could not be kept secret, and Stephen, who already dreaded his power, was warned that he would lose his crown unless he mastered the earl. It was not, however, till the following year (1143) that he decided, or felt himself strong enough, to do this. At St. Albans, probably about the end of September, Geoffrey, who was attending his court, was openly accused of treason by some of his jealous rivals, and, on treating the charge with cynical contempt, was suddenly arrested by the king after a sharp struggle. Under threat of being hanged, he was forced to surrender his castles of Pleshey and Saffron Walden, and, above all, the Tower of London, the true source of his might. He was then set free, 'to the ruin of the realm/ in the words of the ' Gesta Stephani.'
Rushing forth from the presence of the king, 'like a vicious and riderless horse, kicking and biting' in his rage, the earl burst into revolt. With the help of his brother-in-law, William de Say, and eventually of the Earl of Norfolk, he made himself master of the fenland, the old resort of rebels. Advancing from Fordham, he secured, in the absence of Bishop Nigel, the Isle of Ely, and pushing on thence seized Ramsey Abbey, which he fortified and made his headquarters. From this strong position he raided forth with impunity, burning and sacking Cambridge and other smaller places. Stephen marched against him, but in vain, for the earl took refuge among the fens. The king, however, having fortified Burwell, which threatened Geoffrey's communications, the earl attacked the post (August 1144), and while doing so was wounded in the head. The wound proved fatal, and the earl died at Mildenhall in Suffolk about the middle of September, excommunicate for his desecration and plunder of church property. His corpse was carried by some Templars to the Old Temple in Holborn, where it remained unburied for nearly twenty years. At last, his son and namesake having made reparation for his sins, Pope Alexander pronounced his absolution (1163), and his remains were interred at the New Temple, where an effigy of him was, but erroneously, supposed to exist.
The earl, who presented a perfect type of the ambitious feudal noble, left by his wife Rohese, daughter of Aubrey de Vere (chamberlain of England), at least three sons: Ernulf (or Ernald), who shared in his revolt, and was consequently exiled and disinherited, together with his descendants; and Geoffrey (d. 1166) and William Mandeville [q. v.], who succeeded him in turn, and were both Earls of Essex.
[Geoffrey de Mandeville: a Study of the Anarchy, 1892, by the present writer.]
MANDEVILLE, Sir JOHN, was the ostensible author of the book of travels bearing his name and composed soon after the middle of the fourteenth century. The earliest known manuscript (Paris, Bibl. Nat. nouv. acq. franç. 4515, late Ashburnham MS. Barrois xxiv.) is dated 1371, and is in French; and from internal evidence it is clear that the English, Latin, and other texts are all derived, directly or indirectly, from a French original, the translation in no case being the author's own. The English text has practically come down to us in only three forms, and in no manuscript older than the fifteenth century. The common English version, and the only one printed before 1725, has, besides other deficiencies, a large gap in the account of Egypt (ed. Halliwell, 1866, p. 36, l. 7, ‘And there are,’ to p. 62, l. 25, ‘abbeye often tyme’). The other two English versions are of superior value, and are preserved, each in a single manuscript, in the British Museum, dating in both cases from about 1410 to 1420: that in Cotton MS. Titus C. xvi. was first edited anonymously in 1725, and through Halliwell's reprints (1839, 1866, &c.) has become the standard English text; the other version, in a more northerly dialect, and in some respects superior, is in Egerton MS. 1982, and was printed for the Roxburghe Club in 1889. As the Cotton manuscript has lost three leaves, the latter is really the only complete English text.
In Latin, as Dr. Vogels has shown, there are five independent versions. Four of them, which apparently originated in England (one manuscript, now at Leyden, being dated in 1390), have no special interest; the fifth, or vulgate Latin text, was no doubt made at Liège, and, as will be seen, has an important bearing on the author's identity. It is found in twelve manuscripts, all of the fifteenth
