No More Learning

In the other parts of the kingdom his authority had sunk
still lower; the great feudatories openly spoke of him in contemptuous
terms; a few years later at the village of Héry in the diocese of Auxerre,
almost in his presence, and just after the Peace of God had been pro-
claimed, the Count of Nevers was not afraid to plunder the monks of
Montierender, “knowing well,” as a contemporary tells us, “ that the
king would prefer to use gentle methods rather than force. ”
The task of Robert the Pious and his successors was to work slowly
and unobtrusively, but perseveringly and successfully, to build up afresh
the domain and the moral strength of the monarchy which had so greatly
declined. The domains were, it is true, not extensive, but a policy of
additions and enlargements built up around them a compact and con-
stantly enlarging kingdom. And on the moral side something of the
prestige and tradition of the old anointed kings still held the minds of
men. The firm but not aggressivė rule of the new dynasty skilfully
used both sentiment and territorial fact, and did so not only to their
own advantage but to that of the land in which they stood for peace
and order amid contending vassals.
.


## p. 105 (#151) ############################################

Energetic policy of Robert the Pious
105
ance
a
Little is known to us of the first Capetian kings. Their unimport-
was such that contemporaries scarcely think it worth while to
mention them. Robert the Pious is the only one of them who has
found a biographer, in Helgaud, a monk of St-Benoît-sur-Loire, but
he is so artless and indeed so childish a biographer, so reverential an
admirer of the very pious and gentle king, so little acquainted with
affairs, that his panegyric has very little value for the historian. He
paints his hero for us as tall, broad-shouldered, with well-combed hair
and thick beard, with eyes lowered and mouth“ well-formed to give
the kiss of peace," and at the same time of kingly mien when he wore
his crown. Learned, disdainful of ostentation, so charitable as to let
himself be robbed without protest by the beggars, spending his days in
devotion, a model of all the Christian virtues, so much beloved of God
that he was able to restore sight to a blind man, such, if we may believe
him, was good King Robert, he for whom posterity has for these reasons
give the name of the “ Pious. ”
It is hardly necessary to say that this portrait can only have had
a distant relation to reality. Doubtless, Robert was a learned king,
educated at the episcopal school of Rheims while it was under Gerbert's
direction, he knew Latin, loved books, and carried them with him on his
journeys. As with all the learned men of the day his knowledge was chiefly
theological. He loved church matters, and in 996 the Bishop of Laon,
Asselin, could derisively suggest that he should be made a bishop
“since he had so sweet a voice. "
But the pious king, who was not afraid to persist in the face of
anathemas when passion raised its voice in him, who did not hesitate to
set fire to monasteries when they hindered his conquests, was a man
of action too. All his efforts were directed towards the extension of his
domain, and it may be said that he let no opportunity slip of claiming
and, when possible, occupying any fiefs which fell vacant or were disputed.
This was the case with Dreux, which his father, as we have seen, had
been forced to bestow on Odo I, Count of Chartres, and which Robert suc-
ceeded in re-occupying about 1015; it was also the case with Melun, which
Hugh Capet had granted as a fief to the Count of Vendôme, Bouchard
the Venerable, and of which Robert took possession on the death (1016)
of Bouchard's successor, Reginald, Bishop of Paris. Some years later
(circa 1022), when it chanced that Stephen, Count of Troyes, died
without children, Robert energetically pushed his claims to the in-
heritance against Odo II, Count of Blois, who, apparently, had up till
then been co-owner, on an equal footing with the deceased count.
He
did not hesitate to enter upon a struggle with this formidable vassal
which, no doubt, would have lasted long if other political considerations
had not led the king to yield the point.
It was above all at the time of the conquest of the Duchy of Bur-
gundy that Robert could give proof of the full extent of his energy and
,
CA. V.


## p. 106 (#152) ############################################

106
Ambitious designs of conquest
perseverance. Henry, Duke of Burgundy, brother of Hugh Capet,
died (15 October 1002), and as he left no children, the king might fairly
claim to succeed him. He was anticipated by Otto-William, Count of
Mâcon, the adopted son of the late Duke, whose connexion with the
country gave him great advantages. In the spring of 1003 Robert
collected a strong army, and proceeding up the river Yonne, laid siege
to Auxerre. He met with desperate resistance. Otto-William's par-
tisans in Burgundy were too strong and too numerous to allow of the
question being settled by a single expedition. For nearly two years
Robert ravaged the country in every direction, pillaging and burning all
that he met with. Otto-William ended by submitting, and before long
his son-in-law, Landry, Count of Nevers, after standing a siege of three
months, was forced to capitulate at Avallon (October 1005). Then came
the turn of Auxerre (November 1005). But a struggle of more than ten
years was still necessary before Robert could reduce all the revolted
lords to submission, and it was only after having taken Sens and Dijon
that he could at last count himself master of the duchy (1015-16).
Following the example of the last Carolingians, Robert endeavoured
to push his claims further and to aggrandise himself at the cost of the
Empire. As long as the Emperor Henry II lived (1002-1024) relations
on the whole remained cordial, indeed in 1006 the two sovereigns co-
operated in an expedition to bring their common vassal, Baldwin,
Count of Flanders, to his bearings, he having seized Valenciennes. In
August 1023 a solemn meeting took place between them at Ivois on the
banks of the Meuse. Robert and Henry, each accompanied by a stately
train of great nobles and churchmen, exchanged the kiss of peace,
heard mass, and dined together and exchanged gifts. They swore
mutual friendship, proclaimed the peace of the Church, and resolved
to take joint action for the reformation of the clergy. But the interview
had no results; almost before a year was over Henry had ceased to live
(13 July 1024).
From that time Robert's attitude changed. Having his hands free
on the side of Champagne and Burgundy, and rendered bold by success,
he contemplated a struggle with the new Emperor, Conrad II of
Franconia (1024-1039), for a part of his inheritance. Far-reaching
negotiations centring in the king of France, which shew how much his
prestige had gradually been heightened, were opened between him, the
Duke of Aquitaine, and Odo II, Count of Blois. Nothing less was
intended, it would appear, than to proceed to a dismemberment on a
large scale of the Gerinanic Empire. William, Duke of Aquitaine, was
to take as his share, or his son's, the Lombard crown, Odo II of Blois
was to have the kingdom of Burgundy as soon as Rodolph III should be
dead', while Lorraine was to be Robert's share. But this passed all
i For Conrad's claims to the eventual succession to Rodolph see infra, Chapter
VI. pp. 142-3.


## p. 107 (#153) ############################################

Crisis at the death of Robert the Pious
107
measure, and when it came to carrying out the magnificent programme,
obstacles arose which not one of the princes concerned was strong enough
to overcome. William of Aquitaine was soon forced to give up the idea
of disputing Lombardy with Conrad; Robert's plans miscarried in
Lorraine whither Conrad's alarmed partisans hastily summoned their
master; and King Rodolph III inclined to the new Emperor. The check
was decisive, but surely a considerable step forward had been taken when
for several months Robert had succeeded in guiding such a coalition, and
had for a time spread terror among the Emperor's faithful Lorrainers.
On the death of Robert the Pious (20 July 1031) the question of the
succession came to a crisis. After the example of his father, by whom he
had been associated in the government from 987, Robert had taken care
in 1017 to crown his eldest son by Queen Constance, then ten years old.
But Hugh had died in the flower of his youth in 1025 (September).
Two parties had then arisen at court, Robert desiring to have his second
son Henry crowned at once, and Queen Constance holding out for a
younger son, Robert, whom she preferred to his elder brother. The
king's will had prevailed, and Henry had been crowned with great pomp
in 1027. But hardly had Robert the Pious closed his eyes when Queen
Constance raised the standard of revolt. She succeeded in gaining posses-
sion of Senlis, Sens, Dammartin, Le Puiset and Poissy, and won over
Odo II of Blois, by the gift of half the town of Sens.
Henry, supported by Robert, Duke of Normandy, defended himself
vigorously. He re-took Poissy and Le Puiset, and forced his mother
and his brother Robert to make peace. Unfortunately it was purchased
by yielding a point which involved a lamentable retrogression. Robert
was given the duchy of Burgundy, which Robert the Pious had after so
many efforts united to the Royal Domain (1032). At this price the sub-
mission of the rebels was dearly bought.
Nor did it avail to put down the revolt. Odo II of Blois refused to
disarm. Twice the king besieged him unsuccessfully in Sens (1032–
1033); each time he met with fierce resistance and was obliged to
retreat. In May or June 1033, despairing of getting the better of this
formidable vassal, Henry, in an interview at Deville on the Meuse, made
a defensive alliance with the Emperor Conrad, who was Odo's rival for
the Burgundian throne, left vacant by the death of Rodolph III, some
few months earlier (September 1032). In the end, Odo submitted (1034).
But three years later he died, leaving his counties in Champagne to his
son Stephen, and the rest of his possessions to his other son Theobald.
At once the struggle was renewed, whether through some attempt on
Henry's part to lay hands on any portion of the inheritance left by
Odo, or simply because Theobald and Stephen thought the opportunity
CH. v.


## p. 108 (#154) ############################################

108
Growing independence of vassals
favourable for taking their revenge. A plot was set on foot by them
with Odo, the king's youngest brother, the object of which was, briefly,
to replace Henry on the throne by Odo. The king contrived to baffle
their calculations. Odo, surrounded in a castle, was taken prisoner and
immured at Orleans; Stephen was completely routed and put to flight;
his ally, the Count of Vermandois, was made prisoner; and finally,
against Theobald the king enlisted the help of the Count of Anjou,
Geoffrey Martel, by granting him in advance the investiture of Tours
which he left it to him to conquer.
On all sides the monarchy had again lost ground. Burgundy had
been lost, and it had been necessary to cede the French Vexin to the
Duke of Normandy, who had been one of the king's most faithful sup-
porters, as a reward for his services; and finally, the handing over of
Tours to Count Geoffrey Martel, who got possession of it in 1044,
meant an extension of the Angevin principality, which before long
would become dangerous. Moreover the king came out of the crisis so
much weakened that, for the future, he had perforce to play a very
minor part. While all his feudatories strove without ceasing to round
off their territories, he either lived in a pitiable fashion inside his
narrow domain, or else interfered in the struggles between his vassals,
supporting now one and now another, as need seemed to suggest; such
was his poor and his only attempt at a policy.
It was in the west of France that the events of most real importance
occurred. Two powers, whose struggles were to occupy the whole of
the second half of Henry I's reign, found themselves opposed, namely,
the Angevin power and the Norman.
Since the middle of the tenth century, the Counts of Anjou had
never ceased to extend their borders at the expense of their neighbours.
The terrific Fulk Nerra (987–1040) had throughout his life struggled to
bind to one another and to his own lands the new possessions in the
midst of Touraine which his predecessors had succeeded in acquiring, as
well as to surround Tours with a circle which grew daily narrower. In
994 or 995 he had reached Langeais; about 1005 Montrichard and
Montbazon ; in 1016 he had inflicted a tremendous defeat on Odo II,
Count of Blois, on the plains of Pontlevoy; next year he had built a
fortress at Montboyau at only a few miles distance from Tours; in 1026
he had surprised the stronghold of Saumur which for more than a cen-
tury had been in the hands of the Counts of Blois. Geoffrey Martel, his
son (1040-1060), had boldly pushed on the enterprise ; taking advantage
of the hostility of the new Count of Blois, Theobald III, to King Henry,
he had, as we have seen, secured the investiture of Tours from the latter
and had proceeded to lay siege to the town. In vain had Theobald and
his brother Stephen attempted to raise the blockade; Geoffrey Martel
had offered them battle at Nouy, near the village of St-Martin-le-Beau,
and here again the Count of Anjou had won a striking victory. Theobald,


## p. 109 (#155) ############################################

Growth of Anjou
109
being taken prisoner, had been forced to cede Tours and the whole of
Touraine to the victor (August 1044). At the same time Geoffrey
Martel had succeeded in bringing the Count of Vendôme under his
suzerainty, and to this the king's consent had not been wanting.
But it was in another direction that the House of Anjou felt itself
drawn. The Counts of Maine, hemmed in between Normandy and
Anjou, were destined sooner or later to fall under the suzerainty of one
or other of their neighbours. As early as the days of Fulk Nerra, the
Counts of Anjou had succeeded in bringing them under theirs. Gervase,
Bishop of Le Mans, having usurped the guardianship of the young Count
Hugh III, Geoffrey Martel had marched against the prelate and put him
in prison (1047 or 1048). Thus all things seemed to be moving
according to Angevin interests when the king and the Duke of Nor-
mandy came upon the scene.
The intervention of the latter had been delayed by serious difficulties
within his own borders. Duke Robert the Magnificent (sometimes wrongly
called the Devil) had died on pilgrimage in 1035, leaving as successor an
illegitimate son, William, barely eight years old. The circumstances
favoured the discontented ; before long rebellion had been muttering on
all sides, and in 1047 it burst forth, headed by Guy, lord of Vernon
and Brienne, and by the Viscounts of Coutances and Bayeux. Young
William appealed to the king for help, and a battle took place at
Val-es-Dunes, to the east of Caen, where Henry fought valiantly in person.
It was an utter rout for the rebels, who, after a few attempts at re-
sistance, before long submitted entirely.
The king and the duke then decided upon a joint expedition
against the Count of Anjou. Together they invaded Anjou and
proceeded to besiege Mouliherne which surrendered (1048). Thus, after
having supported the Count of Anjou throughout his struggle with the
Count of Blois, the king suddenly changed sides and became his enemy.
In 1049 he renewed his attack, and while William flung himself upon
Maine, the king invaded Touraine, and even momentarily succeeded in
occupying the stronghold of Sainte-Maure where Geoffrey Martel
advanced and besieged him.
Three years had not passed before the parts were redistributed.
Geoffrey, victorious in Maine, was treating with the king (1052), and
the Duke of Normandy saw his late ally take sides against him. In
February 1054 the king and the count jointly invaded his duchy. But
the attempt did not prosper. The invading army had been divided into
two corps ; Odo, the king's brother, crossing the Seine, had devastated
the Caux country while Henry I and Geoffrey Martel occupied the
district of Evreux. William, marching in person to meet the southern
army, sent a considerable part of his troops against the northern
detachment. Odo allowed himself to be surprised at Mortemer, to the
east of Neufchâtel, just as his men were giving themselves up to pillage.
CH. V.


## p. 110 (#156) ############################################

110
Philip I
A general rout of the French followed. The news of the defeat
discouraged Henry I, who, leaving Geoffrey Martel at grips with the
enemy, thought only of withdrawing from the contest as quickly as
possible and with the least damage to his own interests.
Geoffrey Martel was obliged to retreat at once. William again
invaded Maine, and took up strong positions at Mont-Barbet, near
Le Mans, and at Ambrières, not far from the junction of the Varenne
with the Mayenne. Soon, however, provisions failed and the duke was
obliged to let a part of his army scatter itself into small bodies. When
this news reached Geoffrey, who had obtained reinforcements, he hurried
up and laid siege to Ambrières. The place held out, giving the Duke of
Normandy time to re-assemble his troops and force the Angevin army
to retreat. Marching straight upon Mayenne, where the lord, Geoffrey,
was one of the chief supporters of Geoffrey Martel, William took the
town and carried off Geoffrey of Mayenne to Normandy, where he
compelled him to do him homage.
These successes were only temporary. Geoffrey Martel soon recovered
the ground lost in Maine, and in 1058, as had happened four years
before, in his desire for revenge he persuaded the king to join him in an
invasion of Normandy. This time also the campaign, at least in its earlier
stages, was unfortunate. Henry I and Geoffrey Martel had barely
traversed the Hiémois district, when their rear-guard was surprised just
as it was crossing the river Dive at the ford of Varaville. This ford
being impracticable through a rising tide, the king and the count could
only look on helplessly at the massacre of their troops.
The war went on for some time longer. Negotiations had just been
begun when Henry I died suddenly at Dreux on 4 August 1060.
A year before his death, on 23 May 1059, Henry I had been
careful to have his son Philip I crowned at Rheims. But Philip, born
in 1052, was still a minor, thus Henry had made his brother-in-law
Baldwin, Count of Flanders, guardian to the young king, a post which
he retained until Philip reached his majority at fifteen years of age at
the end of 1066 or the beginning of 1067.
Under Philip, the eclipse of the monarchy only became more
complete. It must be said, however, that this eclipse is largely an
illusion due to the paucity of our information. Philip was of a very
practical turn, and played a part which was somewhat inglorious, but
on the whole very profitable to the material interests of his house.
The royal power had fallen so low that there could be no question of an
aggressive policy, but Philip had at least the art to manoeuvre, and to
turn to advantage all circumstances which offered him any opportunity
to fish his profit out of troubled waters. Above all, he worked, with
much more consistency and perseverance than is usually thought, at
the task of enlarging his insignificant domain.


## p. 111 (#157) ############################################

Acquisition of fiefs
111
During his father's reign only the county of Sens, vacant through
the death without heirs of Count Renard (Reginhard), had been (in 1055)
re-united to the crown, an important acquisition, but one for which
King Robert himself had prepared the way, by separating in 1015 the
county of Sens from the duchy of Burgundy: thus it cost Henry no effort
whatever. Philip had no sooner taken the reins than an opportunity
arose for him to link together his possessions in the Orléanais and the
Sénonais by making himself master of the county of Gâtinais. Geoffrey
the Bearded, who bore the title of its Count, and had succeeded his
uncle, Geoffrey Martel, in the county of Anjou (1060), had just been
imprisoned by his brother Fulk Rechin, who had usurped power in both
counties. Philip, without hesitation, joined a coalition formed by the
Count of Blois and the lords of Maine against the usurper, and, as the
price of peace, exacted the cession of the county of Gâtinais (1068).
A few years later he used the minority of Simon of Crépy, Count
of Valois and Vexin, as an opportunity to fall upon his estates. These
were very extensive, comprising not only the Vexin and Valois, but the
county of Bar-sur-Aube and the territory of Vitry-en-Perthois, which
Simon's father, Raoul III of Valois, had acquired by marriage, and, on
the north, the county of Montdidier, and Péronne which he had taken
from the Count of Vermandois. Entrusting to his vassal, Hugh Bar-
doux, lord of Broyes, the task of seizing Simon's possessions in Champagne,
Philip invaded his other domains in 1075. For two years the struggle
went on, almost without a break, fiercely and pitilessly. At last, in
the beginning of 1077, the unlucky Simon was forced to beg for peace,
and to cede to the king the county of Vexin.
At about the same time, Philip claimed the town of Corbie, which
had come to Baldwin of Lille, Count of Flanders, as the dowry of Adela,
daughter of Henry I of England; and as Count Robert the Frisian
refused to surrender it, he entered it by surprise and caused the in-
habitants to swear fealty to him. Robert, confronted by an accomplished
fact, after a brief attempt at resistance, found no resource but to submit.
Corbie was never again to be detached from the royal domain.
Again, in 1101, Philip was to be seen profiting by need of money on
the part of Odo-Harpin, Viscount of Bourges, who was about to set off
for the Holy Land. The king enlarged the royal domain by purchasing
from him an extensive district comprising, besides Bourges, the lordship
of Dun-le-Roi.
Nearly all the enterprises of Philip I shew the same character, at
once inglorious and practical. His chief efforts were in the direction of
Normandy, where two parties confronted each other, on the one hand
the King of England, William the Conqueror, and on the other, Robert
Curthose, his son. Philip's entire policy consisted in supporting Robert,
though he was ready, it would appear, to desert him as often as there
seemed any prospect of his becoming dangerous : a course which did not
CH. V.


## p. 112 (#158) ############################################

112
Philip and Normandy
1
fail to draw from the English chroniclers a charge of engaging in
shameless speculation, taking pay from one party for his help and from
the other for his withdrawal. In 1076 we find him as far off as Poitiers
collecting an army to go to the relief of Dol which William the Con-
queror is besieging; then, in 1077 or 1078, he welcomes Robert Curthose
and procures his entrance into the stronghold of Gerberoy, on the
borders of Beauvaisis and Normandy; he seems ready to help him
against his father, when, in 1079, he suddenly changes sides, and goes
with William to besiege Gerberoy. A few years later Robert is again
at the French king's court, and hostilities are once more begun between
the latter and William. In 1087 the people of Mantes having committed
depredations on Norman soil, the Conqueror formulates his complaint,
and demands that Philip shall hand over to him not only Mantes, but
also Pontoise and Chaumont, that is to say, the whole of the Vexin,
which, formerly ceded to Robert the Magnificent by Henry I, had since
fallen afresh under the suzerainty of the king of France, and had then,
as we have seen, been re-conquered by him in 1077. Promptly pro-
ceeding from claims to action, William invaded the territory, took
Mantes, entered it and set it on fire. It does not appear, however, that
he was able to push his advantages much further, for, having suddenly
fallen sick, he was forced to have himself brought back to Normandy
where, not long after, he died (9 September 1087).
The Conqueror's death made Robert Curthose Duke of Normandy,
while his brother, William Rufus, received the English inheritance.
A party was at once formed to substitute Robert for his brother on the
throne of England; whereupon, as a return stroke, William invaded
Normandy. Philip hastened to further a movement which could not fail
to injure both brothers, and as William was marching against Robert,
he went to the help of the latter prince. Practical as usual, however,
Philip contrived to get his support paid for by some fresh concession.
In 1089, for instance, as the price of his co-operation in the siege of
La Ferté-en-Brai which had gone over to the king of England, he had
the domain of Gisors ceded to him; on other occasions he preferred
ready money,
His church policy bears the impress of the same character, and is
what has chiefly earned for him the bitterest censures of the chroniclers,
all of whom belong to the clergy. Reform was in the air, the idea of it
was permeating the Church, and its ultimate consequences would have
been nothing less than to deprive princes of all power in ecclesiastical
appointments. Shocking abuses, indeed, prevailed; the process of
appointment had become for princes a regular traffic in ecclesiastical
offices. Philip I, notably, had no hesitation in practising simony on a
vast scale. But the claims of the reforming party which the Popes, since
Gregory VII, had made their own, would have brought about a real
political revolution, since kings would have been stripped of all rights
a


## p. 113 (#159) ############################################

Church policy of Philip
113
over the temporalities of bishops and abbots. If the papal theory had
triumphed, all the ecclesiastical baronies of the kingdom, the most
constant support of the monarchy, would have been withdrawn from the
royal control. Philip fiercely defended what he could not but consider
his right.
The question, besides, became further complicated when in 1092 he
carried off Bertrada of Montfort, wife of the Count of Anjou, Fulk
Rechin, and succeeded in finding a complaisant bishop to solemnise the
adulterous marriage. The Pope, Urban II, did not hesitate to excom-
municate the king even in his own kingdom, when he presided at the
great Council held at Clermont in 1095. The position in which he
found himself was too common for Philip to attach any very special im-
portance to it. For the rest, in spite of the reiterated excommunications
which Urban II, and later on his successor Paschal II, launched against
him, Philip found prelates favourable to him among his clergy. Some
were even seen, in the year 1100, who were not afraid openly to oppose
the rigorous policy of the Holy See by performing, according to a custom
then fairly frequent, a solemn coronation of the king on Whitsunday.
In reality the question of the marriage with Bertrada, that of
simony, and the higher question of ecclesiastical elections and investiture
were all inter-connected. To avoid a complete rupture, perhaps even a
schism, Paschal II saw that it would be more prudent to yield. On
the morrow of the Council held at Poitiers in November 1100, at
which the Pope's legate had renewed before a large assembly the
excommunication pronounced against Philip, the relations between the
Pope and the king became somewhat less tense. On both sides some-
thing was conceded; in the matter of an episcopal election to the see of
Beauvais the king and the Pope sought for common ground; the royal
candidate, Stephen of Garlande, whom Manasse, Archbishop of Rheims,
had not hesitated to maintain in the face of every comer, was to be
consecrated Bishop of Beauvais, while the candidate of the reforming
party, Galo, formerly Abbot of St-Quentin of Beauvais, was to obtain
the episcopal see of Paris, just then vacant. Philip was to be “recon-
ciled” on condition that he pledged himself to separate from Bertrada.
On these bases the negotiations took place. Ivo, the illustrious Bishop
of Chartres, who represented in France the moderate party, equally
opposed to the abuses of the older clergy and to the exaggerations
of the uncompromising reformers, pleaded with Paschal for conciliatory
measures. Nor did the Pope remain deaf to his exhortations; on
30 July 1104 the king's case was submitted to a council assembled at
Beaugency by Richard, Bishop of Albano, the Pope's legate. The
council, unable to agree, came to no decision, but a fresh assembly
immediately met at Paris, and Philip having engaged “to have no
further intercourse with Bertrada, and never more to speak a word to
her unless before witnesses was solemnly absolved.
C. MED. H. VOL. III. CH. V.
79
8


## p. 114 (#160) ############################################

114
Philip's last years
name.
In spite of this oath, Philip and Bertrada continued to live together,
but for the future, the Pope indulgently closed his eyes. On most of
the points raised an agreement was arrived at, and in the beginning of
the year 1107 Paschal even travelled through France, had a meeting
at St-Denis with Philip and his son, and spoke of them as “the very
pious sons of the Holy See.
"
But already Philip, grown old before his time, was king only in
Since 1097 he had handed over to his son Louis the task of
leading military expeditions, for which his own extreme corpulence un-
fitted him. It was necessary not only to repress the brigandage to which
the turbulent barons of the royal domain were becoming more and more
addicted, but above all to make head against the attacks of the King of
England, to whom, on his departure for the crusade in 1096, Robert
Curthose had entrusted the safe-keeping and government of the Norman
duchy. William Rufus, indeed, casting away all restraint, had again
invaded the French Vexin, and drawing over to his side Duke William
of Aquitaine, threatened to carry his conquests as far as Paris. The
situation was all the more dangerous as William Rufus had contrived
to gain over several of the barons of the Vexin and a regular feudal
coalition was being formed there against the Capetian monarchy. For-
tunately, the loyal barons gathered under Louis's banner succeeded in
keeping the English king's troops in check, and after an unrelenting
warfare of skirmishes and sieges William was forced to retreat and
abandon his enterprise (1099).
Admitted about this period, as king-elect and king-designate, to a
share in the government, Louis (in spite of the intrigues of Bertrada,
who more than once tried to have him assassinated, in order to sub-
stitute one of her own children) was now, at nearly twenty years
old, in fact the real king. We find him travelling about the royal
domain, chastising rebellious vassals, dismantling Montlhéry (1105),
seizing the castle of Gournay-sur-Marne, the lord of which had
robbed merchants on a royal road (1107), and besieging Chevreuse and
Brétencourt. Louis has his own officers and His own counsellors; he
intervenes directly in the affairs of the clergy, authorises abbatial
elections and administers justice; as it is expressed in a charter of the
south of France in 1104 “Philip, king of the French, was still alive; but
Louis, his son, a young man of character and courage worthy to be
remembered, was at the helm of the kingdom. ”
Philip was weighed down by disease and felt his end approaching. Like
a good Christian he made his confession, then calling around him all the
magnates of the kingdom and his friends, he said to them: “The burial-
place of the kings of France is, I know, at St-Denis. But I feel
myself too heavily laden with sins to dare to be laid near the body of so
great a Saint. ” And he added naïvely, “I greatly fear lest my sins
should cause me to be delivered over to the devil, and that it should


## p. 115 (#161) ############################################

Precarious position of the first Capetians
115
happen to me as formerly happened, they say, to Charles Martel. I love
Saint Benedict; I address my petition to the pious Father of the Monks,
and desire that I may be buried in his church at Fleury on the banks of
the Loire. He is merciful and kind, he receives sinners who amend,
and, faithfully observing his rule, seek to gain the heart of God. " He
died a few days later at Melun on 29 or 30 July 1108.
a
It is surprising, on a general view of the Capetian monarchy down
to Philip I, that it successfully maintained itself and only encountered
trifling opposition easily overcome. Its weakness, indeed, is extreme; it is
with difficulty that it proves itself a match for the petty barons within its
domain. At the opening of the year 1080 Hugh, lord of Le Puiset, rebelled;
and to resist him the king collected a whole army counting within its ranks
the Duke of Burgundy, the Count of Nevers, and the Bishop of Auxerre.
Shut up in his castle, Hugh defied all assaults. One fine day he made a
sortie, whereupon the royal army, stupefied by his audacity, took to its
heels; the Count of Nevers, the Bishop of Auxerre and nearly one hundred
knights fell into Hugh's hands, while Philip and his followers fled wildly
as far as Orleans, without the least attempt to defend themselves.
The resources which the monarchy has at its disposal are even more
restricted than of old; the king has to be content with the produce of his
farms, with a few tolls and fines, the dues paid by the peasants, and the
yield of his woods and fields, but as the greater part of the royal domain
is granted in fiefs, the total of all these resources is extremely meagre.
They could fortunately be augmented by the revenues of vacant bishoprics
to which the king had the nomination, for from the death of one
occupant until the investiture of another the king levied the whole
revenue and disposed of it at his pleasure. There are also the illicit
gains arising from the traffic in ecclesiastical offices, and these are not
the least. Yet all these together amount to very little, and the king is
.
reduced either to live in a pitiful fashion, or to go round pleading his
“right to bed and purveyance (procuration)” to claim food and shelter
from the abbeys on his domain.
Surrounded by a little group of knights, and followed by clerks and
scribes, the king roved about, carrying with him his treasure and his
attendants. This staff, as a whole, had changed but slightly since
Carolingian times; there are the same great officers, the Seneschal, the
Chamberlain, the Butler, the Constable, the Chancellor, who directed at
once the administration of the palace and of the kingdom. But the
administration of the kingdom was henceforward hardly more than that
of the royal domain. Local administration is now purely domanial,
undertaken by the directors of land improvement, the mayors or villici,
vicarii and prevôts (praepositi) whose duty there, as on all feudal domains,
was to administer justice to the peasants and to collect the dues.
CH. V.
8-2


## p. 116 (#162) ############################################

116
Moral preponderance of the monarchy
a
At the same time, however wretched may have been his material
position, by the very fact that he was king the Capetian' had a situation
of moral preponderance. The tie of vassalage which bound all the
great feudatories of the kingdom to him was not merely a theoretical
bond; apart from cases of rebellion they do not, as a rule, fail to fulfil
their duties as vassals when called on. We have already seen the Duke of
Burgundy and the Count of Nevers come in 1080 and do personal service
in Philip I's campaign against Hugh, lord of Le Puiset. In the same
way, about 1038 we find the Count of Flanders furnishing troops to
the king to suppress the revolt of Hugh Bardoux. When the siege of
Dol was about to be undertaken in 1076, the Duke of Aquitaine was
required to supply troops. Besides this, in the royal armies contingents
of Aquitanians, Burgundians and Champenois are constantly found.
Nor do the great lay and ecclesiastical dignitaries fail to attend in
large numbers at the great royal assemblies. If one of them is prevented
from coming he sends his excuses, makes known the reasons which hinder
him from attending when convoked, and prays that his excuses may
be
favourably received. “I beg of thee, my lord," writes the Bishop of
Chartres to King Robert in 1018,“ be not angry that I did not come to
Paris to thy court, on Sunday last. I was deceived by the messengers
who told me that thou wouldst not be there that day, and that I was
summoned to the consecration of a bishop of whom I knew nothing
whatsoever. As, on the other hand, I had received no letter on the
subject of this consecration, either from thee or from my archbishop, I
abstained from attending. If I have committed a fault it arises from
my having been misled. My pardon will, I hope, be easily obtained from
the royal piety, since even from the point of view of justice the fault is
a venial one.
With
my whole heart I assure thee of my attachment
hoping that thou wilt deign to continue to me thy confidence. ”
i Genealogy of Capetian kings after Hugh Capet (cf. p. 75):
Odo I=(1) Bertha (2)=(1) Robert I the Pious (2)=Constance
C. of Blois d. of Conrad 996-1031
d. of William
K. of Burgundy
Ct. of Provence
Hugh
Henry (=Anne
Adela
Robert
Co-regent
1031-1060 | of Russia m. (1) Richard JII
D. of Burgundy
d. 1025
D. of Normandy
d. 1075
(2) Baldwin V
1
C. of Flanders
d. 1066
Bertha=(1)PhilipI(2)=(2) Bertrada(1)=Fulk Rechin Hugh= Adelaide
d. of 1060-1108 of Montfort C. of Anjou d. 1101 heiress
Florence
of Ver-
C. of
mandois
Holland
1
Henry
Louis VI
the Fat
1108-1137
Hugh I
D. of Burgundy
abd. 1078
d. 1093
Odo (Eudes) 1
Borel
D. of Burgundy
d. 1102
Henry
First Count
of Portugal
d. 1112


## p. 117 (#163) ############################################

Feudal deference
117
In a word, it seems as if for the great feudatories there could be no
worse misfortune than a formal rupture with their sovereign. In this
connexion nothing is more characteristic than the attitude of perhaps
the most powerful vassal of Robert the Pious, the celebrated Count
of Blois, Odo II, when in about 1022 a dispute arose between him
and the king touching the succession in Champagne. Finding what
he considers his right attacked by the king, Odo defends himself with a
strong hand. On this account Robert considers him guilty of forfeiture,
and seeks to have his fiefs declared escheated. At once Odo is terrified,
and writes his sovereign a letter full of respect and deference, expressing
astonishment only at the measure which the king demands. “For if
birth be considered, it is clear, thanks be to God, that I am capable
of inheriting the fief; if the nature of the fief which thou hast given
me be considered, it is certain that it forms part, not of thy fisc, but of
the property which, under thy favour, comes to me from my ancestors
by hereditary right; if the value of my services be considered, thou
knowest how, as long as I was in favour with thee, I served thee at thy
court, in the ost and on foreign soil. And if, since thou hast turned
away thy favour from me, ånd hast attempted to take from me the fief
which thou gavest me, I have committed towards thee, in defence of
myself and of my fief, acts of a nature to displease thee, I have done
so when harassed by insults and compelled by necessity. How, in fact,
could I fail to defend my fief? I protest by God and my own soul,
that I should prefer death to being deprived of my fief. And if thou
wilt refrain from seeking to strip me of it, there is nothing in the
world which I shall more desire than to enjoy and to deserve thy favour.
For the conflict between us, at the same time that it is grievous to me,
takes from thee, lord, that which constitutes the root and the fruit of
thy office, I mean justice and peace. Thus I appeal to that clemency
which is natural to thee, and evil counsels alone can deprive thee of,
imploring thee to desist from persecuting me, and to allow me to be
reconciled to thee, either through thy familiars, or by the mediation
of princes. ” Such a letter proves, better than any reasonings, how
great was the power which respect for royalty and for the obliga-
tions of a vassal to his lord, still exercised over minds imbued with
tradition.
Moreover, none of the great feudatories who shared the government
of the kingdom among them would have been strong enough to over-
throw the Capetian dynasty. Independently of the rivalries between
great houses, in which their strength was exhausted, the princes found
themselves, from the middle of the eleventh century, a little sooner or
a little later according to the province they ruled, involved in a struggle
with internal difficulties which often paralysed their efforts.
One of the feudal states for which the history is the best known is the
ch. v.


## p. 118 (#164) ############################################

118
Feudal disintegration in Anjou
county of Anjou. It has already been seen' how under the two counts,
Fulk Nerra (987–1040) and Geoffrey Martel (1040–1060), the county of
Anjou, spreading beyond its frontiers on all sides, had been steadily
enlarged at the expense of its neighbours. The count's authority was
everywhere strong and respected, and as he had his lay vassals and clergy
well in hand, they had a general awe of him. And yet the germs of dis-
integration were already present. Indeed, in order to provide for the
protection of their territories, and above all to have a basis of attack
against their neighbours, the counts of Anjou had, from the end of the
tenth century, been led to cover their country with a network of strong-
holds. But to construct the great stone keeps (donjons) which at that
time were beginning to take the place of mere wooden buildings, and
to guard them, time, men and money were needed. Therefore, quite
naturally, the counts had not hesitated to grant them out as fiefs, leaving
to their vassals the task of completing and defending them. As a result,
within a short time, the county had come to be filled, not merely with
castles, but with a multitude of lords-castellans handing on the domain
and the fortress from father to son.
In this way, Fulk Nerra, about 994, built the castle of Langeais, and
almost immediately we note that Langeais becomes the seat of a new
feudal family. Hamelin I, lord of Langeais, comes into view about
1030, and when he dies (c. 1065] his fief passes to his descendants. A
few years after Fulk built the castle of Montrevault, and immediately
invested Stephen, brother-in-law of Hubert, the late Bishop of Angers,
with it. Here again a new lordship had been founded, as Stephen had
married his daughter Emma to Raoul, Viscount of Le Mans, who succeeded
his father-in-law, and took the title of Viscount of Grand Montrevault,
while close by, on land which had also been received as a fief from Fulk
Nerra by a certain Roger the Old, the fortress and family of Petit
Montrevault had grown up.
About the same time Fulk had founded
the castle of Montreuil-Bellay, and again he had without delay enfeoffed
it to his vassal Bellay. A little later Geoffrey Martel had built the castles
of Durtal and Mateflon and enfeoffed them to two of his knights. In
the same way lords-castellans had been installed at Passavant before 1026;
at Maulevrier, at Faye-la-Vineuse, at Sainte-Maure and at Trèves before
1040, all of these being castles built by the count. Everywhere great
families had arisen: here, that of Briollay who had received the castle as a
fief from Fulk Nerra, there, that of Beaupréau, founded by Jocelyn of
Rennes, a soldier of fortune, no doubt singled out by Fulk Nerra. At
this time also had their origin the houses of Chemillé, of Montsoreau, of
Blaison, of Montjean, of Craon, of Jarzé, of Rillé, of Thouarcé and
others. Established in their castles, which secured to them the dominion
of the surrounding flat country, and by that very fact, forming a higher
class among the barons, daily strengthening their position by the marriages
1 See supra, p. 108.


## p. 119 (#165) ############################################

Anarchy in Anjou
119
which they concluded among themselves leading to the concentration of
several castles in a single pair of hands, the great vassals were only waiting
an opportunity to shew their independence. This was supplied by a
dispute which arose over the succession.
Geoffrey Martel, dying childless in 1060, had left his county to his
eldest nephew, Geoffrey the Bearded, already Count of Gâtinais, where-
upon the younger nephew, Fulk Rechin, declaring himself aggrieved, rose
in rebellion without delay. Geoffrey the Bearded by his unskilful policy
precipitated the crisis; a discontented party growing up in the country
gathered itself round Fulk; in the end, Geoffrey was seized and thrown
into prison while Fulk gained his own recognition as Count (1068). But
in the course of the conflict, which lasted several years, the passions of the
great barons who had been called on to take sides in it had been given
free play; for months together Fulk was obliged to struggle with the
rebels, to go and besiege them in their castles, and to repress their ravages.
When at last he succeeded in gaining general recognition, the country, as
he himself acknowledges in one of his charters, was a mere heap of ruins.
Even the general submission was only apparent. After 1068 revolts
still broke out in all parts of the county. Thus on the death of
Sulpicius, lord of Amboise and Chaumont, it was in obedience to
threats that Fulk set at liberty Hugh, son and successor of the deceased,
who had been given up to him as a hostage. Soon after, the count
decided to commit the custody of his castle at Amboise called “The
Domicile” to a certain Aimeri of Courron. This choice was distasteful
to Hugh's men, five of whom slipped into the donjon, surprised the
watchman whom they made prisoner, and planted their master's standard
on the tower. Hugh, meanwhile, retired to a fortified mansion which
he possessed in the town, and set himself to harass the count's troops.
At last Fulk came up, and not daring to try conclusions with his
adversary, preferred a compromise with him. Their agreement did not
last long, as the unsubdued vassal was merely watching his opportunity
to rebel afresh. Suddenly, in 1106, one day when the castellan of “The
Domicile,” Hugh du Gué, was out hunting in the direction of Romor-
antin, Hugh of Amboise surprised the castle and destroyed it. The
struggle began again: Fulk Rechin, calling to his aid several of his
vassals, Aubrey, lord of Montrésor, and Jocelyn and Hugh, sons of the
lord of Sainte-Maure, flung himself upon St-Cyr, one of the hereditary
possessions of the house of Chaumont and Amboise. Hugh of Amboise,
supported by his brother-in-law John, lord of Lignières, retorted by
pillaging the suburbs of Tours, and the environs of Loches, Montrichard,
and Montrésor. In all directions the same situation was reproduced;
one day it was the lord of Alluyes, Saint-Christophe and Vallières who
rebelled, another day it was the lord of Maillé; again he of Lion
d'Angers; in 1097, he of Rochecorbon. A regular campaign was
required against Bartholomew, lord of l’lle-Bouchard, a fortress had
CH. V,


## p. 120 (#166) ############################################

120
Feudal anarchy in Normandy
a
: Ei
to be built at Champigny-sur-Veude, which, by the way, Bartholomew
seized and set on fire, taking the garrison prisoners.
Fulk was incapable of resisting so many rebels. Following the
example of Philip I, he handed over his military powers to his son,
Geoffrey Martel the Younger. Zealous, feared by the barons, in
sympathy with churchmen, the young count entered boldly on the
struggle with those who still held out. With his father he took
La Chartre and burnt Thouars, and was about to lay siege to Candé.
But he was killed in 1106, and with him disappeared the only man who
might have proved a serious obstacle to baronial independence.
In the other provinces the situation seems to have been almost the
same. In Normandy, on the accession of William the Bastard, the
mutterings of revolt were heard. Defeated at Val-es-Dunes in 1047,
the rebels were forced to submit, but on the smallest opportunity fresh
defections occurred. Shut up in their castles, the rebellious vassals
defied their sovereign. The revolt of William Busac, lord of Eu, about
1048, and above all, that of William of Arques in 1053 are, in this
respect, thoroughly characteristic. The latter fortified himself on a
height and awaited, unmoved, the arrival of the ducal army. It
attempted in vain to storm his fortress; its position was inaccessible,
and the duke was obliged to abandon the idea of taking it by force.
In the end, however, he reduced it, because the King of France, hastening
up to the relief of the rebel, allowed himself to be deplorably defeated.
William of Arques, however, held out to the very last extremity and
stood a siege of several weeks before he was reduced by famine.
In 1077, it was Robert Curthose, William the Conqueror's own son,
who gave the signal for revolt. This spendthrift complained of want of
money. “I have not even the means," he said to his father, “ of giving
largesse to my vassals. I have had enough of being in thy pay. I am
I
determined now at length to enter into possession of my inheritance, so
that I may reward my followers. " He demanded that the Norman
duchy should be handed over to him, to be held as a fief under his
father. Enraged at the refusal he received, he abruptly quitted the
Conqueror's court, drawing after him the lords of Bellême, Breteuil,
Montbrai and Moulins-la-Marche, and wandered through France in
quest of allies and succours. Finally he shut himself up in the castle of
Gerberoy, in the Beauvaisis but on the borders of Normandy', welcoming
all the discontented who came to him, and fortified in his donjon, he
bade defiance to the wrath of his father. Once again a whole army had
to be levied to subdue him. Philip I of France was called on to lend
his aid. But the two allied kings met with the most desperate resistance;
for three weeks they tried in vain to take the place by surprise. Robert,
in the end, made a sortie; William the Conqueror, thrown from the
es
**
1 See supra, p. 112.
21


## p. 121 (#167) ############################################

The great fiefs: Flanders
121
saddle, was all but made prisoner; William, his younger son, was
wounded; the whole besieging army was ignominiously put to flight
(January 1079), and nothing remained for the Conqueror but to
give a favourable hearing to his rebel son's promises of submission
on his father's pledging himself to leave Normandy to him at his
death.
As soon as William the Conqueror had closed his eyes (9 September
1087) and Robert had become Duke of Normandy the barons rose,
seized some ducal castles, and spread desolation through the land. The
anarchy soon reached its height when the rupture between Robert and
his brother William occurred. Thenceforward revolt never ceased within
the duchy. Aided by the King of England who sent them subsidies,
the rebels fortified themselves behind the walls of their castles and braved
the duke's troops; in November 1090 the rebellion spread even to the
citizens of Rouen. Weak and fitful as he was in character, even Robert
was forced to spend his time in besieging the castles of his feudatories,
who, luckily for him, agreed no better with one another than with their
duke. In 1088 he besieged and took St Céneri, in 1090 Brionne; in 1091
he besieged Courci-sur-Dive, and then Mont-St-Michel, where his brother
Henry had fortified himself; in 1094 he besieged Bréval.
Thus incessantly occupied in defending their authority in their own
territories, the Dukes of Normandy, like the Counts of Anjou and like
all the other great feudatories of the kingdom, found themselves in a
position which made it impossible for them seriously to threaten the
power of the Capetian sovereign. Each ruler, absorbed by the internal
difficulties with which he had to struggle, followed a shifting policy
of temporary expedients. The period is essentially one of isolation, of
purely local activity.
Since France was thus split up into fragments, it would be in vain to
attempt to give a comprehensive view of it. The more general aspects
of civilization, the feudal and religious life of the eleventh century, both
in France and in the other countries of Western Europe, will be examined
in succeeding chapters. But some information must be given touching
the characteristics of each of the great fiefs into which France was then
divided, e. g. in what manner these states were organised, what authority
belonged to the ruler of each of them, who and what were those counts
and dukes whose power often counterbalanced that of the king. Owing
to the lack of good detailed works on the period, something must
necessarily be wanting in any attempt to satisfy curiosity on all these
points.
Flanders. On the northern frontier of the kingdom the county of
Flanders is one of the fiefs which presents itself to us under a most
singular aspect. Vassal both of the King of France for the greater
part of his lands, and of the Emperor for the islands of Zeeland, the
CH. V.


## p. 122 (#168) ############################################

122
Flanders
66
“Quatre-Métiers,” and the district of Alost, the Count of Flanders in
reality enjoyed almost complete independence. Kings,” says a chroni-
cler of the period, William of Poitiers, “feared and respected him ;
dukes, marquesses and bishops trembled before his power. From the
beginning of the tenth century he was considered to have the largest
income in the whole kingdom, and in the middle of the eleventh century
an Archbishop of Rheims could still speak of his immense riches, “such
that it would be difficult to find another mortal possessed of the like. ”
Great was the ascendancy exercised by Baldwin V of Lille (1036-1067);
as guardian of Philip I, King of France, he administered the government
of the kingdom from 1060 to 1066, and by marrying his eldest son to
the Countess of Hainault he succeeded in extending the authority of his
house as far as the Ardennes (1050). Robert the Frisian (1071-1093)
bore himself like a sovereign prince, he had an international policy, and
we find him making an alliance with Denmark in order to counterbalance
the commercial influence of England. He gave one of his daughters in
marriage to Knut, King of Denmark, and in conjunction with him
prepared for a descent upon the British Isles.
The count was even strong enough, it appears, to give Flanders
immunity, to a large extent, from the general anarchy. By procuring
his own recognition as advocate or protector of all the monasteries in
his states, by monopolising for his own benefit the institution of the
“Peace of God” which the Church was then striving to spread', by
substituting himself for the bishops in the office of guardian of this
Peace, the count imposed himself throughout Flanders as lord and
supreme judge in his state. He peremptorily claimed the right of
authorising the building of castles, he proclaimed himself the official
defender of the widow, the orphan, the merchant and the cleric, and
he rigorously punished robbery on the highways and outrages upon
He had a regularly organised administration to second his
efforts. His domains were divided into castellanies or circumscriptions,
each centring in a castle. In each of these castles was placed a military
chief, the castellan or viscount, along with a notary who levied the
dues of the castellany, transmitting them to the notary-in-chief or
chancellor of Flanders, who drew into a common treasury
all the revenues
of the country.
Thus it is not strange that Flanders should have attained earlier
than other provinces to a degree of prosperity well worthy of remark.
As regards agriculture, we find the counts themselves giving an impulse
to important enterprises of clearing and draining in the districts border-
ing on the sea, while in the interior the monastic foundations contributed
largely to the extension of cultivation and of grazing lands. At the
same time the cloth industry was so far developed that the home-grown
1 See Huberti, L. , Studien zur Rechtsgeschichte der Gottesfrieden und Landfrieden,
and Vol. v.
women.


## p. 123 (#169) ############################################

Champagne and Blois
123
wool no longer sufficed to occupy the workmen. Wool from neighbour-
ing countries was sent in great quantities to the Flemish fairs, and
already commerce was bringing Flanders into contact with England,
Germany, and Scandinavia.