No More Learning

He will not shew himself scrupulous in the choice of means of getting
rid of him. In 1025 he lured the Count of Maine, Herbert Wake-dog
· See supra, p. 118 sq.
CH. V.


## p. 126 (#172) ############################################

126
A type of the great baron: Fulk Nerra
into an ambush, giving him a rendezvous at Saintes, which, he said, he
intended to grant him as a fief in order to put an end to a dispute which
had arisen between them. Herbert presented himself unsuspectingly, and
was seized and thrown into prison, while the gentle Hildegarde, the
Countess of Anjou, planned a similar fate for his wife. Less dexterous
than her husband, she missed her stroke, but Herbert remained two
years under lock and key and was only set at liberty after the deepest
humiliations. A few years before, in 1008, the count of the palace,
Hugh of Beauvais, being an obstacle to his designs, Fulk posted cut-
throats to wait for him while he was hunting in company with the king
and had him stabbed under the very eyes of the sovereign.
Elsewhere, on the contrary, we find him, stricken with fear, making
a donation to the Church of St Maurice of Angers, “for the salvation
of his sinful soul and to obtain pardon for the terrible massacre of
Christians whom he had caused to perish at the battle of Conquereuil,”
which he had fought in 992 against the Count of Rennes. A charter shews
him in 996, just as Tours had been taken, forcing his way into the cloister
of St Martin, and suddenly, when he saw the canons wreathing the shrine
and the crucifix with thorns, and shutting the gates of their church, coming
in haste, humbled and barefoot, to make satisfaction before the tomb of
the Saint whom he had insulted. In 1026, when he took Saumur, being
carried away, at first, by his fury, he pillaged and burnt everything, not
even sparing the church of St Florent; then, his rude type of piety
suddenly re-asserting itself, he cried out “Saint Florent, let thy church
be burned, I will build thee a finer dwelling at Angers. " But as the
Saint refused to be won over by fair promises, and as the boat on which
Fulk had had his body shipped refused to stir, the count burst out
furiously against “this impious fellow, this clown, who declines the honour
of being buried at Angers. "
His violence is great, but his penances are not less striking; in 1002 or
1003 he set out for Jerusalem. Hardly had he returned when he defiled
himself afresh by the murder of Hugh of Beauvais, and again there was
a journey to the Holy Land from which neither the perils of an eventful
voyage nor the hostility of the infidel could deter him (1008 ? ). Finally,
at the end of 1039 when he was nearly seventy years old, he did not
hesitate for the sake of his salvation once again to brave the fatigues
and dangers of a last pilgrimage to our Saviour's tomb.
All this shews a nature fiery and even savage but constantly influenced
by the dread of Heaven's vengeance, and legend has copiously embroidered
both aspects. This violent-tempered man has been turned into the type
of the most revolting ferocity, he has been depicted as stabbing his wife,
giving up Angers itself to the flames, forcing his rebellious son, the proud
and fiery Geoffrey Martel, to go several miles with a saddle on his back,
and then when he humbly dragged himself along the ground towards
him, brutally thrusting him away with his foot, uttering cries of triumph.


## p. 127 (#173) ############################################

Normandy
127
He has been made the type of the brave and cunning warrior, capable
of performing the most extraordinary feats; for instance, he is represented
as overhearing, through a partition wall, talk of an attempt upon his
capital, plotted during his absence by the sons of Conan, Count of Rennes.
Instantly he gallops without stopping from Orleans to Angers where he
cuts his enemies to pieces, and hastens back to Orleans with such speed
that there has not even been time to remark his absence. He has been
made to figure as the defender of the Pope whom by his marvellous exploits
he saves from the fiercest robbers and from the formidable Crescentius
himself. Finally, he has been credited with so subtle a brain as to know
how to avoid all the traps which the utmost ingenuity of the Infidels
could set for him to hinder his approach to the Sepulchre of Christ.
Out of this man, on whom the fear of Heaven's wrath would sometimes
fall, legend has made the ideal type of the repentant sinner. Not three
times, but four or five times he is represented to have performed the
pilgrimage to the Holy Land, and is pictured as having himself dragged
half-naked, with a cord round his neck, through the streets of Jerusalem,
scourged by two grooms, and crying aloud “Lord, have pity upon the
traitor ! ” Does not all this exaggeration of the good as well as the evil
in him, these legendary, almost epic, touches, do more to convince us
than any argument could, of the strange importance which the Angevins
of the period attributed to the person of the count? In comparison with
the shadowy figures of the kings who succeed one another on the throne
of France, that of a Fulk Nerra stands out in high relief against a drab
background of level history.
Normandy. It has been useful, in order to give something like a
life-like conception of the great feudatories of the eleventh century, to
spend some time over one of the few personalities of the time which we
are in a position to know at least in its main outlines. In dealing with
the Dukes of Normandy, we may be the briefer because many details con-
cerning them belong to the chapters devoted to the history of England.
More than any other feudal principality, Normandy had derived from
the very nature of its history a real political unity. It was not the fact
that the chief Norman counties were held as fiefs by members of the
duke's own family which secured to the duke, as some continue to repeat,
a power greater than was enjoyed elsewhere, for we have already seen
that family feeling had no effect in preventing revolts. But the duke
had been able to keep a considerable domain in his own hands, and there
were hardly any abbeys in his duchy to which he had not the right of
nomination, many were part of his property and he freely imposed his
own creatures upon them. His word was law throughout the ecclesiastical
province of Rouen, and he disposed at his pleasure of all its episcopal
sees. Without differing notably from what prevailed elsewhere, the
administrative organisation of the duchy was perhaps more stable and
regular. The ducal domain was divided into a certain number of
CH. V.


## p. 128 (#174) ############################################

128
Brittany
a
a
viscounties, with a castle in each of them where a viscount had his seat,
who was invested at once with administrative, judicial, and military
functions. Military obligations were strictly regulated, each baronial
estate owing a certain number of days' service in the field. In a word,
Normandy constituted a real state which was, besides, fortunate enough
to have at its head throughout the eleventh century, with the exception
of Robert Curthose, a succession of brilliant rulers.
Brittany. As under the Carolingians, Brittany continued to form
an isolated province, almost a nation apart. Having its own language,
a religion more impregnated here than elsewhere with paganism, special
customs of its own, and manners ruder and coarser than was usual
elsewhere, Brittany in the eyes even of contemporaries seemed a foreign
and barbarous land. A priest, called by his duties to these inhospitable
regions, looked upon himself as a missionary going forth to evangelise
savages, or as a banished man, while the idea of Ovid in his Pontic exile
suggested itself readily to such minds as had given themselves to the
cultivation of letters.
But in spite of its well-marked characteristics, Brittany did not form
a very strong political entity. Already a severe struggle was in progress
between the Gallo-Roman population along the March of Rennes, and
the Celtic people of Armorica, each group representing its own distinct
language. Inother respects, the antagonism took the form ofarivalry between
the great houses which contended for the dignity of Duke of Brittany.
Which among the counts, he of Rennes, or of Nantes, or of Cornouailles
had the right to suzerainty? In the eleventh century it seemed for a
moment as if the chances of inheritance were about to allow the unifi-
cation of Brittany to become a fact, and as if the duke might be able to
add to the theoretical suzerainty which his title gave him, a direct
control over all the Breton counties. Hoel, Count of Cornouailles, after
inheriting in 1063 the county of Nantes on the death of his mother
Judith of Cornouailles, found himself in 1066 inheritor of the counties
of Rennes and Vannes in right of his wife Havoise, sole heiress of her
brother the Breton Duke, Conan II. But in order to complete the
unification of the duchy it was necessary that the duke should succeed
in making himself obeyed on the northern slope of the rocky mass of
Brittany. Now the Léon country escaped his control, and he was to
exhaust himself in vain efforts to reduce Eon of Penthièvre and his
descendants who ruled over the dioceses of Dol, Alet, Saint-Brieuc and
Tréguier, and even disputed the ducal dignity with the Counts of Rennes.
At a loss for money, and forced to alienate their domains to meet their
expenses, neither Hoel (1066-1084), nor his son and successor, Alan
Fergent (1084-1112), succeeded in turning Brittany into a unified
province.
Aquitaine and Gascony. The destiny of the countries south of the
Loire has all the appearance of a striking paradox. While everywhere
1
1
!
1
1


## p. 129 (#175) ############################################

Aquitaine and Gascony
129
else the tendency is to the minutest subdivision, the Dukes of Aquitaine,
by a policy almost miraculously skilful, succeed not only in maintaining
effective control over the unhomogeneous lands between the Loire and
the Garonne (with the exception of Berry and the Bourbonnais) but in
making good their hold on Gascony which they never again lose, and
even for a time in occupying the county of Toulouse and exacting
obedience from it. Direct rulers of Poitou, of which district they
continue to style themselves counts at the same time that they are
known as Dukes of Aquitaine, rulers also of Saintonge (which was for
a short time a fief of the Count of Anjou) the dynasty of the Williams
a
who succeed one another in the eleventh century on the Poitevin throne,
successfully retained the Counts of Angoulême and la Marche and the
Viscount of Limoges in the strictest vassalage, while they compelled
obedience from the other counts and viscounts in their dominions.
Everywhere or almost everywhere, thanks to perpetual expeditions from
one end of his state to the other, the duke presents himself as the real
suzerain, ever ready for action or intervention in case of need. In
episcopal elections he has contrived to preserve his rights, at Limoges,
for instance, as at Poitiers and Saintes, or at Bordeaux after he has taken
possession of that town; in the greater part of the episcopal cities he
plays an active, sometimes decisive part, often having the last word in
the election of bishops.
Few of the rulers of the feudal chiefs at this time knew as they did
how to act as the real heads of the state or could manoeuvre more
cleverly to extend and maintain their authority. Although praised by
a contemporary chronicler, Adémar of Chabannes, for having succeeded
in reducing all his vassals to complete obedience, William V (995 or
996–1030) appears to have been above all things a peaceful prince,
a lover of learning and belles lettres, for which indeed Adémar eulogises
him in a hyperbolical strain, comparing him to Augustus and Theodosius,
and at the same time to Charlemagne and Louis the Pious. But among
his successors, Guy-Geoffrey, called also William VIII (1058–1086), and
William IX (1086–1126) were born politicians, unburdened with scruples,
moreover, and ready to use all means to attain their ends. By naked
usurpation, helped out by a sudden stroke of arms and by astute
diplomacy, Guy-Geoffrey succeeded in obtaining possession of the duchy
of Gascony, which had fallen vacant in 1039 by the death of his half-
brother, Odo, and so ably was his undertaking carried out that Gascony
was subdued almost on the spot. His son William IX nearly succeeded
in doing as much with regard to the county of Toulouse, some sixty years
later, in 1097 or 1098. Profiting by the absence of the Count, Raymond
of St-Gilles, on Crusade, he claimed the county in the name of his wife
Philippa, the daughter of a former Count of Toulouse, William IV;
and notwithstanding that the possessions of Crusaders were placed under
the guardianship of the Church and accounted sacred, he invaded his
&
C. MED. H. VOL. III. CH. V.
9


## p. 130 (#176) ############################################

130
Languedoc
neighbour's territory and immediately took possession of the lands that
he coveted. In 1100, on the return of Raymond of St-Gilles, he was
forced to restore his conquest. The struggle was only postponed; on the
death of Bertrand, son of Raymond, in 1112, he was again to conquer
the county of Toulouse, and, this time, refuse to surrender his prey.
.
It took Alphonse-Jourdain, the rightful heir, ten years of desperate
strife to gain his point and tear the booty from his terrible neighbour.
This same William IX is besides the very type of a feudal “bel
esprit,” possessed of a pretty wit and apt at celebrating his endless amours
and intrigues in graceful, profligate verse, but he was shameless and brazen,
trampling the principles of morality underfoot as old-fashioned prejudices,
provided that he could indulge his passions. The carrying-off of
Maubergeon, the beautiful wife of the Viscount of Châtellerault, whom
he claimed to marry without further formalities, in the life-time of his
lawful wife, Philippa, and of the Viscount himself, gives one the measure
of the man.
If we may believe the chronicler, William of Malmesbury,
he replied with jests to the prelates who exhorted him to change his
manner of living: “I will repudiate the Viscountess as soon as your hair
requires a comb,” he said to the Bishop of Angoulême, Gerard, who was
bald. Being excommunicated for his evil courses, he one day met Peter,
Bishop of Poitiers. “Give me absolution or I will kill you,” he cried,
raising his sword. “Strike,” replied the bishop, offering his neck. “No,”
replied William, “I do not love you well enough to send you straight to
Paradise,” and he contented himself with exiling him.
Languedoc. Less fortunate and much less skilful than the Dukes of
Aquitaine, the Counts of Toulouse nevertheless succeeded in the eleventh
century in collecting in their own hands a considerable group of fiefs, all
contiguous: they included fiefs within the Empire as well as in France,
and stretched from the Garonne to the Alps from the day when Raymond
of Saint-Gilles, Marquess of Gothia, had succeeded both his brother
William IV in the county of Toulouse (1088) and Bertrand of Arles in
the Marquessate of Provence (1094). But even taking Languedoc alone
(the county of Toulouse and the Marquessate of Gothia) the unity of the
state was only personal and weak, and was always on the point of breaking
down. A law of succession which prescribed division between the direct
heirs male necessarily involved the division of the component fiefs; besides
this, the chiefs of the house of Toulouse had not the continuity of policy
necessary if the counts, barons, and citizens, who, within the confines of
the principality, were ever seeking to secure a more and more complete
independence, were to be held in subjection. They had also to reckon
with the rivalry and ambition of two neighbours: the Dukes of Aquitaine,
who, as we have seen, sought to lay hands upon the county of Toulouse,
and the Counts of Barcelona, who, rulers of Roussillon and in theory
vassals of the French crown, were ever ready to contend with the house
of Saint-Gilles for the possession of the March of Gothia.
11


## p. 131 (#177) ############################################

Moral weight of the higher clergy
131
To sum up, if the strength of the feudal tie and the energy or
diplomacy of some of the great feudatories prevented France from
crumbling into a mere dust-heap of fiefs, contiguous but unconnected,
the evil from which the nation was suffering was, none the less, dangerous
and deep-seated. The realm was frittered away into principalities which
seemed every day to grow further and further apart.
From this general disintegration of the kingdom, the clergy, and
especially the bishops, escaped only with the greatest difficulty. Too
many members of the episcopate belonged both by birth and tendencies
to the feudal classes for them to furnish the elements of a reaction or
even to desire it. But there were a few among the mass, who were in a
position, either through greater openness of mind, or more genuine
culture, to see things from a higher point of view, who succeeded in
imposing their ideas above all local divisions, and, while the royal
authority seemed bankrupt, were able to exercise in the kingdom some
sort of preponderating moral influence. The most illustrious examples
are those of two bishops of Chartres, Bishop Fulbert in the time of King
Robert, and Bishop Ivo in the time of Philip I.
With Fulbert the whole kingdom seems to have been in perpetual
consultation on all manner of questions, even those in appearance most
trivial. Does a point in feudal law need clearing up ? is there a canonical
difficulty to be solved ? or a feeling of curiosity to be satisfied ? recourse
is had to him. About 1020 the Duke of Aquitaine, William the Great,
asks him to expound the mutual obligations of suzerain and vassal, and
the bishop at once sends him a precise and clear reply, which, he says at
the end, he would like to have drawn out further, “if he had not been
absorbed by a thousand other occupations and by his anxiety about the
re-building of his city and his church which had just been destroyed by
a terrible fire. ” Some years later the public mind throughout the
kingdom had been much exercised by a “rain of blood" on the coast of
Poitou. King Robert, at the request of the Duke of Aquitaine that he
would seek enlightenment from his clergy as to this terrifying miracle,
at once writes off to Fulbert, and at the same time to the Bishop of
Bourges, seeking an explanation and details concerning previous
occurrences of the phenomenon. Without delay Fulbert undertakes
the search, re-reads Livy, Valerius Maximus, Orosius, and Gregory of
Tours and sends off a letter with full particulars. Next comes the
scholasticus of St Hilary's of Poitiers, his former pupil, who overwhelms
him with questions of every kind and demands with special insistence
whether bishops may serve in the army. In reply, his kind master sends
him a regular dissertation.
But these are only his lighter cares; he has to guide the king in his
policy and warn him of the blunders he makes. About 1010 Robert
was on the point of convoking a great assembly to proclaim the Peace of
a
CB. V.
9-2


## p. 132 (#178) ############################################

132
Two bishops: Fulbert and Ivo of Chartres
God at Orleans which at that time was under an interdict. Immediately
Fulbert takes up his pen and writes to the king: “Amidst the numerous
occupations which demand my attention, my anxiety touching thy
person, my lord, holds an important place. Thus when I learn that
thou dost act wisely I rejoice; when I learn that thou doest ill I am
grieved and in fear. ” He is glad that the king should be thinking on
peace, but that with this object he should convoke an assembly at Orleans,
"a city ravaged by fire, profaned by sacrilege, and above all, condemned
to excommunication,” this astonishes and confounds him. To hold an
assembly in a town where, legally, neither the king nor the bishops
could communicate, was at that time nothing short of a scandal! And
the pious bishop concludes his letter with wise and firm advice.
A few years earlier, in 1008, the Count of the Palace, Hugh of
Beauvais, the bosom friend of King Robert, had been killed, as we have
related, under the very eyes of the sovereign, by assassins placed in
ambush by Fulk Nerra, Count of Anjou, who immediately gave them
asylum in his dominions. Such was the scandal, that Fulk was near
being proceeded against for high treason, while a synod of bishops
sitting at Chelles wished at all events to pronounce him excommunicate
on the spot. Here again Fulbert intervenes, he enjoins clemency upon
all, obtains a delay of three weeks, and of his own accord writes to Fulk,
though he is neither his diocesan nor his relation, a letter full of kind-
ness, but also of firmness, summoning him to give up the assassins within
a fixed time and to come himself at once and make humble submission.
In the days of Ivo the good understanding between the king and
the Bishop of Chartres was broken. But amidst all the religious and
political difficulties in which Philip was involved, and with him the
whole kingdom, the bishop's influence is only the more evident. In
personal correspondence with the Popes, who consult him, or to whom
on his own initiative he sends opinions always listened to with deference,
in correspondence with the papal legates whom he informs by his
counsels, Ivo seems the real head of the Church in France. In the
question so hotly debated on both sides as to the king's marriage with
Bertrada of Montfort', Ivo did not hesitate to speak his mind to the
king without circumlocution, he sharply rebuked the over-complaisant
bishops, acted as leader of the rest, and personally came to an agreement
with the Pope and his legates as to the course to be pursued. He writes
in 1092 to the king who had summoned him to be present at the
solemnisation of his marriage with Bertrada: “I neither can nor will go, so
long as no general council has pronounced a divorce between you and your
lawful wife, and declared the marriage which you wish to contract canoni-
cal. ” The king succeeded in getting this adulterous union celebrated, and
in spite of warnings he refused to put an end to it. Pope Urban II
>
1 See supra, p. 113


## p. 133 (#179) ############################################

Political interventions of prelates
133
addressed to the bishops and archbishops a letter enjoining them to
excommunicate this impious man, if he refused to repent. Ivo then
appeared as arbiter of the situation. “ These pontifical letters," he
writes to the king's seneschal, “ ought to have been published already,
but out of love for the king I have had them kept back, because I am
determined, as far as is in my power, to prevent a rising of the kingdom
against him. ”
He was fully informed of all that was said or done of any importance;
in 1094 he knew that the king meant to deceive the Pope, and had
sent messengers to Rome; he warned Urban II, putting him on his
guard against the lies which they were charged to convey to him.
Later on, in the time of Pope Paschal II, it was he who finally preached
moderation with success, who arranged everything with the Pope for the
“reconciliation ” of the king. There is no ecclesiastical business in the
.
kingdom of which he does not carefully keep abreast, ready, if it be useful,
to intervene to support his candidate for a post, and to give advice
to bishop or lord. Not only does he denounce to the Pope the impious
audacity of Ralph (Ranulf) Flambard, Bishop of Durham, who in 1102
had seized on the bishopric of Lisieux in the name of one of his sons,
but he calls on the Archbishop of Rouen and the other bishops of the
province to put an end to these disorders. He does even more, he writes
to the Count of Meulan to urge him to make representations without
delay, on his behalf, to the King of England whose duty it is not to
tolerate such a scandal.
At a period when religion, though ordinarily of a very rude type,
was spreading in all directions, and when the gravest political questions
which came up were those of Church policy, a prelate who, like Ivo of
Chartres, knew how to speak out and to gain the ear of popes, kings,
bishops and lords, certainly exercised in France a power of action stronger
and more pregnant with results than the obscure ministers of a weak,
discredited king.
CH. V.


## p. 134 (#180) ############################################

134
CHAPTER VI.
THE KINGDOM OF BURGUNDY.
A.
The kingdom of Burgundy down to the annexation of the
kingdom of Provence.
The unity of the Empire, momentarily restored under Charles the Fat,
had, as we have seen, been once more and finally shattered in 888. As in
843, the long strip of territory lying between the Scheldt, the mouth of
the Meuse, the Saône and the Cevennes on one hand, and the Rhine and
the Alps on the other, was not re-included in France; but the German
king was no more capable than his neighbour of keeping it as a whole
under his authority. The entire district south of the Vosges slipped
from his grasp, and for a moment he was even in danger of seeing
a rival put in possession of the whole of the former kingdom of
Lothar I.
In fact, very shortly after the Emperor Charles the Fat, abandoned
on all hands, and deposed at Tribur, had made a wretched end at
Neidingen, several of the great lay lords and churchmen of the ancient
duchy of Jurane Burgundy assembled in the basilica of St Maurice
d'Agaune, probably about the end of January 888, and proclaimed the
Count and Marquess Rodolph king. Rodolph was a person of no small
importance. His grandfather, Conrad the Elder, brother of the Empress
Judith, count and duke in Alemannia, and his uncle, Hugh the Abbot,
had played a prominent part in the time of Charles the Bald, while his
father, Conrad, originally Count of Auxerre, had taken service with the
sons of the Emperor Lothar about 861, and had received from the
Emperor Louis II the government of the three Transjurane dioceses of
Geneva, Lausanne and Sion, as well as the abbey of St Maurice d’Agaune.
Rodolph had succeeded to this Jurane duchy which now chose and pro-
claimed him king.
The significance of the declaration was at first far from clear. Still,
in the minds of Rodolph and his supporters it must necessarily have
involved more than a mere change of style. The Empire, momentarily
united, was once more falling apart into its earlier divisions, and


## p. 135 (#181) ############################################

Rodolph I
135
there being no one capable of assuming the Carolingian heritage in its
entirety, the state of things was being reproduced which had formerly
resulted from the Treaty of Verdun in 843. Such seems to have been
the idea which actuated the electors assembled at St Maurice d'Agaune ;
and Rodolph, without forming a very precise estimate of the situation,
left the western kingdom to Odo and the eastern to Arnulf, and set
to work at once to secure for himself the former kingdom of Lothar II
in its integrity.
At first it seemed that circumstances were in the new king's
favour. Accepted without difficulty in the counties of the diocese of
Besançon, Rodolph proceeded to occupy Alsace and a large part of
Lorraine. In an assembly which met at Toul the bishop of that town
crowned him king of Lorraine. But all his supporters fell away on the
appearance in the country of Arnulf, the new king of Germany, and
Rodolph, after in vain attempting to resist his army, had no choice but
to treat with his rival. He went to seek Arnulf at Ratisbon, and after
lengthy negotiations obtained from him the recognition of his kingship
over the Jurane duchy and the diocese of Besançon, on condition of
his surrendering all claims to Alsace and Lorraine (October 888). Thus
by force of circumstances the earlier conception of Rodolph's kingship
was taking a new form ; the restoration of the kingdom of Lorraine was
no longer thought of; a new kingdom, the “ kingdom of Burgundy,” had
come into being.
It was only with reluctance that Arnulf had recognised the existence
of this new kingdom. A Caroling, though illegitimate, he might seem
to have inherited from Charles the Fat a claim to rule over the whole of
the former empire of Charlemagne. Not satisfied that Rodolph should
have been forced to humble himself before him by journeying to Ratis-
bon to seek the confirmation of his royal dignity, he attempted to go
back
upon the recognition that he had granted. In 894, as he was
returning from an expedition to Lombardy, he made a hostile irruption
into the Valais, ravaging the country and vainly attempting to come to
close quarters with Rodolph, who, a few weeks earlier, had sent assistance
to the citizens of Ivrea, a town which the king of Germany had been
unsuccessfully besieging. Rodolph took refuge in the mountains and
evaded all pursuit. Nor could Zwentibold, Arnulf's illegitimate son,
who was sent against him at the head of a fresh army, succeed in reach-
ing him. The dispossession of the king of Burgundy was then resolved
on, and in 895 in an assembly held at Worms, Arnulf created Zwentibold
“king in Burgundy and in the whole of the kingdom formerly held by
Lothar II. ” But these claims were not prosecuted ; Rodolph maintained
his position, and on his death (25 October 911 or 912) his son Rodolph II
succeeded unchallenged to his kingdom.
Germany, indeed, since the death of Arnulf in 899 had been struggling
in the grip of terrible anarchy. Conrad of Franconia, who in 911 had
CH. VI.


## p. 136 (#182) ############################################

136
Rodolph II
succeeded Louis the Child, was too busy defending himself against the
revolted nobles to dream of intervention in Burgundy. Not only had
Rodolph II nothing to fear from this quarter, but he saw a favourable
opportunity for retaliation.
On the side of Lorraine it was too late ; the king of Burgundy had
been forestalled by the King of France, Charles the Simple, who as early
as November 911 had effected its conquest. Rodolph II indemnified
himself, it would appear, by attempting to lay hands on the two
Alemannic counties of Thurgau and Aargau, the districts lying on the
eastern frontier of his kingdom, between the Aar, the Rhine, the Lake
of Constance and the Reuss. He was, indeed, repulsed by the Duke of
Swabia at Winterthür in 919, but none the less succeeded in preserving
a substantial part of his conquests. Other events, however, called his
attention and diverted his energies to new quarters.
The state of affairs in Italy was then extremely disturbed. After
many rivalries and struggles, both the Lombard crown and the imperial
diadem had been placed in 915 upon the head of Berengar of Friuli.
But Berengar was far from having conciliated all sections, and at the end
of 921 or the beginning of 922 a number of the disaffected offered the
Lombard crown to Rodolph. The offer was a tempting one. Though
separated from Lombardy by the wall of the Alps, Jurane Burgundy
was still naturally brought into constant relations with it; the high
road, which from St Maurice d’Agaune led by the Great St Bernard to
Aosta and Vercelli, was habitually followed by pilgrims journeying from
the north-west into Italy. Besides, owing to their origin, many nobles
of weight in the Lombard plain, notably the Marquess of Ivrea, were in
personal communication with King Rodolph. Finally, memories of the
Emperor Lothar, who had been in possession of Italy as well as Bur-
gundy, could not but survive and necessarily produced an effect upon
men's minds.
Rodolph listened favourably to the overtures made him. He marched
straight upon Pavia, the capital of the Lombard kingdom, entered
the city, and induced the majority of the lay lords and bishops to
recognise him as king (February 922). Berengar was defeated in a great
battle fought at Fiorenzuola not far from Piacenza on 17 July 923, and
forced to fly with all speed to Verona, where he was murdered a few
months later (7 April 924). Yet before long Rodolph was forced to
change his tone. With their usual instability, the Italian barons lost
no time in deserting him to call in a new claimant, Hugh of Arles,
Marquess of Provence. Rodolph asked help of the Duke of Swabia,
Burchard, whose daughter he had married a few years before, but the
duke fell into an ambuscade and was killed (April 926) and Rodolph,
disheartened, had no choice but to retrace his steps disconsolately across
the Great St Bernard.
Events, however, were soon to convince him that his true interest lay


## p.
137 (#183) ############################################

Boso of Provence
137
in renouncing the Lombard crown and coming to an understanding with
his rival in order to seek the satisfaction of his ambition in another
direction.
B. The kingdom of Provence down to its annexation to the
kingdom of Burgundy.
The wide region lying to the south of Burgundy, between the Alps,
the Mediterranean and the Cevennes, had been for several years without
a ruler, and was in such a state of confusion and uncertainty as was
likely to tempt King Rodolph to seek his advantage there.
In the middle of the ninth century (855) a kingdom had been formed
there for the benefit of Charles, third son of the Emperor Lothar. On
the death of the young king (863) the inheritance had been divided
between his two brothers, and was soon after occupied by Charles the
Bald, who entrusted its administration to his vassal Boso (870). The
latter, who was of Frankish origin, was among the most influential per-
sonages of the Western Kingdom ; his sister, Richilda, had been first the
mistress and later the wife of the king; he himself, apparently, was an
ambitious man, energetic, skilful, and unscrupulous. In 876 he married
Ermengarde, daughter of the Emperor Louis II, and secured the favour
of Pope John VIII who, on the death of Charles the Bald in October
877, even thought for a moment of drawing him to Italy. Later, on
the death of Louis the Stammerer, Boso openly revolted and ventured
on having himself crowned king at Mantaille (15 October 879).
Before this date, Boso had been in possession of Provence and of the
counties of Vienne and Lyons, and he now obtained recognition as king
in the Tarentaise as well as in the Uzège and Vivarais districts and even
in the dioceses of Besançon and Autun.
But his attempt was pre-
mature; the united Carolingians, Louis III and Carloman, supported
by an army promptly despatched by Charles the Fat, invaded the
country in 880; the war was a tedious one, but at last in September 882
Vienne yielded, and Boso, driven from the Viennois, remained in
obscurity till his death (11 January 887).
For more than three years the fate of the “kingdom of Provence
remained in suspense. From the beginning of 888 the public records
are dated “in such a year after the death of Boso” “ after the death
of Charles” (the Fat). The kingdom of Burgundy had been formed,
yet neither Rodolph, its king, nor Odo, King of France, nor Arnulf,
King of Germany, all too fully engaged elsewhere, ever thought of laying
claim to the vacant throne of Provence.
But if Arnulf were unable to undertake the occupation of the king-
dom of Provence, at least it was plainly his interest to further the setting
up of a king who would recognise his overlordship and might also serve
as a counterpoise to the ambitious and encroaching Rodolph. Now Boso
2
or
CA. VI.


## p. 138 (#184) ############################################

138
Louis the Blind
had left a son, still quite young, named Louis, who having been protected
and even adopted by Charles the Fat, might be looked upon as the right-
ful heir of the Provençal throne. His mother, Ermengarde, set herself
energetically to bring about his coronation ; in May 889 she repaired to
Arnulf's court, and by means of rich gifts secured his help. Louis's claims,
supported also by the Pope, Stephen V, were generally recognised, and
towards the end of 890 he was proclaimed king in an assembly held at
Valence, and brought under his rule the greater part of the territory
lying to the south of Rodolph's dominions.
But the exact nature of his kingship can hardly even be conjectured
from contemporary records. We hear of him only as having journeyed
about his kingdom and granted privileges to churches. Moreover, from
the year 900 his energies are diverted to the other side of the Alps,
whither he is invited by the lords of Italy, who, weary of their king,
Berengar, offer him the crown. Louis closed with their proposals, as,
later on, Rodolph II was to do, marched at once upon Pavia, and there
assumed the crown as king of Italy, about the beginning of October 900.
Then, continuing his march, he entered Piacenza and Bologna, and in
February 901 received the imperial crown at Rome from the hands of
Pope Benedict IV. Some few engagements with Berengar's troops
were enough to secure to him the adhesion of the majority of the
nobles.
But if Italy was quickly won, it was quickly lost. Driven from
Pavia, which Berengar succeeded in re-entering (902), Louis in 905
made a fresh attempt to thrust out his rival. But he was surprised
at Verona on 21 July 905', and made prisoner by Berengar who put out
his eyes, and sent him back beyond the Alps.
Thenceforward, the unhappy Louis the Blind drags out a wretched
existence within his own dominions. While continuing to bear the
empty title of Emperor, he remained shut up in his town and palace of
Vienne, leaving the business of government to his cousin Hugh of Arles,
Marquess of Provence, who, holding both the March of Provence and the
county of Vienne, acts as master throughout the kingdom. We find
him for instance interfering in the affairs of the Lyonnais, although this
district had a count of its own, and again in the business of the church
of Valence, the bishop of which see is described as his vassal. Again,
if any question of alliance with a neighbouring king arises, it is he who
intervenes. At the beginning of 924 he has an interview with Raoul,
King of France, in the Autunois on the banks of the Loire. In the
same year the Hungarians, who for some time had been devastating the
Lombard plain, crossed the Alps and threatened at once the kingdoms
1 This date, accepted by M. Poupardin (Le Royaume de Provence, p. 186) and
contested by M. Segre (Archivio storico italiano, vol. xxxvIII. 1906, pp. 442–48)
seems to us to have been established by M. Schiaparelli (Bullettino dell'Istituto
storico italiano, 1908, no. 29, pp. 129–157).


## p. 139 (#185) ############################################

Union of Provence with Burgundy
139
of Rodolph II and Louis the Blind. Again it is Hugh of Arles who
opens communications with Rodolph and concerts with him a common
plan of action against the dreaded barbarians. The two princes joined
their forces to stay the course of the robber bands by penning them
up in a defile, whence, however, they escaped. Hugh and Rodolph
together pursued them to the Rhone and drove them into Gothia.
This concord between Hugh of Arles and King Rodolph was not to
be lasting. We have already seen how Rodolph, called in by the lords
of Lombardy and crowned king of Italy in 922, had the very next year
been abandoned by a large number of his supporters who had offered the
kingdom to the Marquess of Provence. The latter had then come into
collision with Berengar's troops, and had been obliged to pledge himself
to attempt nothing further against him. But when in 926 Rodolph
definitively withdrew from Italy, Hugh embarked from Provence and
landed near Pisa. In the beginning of July 926, at Pavia, he received in
his turn the crown which he was to succeed in retaining for twenty
years without encountering any rival of importance.
About a year later Louis the Blind died. Of his children only one
seemed capable of reigning, Charles Constantine, often held illegitimatel;
he was Count of Vienne, a district which he had been virtually ruling
since the departure of Hugh. But the new king of Italy, who was still all-
powerful in the kingdom of Provence, was not disposed to favour him.
For several years this state of uncertainty prevailed, and charters were
again dated either by the regnal year of the dead sovereign, or, according
to a formula widely used in times of interregnum, “God reigning, and a
king being awaited. ”
About 933 events occurred which cleared up the situation. “At this
time,” says the Lombard historian Liud prand,“ the Italians sent into
Burgundy to Rodolph's court to recall him. When King Hugh heard
of it, he despatched envoys to him and gave him all the lands that he
had held in Gaul before he ascended the throne, taking an oath of King
Rodolph that he would never return to Italy. ” This obscure passage is
our only source of information as to the agreement arrived at between
the two sovereigns. What was its exact purport it is impossible to say,
but the whole history of the succeeding years goes to prove that the
cession then made consisted of the sovereign rights which Hugh had
practically exercised for many long years in the dominions of Louis the
Blind. It amounted, in fact, to the union of the kingdom of Provence
with that of Burgundy.
1 See Previté-Orton, EHR, 1914, p. 705, for the legitimacy of this prince.
? It would seem that this treaty (possibly c. 931) was not at once effective,
Conrad not being king in the Viennois until c. 940, and in Provence until c. 948 on
the death of King Hugh. See Previté-Orton, EHR, 1917, p. 347; cf. also infra,
P. 156.
CH. v1.


## p. 140 (#186) ############################################

140
The German protectorate
1
1
tells us,
a
C. The kingdom of Burgundy and its annexation to the Empire.
Rodolph II did not long survive this treaty. He died on 12 or
13 July 937, leaving the government to his young son Conrad, in after
years called the Peaceful, and then aged about fifteen at most.
The youth and weakness of the new king were sure to be a temptation
to his neighbours. Apparently Hugh of Arles, King of Italy, planned
how he might turn the situation to account, for as early as 12 December
937, we find him on the shores of the Lake of Geneva, where he took to
wife Bertha, mother of young Conrad and widow of Rodolph II. Soon
afterwards, he married his son Lothar to Bertha's daughter, Adelaide.
The new King of Germany, Otto I, who in 937 had just succeeded
his father, Henry I, could not look unmoved on these manoeuvres.
Without loss of time he set out for Burgundy, and, as his biographer
“ received into his possession the king and the kingdom. ” In
reality it was a bold and sudden stroke ; Otto, cutting matters short,
had simply made young Conrad prisoner. For about four years he
kept him under a strong guard, taking him about with him on all his
journeys and expeditions, and when he released him, at about the end
of 942, he had made sure of his fidelity.
Thenceforward the king of Burgundy seems to be no more than a vassal
of the German king. When in 946 Otto went to the help of Louis IV
d'Outremer, against the aggressions of Hugh the Great, Conrad with
his contingent of troops accompanied him. In May 960 we find him at
Otto's court at Kloppen in the neighbourhood of Mannheim. Gradually
the bonds that unite the king of Germany and the king of Burgundy
were drawn closer; in 951 Otto married Adelaide, sister of Conrad,
and widow of Lothar, King of Italy; ten years later he was crowned
king of Italy at Pavia, and (2 February 962) received the imperial
crown at Rome. From this time onward, apparently, he looks upon the
kingdom of Burgundy as a sort of appendage to his own dominions ; not
only does he continue to keep Conrad always in his train (we find him
for instance in 967 at Verona), but he makes it his business to expel
the Saracens settled at Le Frainet (Fraxinetum) in the district of
St-Tropez, and in January 968 makes known his intention of going in
person to fight with them in Provence.
Under Rodolph III, son and successor of Conrad, the dependent posi-
tion of the king of Burgundy in relation to the Emperor, becomes more
and more marked. Rodolph III, on whom even during his life-time his
contemporaries chose to bestow the title of the “Sluggard (ignavus)," does
not seem, at least in the early part of his career, to have been lacking
in either energy or decision. Aged about twenty-five at the time of his
accession (993), he attempted to re-establish in his kingdom an authority
1 See supra, Chapter iv.
p. 79.


## p. 141 (#187) ############################################

The Count Otto-William
141
which, owing to the increasing strength of the nobles, was becoming
daily more precarious. A terrible rebellion was the result, against
which all the king's efforts broke helplessly. Incapable of subduing the
revolt, he was obliged to have recourse to the German sovereign. The
aged empress, Adelaide, widow of Otto I and aunt of young Rodolph III,
hastened to him in 999 and journeyed with him through the country,
endeavouring to pacify the nobles.
At the end of the same year, 999, she died, and hardly had two years
passed when the Emperor Otto III followed her to the grave (23 January
1002). Under his successor, Henry II of Bavaria, German policy soon
shewed itself aggressive and encroaching. In 1006 Henry seized the
town of Basle, which he kept for several years; soon afterwards he
exacted from Rodolph an oath that before he died he would name him
his heir, and ten years later events occurred which placed the king of
Burgundy completely at his mercy.
For reasons which are still to some extent obscure, the “ Count of
Burgundy,” Otto-William, and a large group of the lords had just
broken out into revolt against Rodolph. In his character of “count of
Burgundy " Otto-William was master of the whole district correspond-
ing to the diocese of Besançon, and as he held at the same time the
county of Mâcon in the kingdom of France, and was brother-in-law of
the powerful bishop Bruno of Langres, and father-in-law of Landry,
Count of Nevers, of William the Great, Duke of Aquitaine, and of
William II, Count of Provence, he was the most important person in the
kingdom of Burgundy. As a contemporary chronicler Thietmar, Bishop
of Merseburg, says while the events were yet recent, “ Otto-William
though“ nominally a vassal of the king” had a mind to live as "the
sovereign master of his own territories. "
The dispute broke out on the occasion of the nomination of a new
archbishop to the see of Besançon. Archbishop Hector had just died,
and immediately rival claimants had appeared, Rodolph seeking to have
Bertaud, a clerk of his chapel, nominated, and Count Otto-William
opposing this candidature in the interest of a certain Walter. The
real question was, who was to be master in the episcopal city, the
king or his vassal ? Ostensibly the king won the day; Bertaud was
elected, perhaps even consecrated. But Otto-William did not submit.
He drove Bertaud out of Besançon, installed Walter by force, and, as
the same Bishop Thietmar relates, carried his insolence so far as to
have Bertaud hunted by his hounds in order to mark the deep contempt
with which this intruder inspired him. “And,” adds the chronicler, “ as
the prelate, worn out with fatigue, heard them baying at his heels, he
turned round, and making the sign of the cross in the direction in which
he had just left the print of his foot, let himself fall to the ground,
expecting to be torn to pieces by the pack. But those savage dogs, on
sniffing the ground thus hallowed by the sign of the cross, felt them-
99
CH 1.


## p. 142 (#188) ############################################

142
German intervention
selves suddenly stopped, as if by an irresistible force, and turning back,
left God's true servant to find his way through the woods to a more
hospitable region. ”
Otto-William was triumphant. Rodolph, having exhausted all his
resources, was obliged to ask help of Henry II. An interview took
place at Strasbourg in the early summer of 1016. Rodolph made his
appearance with his wife, Ermengarde, and two of her sons who did
homage to the Emperor. Rodolph himself, not satisfied with renewing
the engagement to which he had already sworn, to leave his kingdom on
his death to Henry, recognised him even then as his successor and swore
not to undertake any business of importance without first consulting him.
As to Otto-William, he was declared to have incurred forfeiture, and
his fiefs were granted by the Emperor to some of the lords about his
court.
Next came the carrying out of this programme, a matter which
bristled with difficulties. The Emperor himself undertook the despoil-
ing of the Count of Burgundy. But entrenched within their fortresses,
Otto-William and his partisans successfully resisted capture. Henry
could only ravage the country, and being recalled by other events to the
northern point of his dominions, was obliged to retreat without having
accomplished anything. Thus the imperial intervention had not availed
to restore Rodolph's authority. Again abandoned to his own resources,
and incapable of making head against the rebels, the king of Burgundy
gave ear to the proposals of the latter, who offered to submit on con-
dition that the engagements of the Treaty of Strasbourg were annulled.
Just at first, Rodolph appeared to yield. But the Emperor certainly
lent no countenance to the expedient, the result of which would be
disastrous to himself, and as early as February 1018 he compelled
the king of Burgundy, his wife, his step-sons and the chief nobles of
his kingdom solemnly to renew the arrangement of Strasbourg? He
then directed a fresh expedition against the county of Burgundy. It
is not known, however, whether its results were any better than those of
the expedition of 1016.
A few years later, when Henry II died (13 July 1024) Rodolph
attempted to shake off the Germanic suzerainty, by claiming that former
agreements were ipso facto invalidated by Henry's death. The latter's
.
successor, Conrad II of Franconia, at once made it his business per-
emptorily to demand what he looked upon as his rights, and Rodolph
1 This account of the years 1016-18, which are of the first importance in the
history of Burgundy, departs very notably from that given by the latest learned
authority who has devoted attention to the question, M. René Poupardin, in his
study, Le royaume de Bourgogne, pp. 126-134. Our account is founded on a fresh
study of the text of Thietmar of Merseburg and of Alpert, whose meaning appears
to us not to have been always clearly brought out till now. The text of Alpert is,
moreover, evidently inexact as to most of the points. Although a contemporary, he
has made himself the echo of loose reports denied by other authors.
#


## p. 143 (#189) ############################################

The succession to Rodolph III
143
was forced to submit. He even went as a docile vassal to Rome, to be
present at the imperial coronation of the new prince (26 March 1027),
and a few months later, at Basle, he solemnly renewed the conventions of
Strasbourg and Mayence.
Rodolph III himself only survived this new treaty a few years. On
5 or 6 Sept. 1032 he died, without legitimate children, after having sent
the insignia of his authority to the Emperor.
It seemed as though the Emperor Conrad had nothing to do but
come and take possession of his new kingdom. The chief opponent
of his policy in Rodolph's lifetime, Otto-William, Count of Burgundy,
had died several years before in 1026, and the principal nobles of the
kingdom had in 1027 come with their king. to Basle to ratify the con-
ventions of Strasbourg and Mayence. The course of events, however,
was not to be so smooth.
Already, for some time Odo II, Count of Chartres, Blois, Tours, Troyes,
Meaux and Provins, the most formidable and turbulent of the king of
France's vassals, had been intriguing with the Burgundian lords to be
recognised as the successor of King Rodolph. He had even attempted,
though without success, to inveigle the latter into naming him as his
heir, to the exclusion of his imperial rival. He put himself forward in
his character of nephew of the king of Burgundy, his mother being
Rodolph's sister, whereas the Emperor Conrad was only the husband of
that king's niece
No sooner had Rodolph closed his eyes, than Odo II, profiting by the
Emperor's detention at the other end of his dominions, owing to a war
against the Poles, promptly crossed the Burgundian frontier, seized upon
several fortresses in the very heart of the kingdom, such as Morat and
Neuchâtel, and thence marching upon Vienne, forced the Archbishop,
Léger, to open the gates and, with a view to being crowned, made sure of
!
!
1
For the sake of greater clearness, a short table of the family of the kings
of Burgundy, so far as they concern our narrative, is subjoined :
Rodolph I
King of Burgundy 888-911 or 912
Rodolph II
King of Burgundy 911 or 912-937
Conrad the Pacific
King of Burgundy
937-993
Adelaide=Otto I
King of Germany
and Emperor
Gisela
= Henry,
Duke of
Bavaria
Rodolph III Bertha (1)=Odo I Gerberga=Herman Otto II
King of Burgundy
Count of
Duke of Swabia Emperor
993–1032
Blois
Henry II
Елmperor
Odo II
Count of Blois
Gisela=Conrad II Otto III
Emperor Emperor
CH, P1,


## p. 144 (#190) ############################################

144
The rival claimants
his adhesion. The expedition thus rapidly carried out, with a decision
all the more remarkable as Odo II had at that very moment to reckon
with the hostility of the king of France against whom he had rebelled'.
certainly had the result of deciding a large number of the Burgundian
lords, whether willingly or unwillingly, to declare for the Count of Blois.
The Archbishop of Lyons and the Count of Geneva pronounced against
the Emperor. It was high time for the latter to intervene.
Having secured the submission of the Polish duke, Mesco II, Conrad
hastened back and in the depth of winter marched without stopping upon
Basle (January 1033). From thence he quickly reached Soleure and then
the monastery of Payerne, to the east of Lake Neuchâtel. He took ad-
vantage of the Feast of Candlemas (2 February) to have himself solemnly
elected and crowned there as king of Burgundy by the nobles who
favoured his cause and had come to meet him. From thence he ad-
vanced to lay siege to Morat, which was held by the partisans of the
Count of Blois. But the cold was so intense and the resistance of the
besieged so determined that Conrad was forced to abandon the enterprise
and fall back upon Zurich, and from thence return to Swabia until the
season should be more favourable.
Luckily for the Emperor, Odo was obliged during the spring
of 1033 to make head against Henry I, King of France, who for
the second time had made an attempt upon Sens”, and he was for several
months quite unable to follow up his early successes in Burgundy.
Some months later hostilities were resumed between Conrad and his
rival, but already the latter had begun to cherish new projects, and
instead of entering Burgundy he invaded Lorraine and threatened Toul.
Conrad replied by an invasion of Champagne. Both parties, having
.
grown weary of the fruitless struggle, decided on opening negotiations.
A meeting took place; according to the German chroniclers Odo took an
oath to abandon all claims upon Burgundy, to evacuate the fortresses
he still held there, and to give hostages for the fulfilment of these
promises; finally, he undertook to give the nobles of Lorraine, who
had suffered by his ravages, every satisfaction which the imperial court
should require.
These promises, if they were really made, were too specious to be
sincere. As soon as the Emperor had withdrawn in order to suppress
a revolt of the Lyutitzi on the borders of Pomerania, Odo renewed
his destructive expeditions through Lorraine. Conrad realised that he
must first of all make a good ending of his work in Burgundy; he
gained the help of Humbert Whitehands, Count of Aosta; he was there-
fore able in May 1034 to make a junction at Geneva with some Italian
troops brought to him by Boniface, Marquess of Tuscany; without
1 See supra, Chapter v. pp. 106-7, 123.
See supra, Chapter v. pp. 107, 123.


## p. 145 (#191) ############################################

Success of the Emperor Conrad II
145
difficulty he reduced most of the strongholds in the northern part of the
Burgundian kingdom, forced the Count of Geneva and the Archbishop
of Lyons to acknowledge his authority, and again caused the crown to
be placed solemnly upon his head at à curia coronata held at Geneva.
Morat still held out for the Count of Blois ; it was taken by storm and
given up to pillage. The cause of the Count of Blois was now lost beyond
redemption in Burgundy, and Conrad, recognised by all, or practically
all, could promise himself secure possession of his new kingdom.
Meanwhile, Odo, no more successful in his enterprise against
Lorraine than in his Burgundian expedition, was soon to meet his death
before the walls of Bar (15 November 1037).
From the day that the submission of the kingdom of Burgundy to
the Emperor Conrad became an accomplished fact, the history of the
kingdom may be said to come to an end. Yet it is not well to take
literally the assertions of late chroniclers who sum up the course of
events in such terms as these : “ The Burgundians, not departing from
their habitual insolence towards their king, Rodolph, delivered up to
the Emperor Conrad the kingdom of Burgundy, which kingdom had,
from the time of the Emperor Arnulf, for more than 130 years, been
governed by its own kings, and thus Burgundy was again reduced to a
province. ” But there was really a short period of transition; in fact at
an assembly held (1038) at Soleure, Conrad, doubtless feeling the need of
having a permanent representative in the kingdom, decided on handing
it over to his son Henry. Whatever may have been said on the subject,
it appears that Henry was in fact recognised as king of Burgundy;
the great lords took a direct oath of fealty to him, and the Emperor
doubtless granted him the dignity of an under-kingship, with which the
Carolingian sovereigns had so often invested their sons.
But this form of administration did not last long. As early
as 4 June 1039 King Conrad died, and now Henry III, the young
king of Burgundy, found the kingdoms of Germany and Italy added
to his first realm. The title of king of Burgundy was now, however,
only an empty form. The domains which the sovereign had at his
disposal in Burgundy were so insignificant that during the latter years
of Rodolph III the chronicler Thietmar of Merseburg could write in
reference to him : “ There is no other king who governs thus; he
possesses nothing but his title and his crown, and gives away bishoprics
to those who are selected by the nobles. What he possesses for his own
use is of small account, he lives at the expense of the prelates, and
cannot even defend them or others who are in any way oppressed by
their neighbours. Thus they have no resource, if they are to live in
peace, but to come and commend themselves to the lords and serve
them as if they were kings. ”
The very name of “Kingdom of Burgundy” covered a whole series of
territories without unity, without mutual ties, and over which the king's
a
C. MED.