No More Learning



## p. 83 (#129) #############################################

Hugh Capet
83
of the English King Aethelstan, he had married, about 937, a sister
of Otto I, King of Germany. Soon after, in 943, he had obtained from
Louis IV the suzerainty of Burgundy, thus interposing himself between the
sovereign and a whole class of his greatest vassals ; a little later he had
succeeded in usurping the overlordship of Normandy, and finally in 954
he had attempted to add to it that of Aquitaine. The new King, Lothair,
having allowed this fresh grant to be extorted from him, had even been
obliged to go with the duke to lay siege to Poitiers (955). The attempt,
however, had failed, but in 956 on the death of Gilbert, Duke of Burgundy,
Hugh directly appropriated his inheritance. Owner of numerous abbeys
and estates dispersed here and there through the kingdom, in Berry, in
the Autun district, in that of Meaux and in Picardy, he really did
appear as the “Duke of the Gauls” as, some thirty years later, the
historian Richer styles him, and his power throwing that of the king
into the shade, he had publicly held almost royal courts (placita) to
which bishops, abbots and counts resorted in crowds.
His son, Hugh Capet, had been obliged to give up Burgundy to his
brother Otto, and had tried in vain to secure the Duchy of Aquitaine, of
which he had obtained a fresh grant from King Lothair in 960. But at
the same time he saw the power of his rivals much more seriously
diminished. The possessions of Herbert II of Vermandois, who died in
943, had been divided among his sons, and in 987 neither Albert I,
titulary of the little county of Vermandois, nor even the Count of
Troyes, Meaux and Provins, Herbert the Young, although his territorial
power was beginning to be somewhat of a menace, was of sufficient im-
portance to compete in influence with the Duke of the Franks. But if the
duke's authority, when closely examined, might seem to be undermined
by the growing independence of several of his vassals, it was none the
less very imposing; suzerain, if not immediate holder of all Neustria,
including Normandy, of an important part of Francia, and titulary of
several rich abbeys, the Duke of the Franks, who had on his side the
support of Adalbero and Gerbert, might well seem expressly marked
ööt to succeed to the inheritance suddenly left vacant by the death
of Louis V.
And this, indeed, was what took place. The assembly which Louis V
at the time of his death had summoned to meet at Compiègne to judge
n Archbishop Adalbero's case, was held under the presidency of Duke
Hugh. As was to be expected, it decided that the charges against the
prelate were groundless, and, at his suggestion, resolved to meet again a
little later at Senlis on the territory of the Duke of the Franks and to
proceed to the election of a king. Adalbero there explained without
circumlocution that it was impossible to think of entrusting the crown
to Charles, Duke of Lorraine. “How can we bestow any dignity” he
exclaimed (according to the report of the historian Richer who was
doubtless present in the assembly)“ upon Charles, who is in nowise guided
7
H. IV.
6-2


## p. 84 (#130) #############################################

84
The Capetian dynasty
by honour, who is enervated by lethargy, who, in a word, has so lost his
judgment as no longer to feel shame at serving a foreign king, and at
mismatching himself with a woman of birth inferior to his own, the
daughter of a mere knight'? How could the powerful duke suffer that
a woman, coming from the family of one of his vassals, should become
queen and rule over him ? How could he walk behind one whose equals
and even whose superiors bend the knee before him ? Examine the
situation carefully, and reflect that Charles has been rejected more by
his own fault than by that of others. Let your decision be rather for
the good than for the misfortune of the State. If you value its pros-
perity, crown Hugh, the illustrious duke. Let no man be led away by
attachment to Charles, let no man through hatred of the duke be drawn
away from what is useful to all. For if you have faults to find in the
good man, how can you praise the wicked ? If you commend the wicked
man, how can you condemn the good ? Remember the threatenings of
God who says ; 'Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil ;
that put darkness for light and light for darkness ! ' Take then as your
master the duke, who has made himself illustrious by his actions, his
nobility, and his resourcefulness, and in whom you will find a protector,
not only of the public weal, but also of your private interests. His
benevolence will make him a father to you. Where is the man, indeed,
who has appealed to him without finding protection ? Who is he who,
being deprived of the help of his own people, has not by him been
restored to them? These reasons seemed conclusive, no doubt, to an
assembly which asked nothing better than to be convinced. Hugh
Capet was proclaimed and crowned at Noyon on Sunday, 3 July 987.
Such were the circumstances attending what is called, improperly
enough, the Capetian Revolution. To speak correctly, there was no
more a revolution in 987 than there had been a century before when
Odo was chosen. In one case as in the other the Carolingian had been
set aside because he was considered, or there was a determination to
consider him, unfit to govern. If in after years the event of 987 has
seemed to mark an epoch in the history of France, it is because Hugh
Capet was able enough to hand on his heritage to his son, and because
the house of Capet succeeded in retaining power for many long centuries,
But this was in some sort an accident, the after-effect of which on the
constitution of the State is hardly traceable. It is quite impossiblo
to say in any sense that the kingship became by this event a feudal
kingship; neither in this respect nor in any other was the occurrence of
987 of a subversive character; the position of the monarchy in France
was to prove itself on the morrow of Hugh Capet's election exactly what
it had been in the time of his predecessors.
99
1 Charles had married the daughter of an unknown knight, the under-vassal of
Hugh Capet.


## p. 85 (#131) #############################################

The king defends order and liberty
85
The fact was that since the end of the ninth century, monarchy in
France had been steadily losing ground. More and more, the sovereign
had found himself incapable of fulfilling the social tasks assigned him,
especially, what was most important in the eyes of contemporaries, upon
whom lawlessness and disorder pressed intolerably, his task of defending
and protecting order and security.
It was the height of the peril from the Northmen that Odo was chosen
by the barons, who acclaimed in him the hero of the siege of Paris, the
one man capable of making head against the pirates. And indeed it
seemed just at first as though he would not fall short of the hopes
entertained of him. In June 888 he surprised a whole band of Northmen
at Montfaucon in the Argonne district. He had a thousand horsemen
at most with him, while the Northmen were ten times as numerous. The
impetuous onset of his troops overthrew the enemy; he himself fought in
the foremost rank and in the thick of the mêlée received a blow from an
axe which thrust his helmet back upon his shoulders. Instantly he ran
his daring assailant through with his sword, and remained master of the
field of battle. But the Northmen returned to the charge. A few weeks
later they seized Meaux and threatened Paris. Again Odo hurried up
with an army and covered the town. None the less, the Northmen
wintered on the banks of the Loing, and in 889 again threatened Paris,
when Odo found himself forced to purchase their withdrawal, just as
Charles the Fat had done. In November 890 as the Northmen, after
ravaging Brittany and the Cotentin, crossed the Seine and marched
towards the valley of the Oise, Odo again hastened up to bar their way.
He overtook them in the neighbourhood of Guerbigny, not far from
Noyon. But the Northmen had a marsh and a brook between them and
the king, and the latter was helpless to stay their course. At least he
remained with his army on the banks of the Oise to protect the surround-
ing country. Strongly entrenched in their camp to the south of Noyon,
the Northmen spread their ravages far to the north. In the early part
of 891 Odo attempted to intercept a band of them returning, laden
with booty from Arnulf's kingdom. He hoped to surprise them at
Wallers, a few miles from Valenciennes, but once again they escaped
him and broke away through the forests, leaving only their spoil in his
hands.
Further to the west another contingent might be seen, settled at
Amiens, under the leadership of the famous Hasting, in their turn
pillaging the country and pushing their ravages as far as Artois. The
king's energy shewed signs of slackening ; after another failure near
Amiens, he allowed himself to be surprised by the enemy in Vermandois
where his army was put to fight (end of 891). In 896 he makes no
more attempt at resistance, a handful of pirates ravage the banks of the
Seine below Paris with impunity, and, ascending the Oise, take up their
winter quarters. near Compiègne, in the royal “villa” of Choisy-au-Bac.
CHIV.


## p. 86 (#132) #############################################

86
Royal impotence against the Northmen
Throughout the summer of 897 they continued their ravages along the
banks of the Seine, while Odo does not appear at all. Finally he was
roused from his inaction, but only to negotiate, to “redeem his kingdom. ”
He actually left the Northmen free to go and winter on the Loire! Thus
gradually even Odo had shewn himself incapable of bridling them; at
first he had successfully resisted them, then, though watching them
narrowly, he had been unable to surprise them, and had suffered himself
to be defeated by them; finally, he looked on indifferently at their
plunderings, and confined himself to bribing them to depart, and
diverting them to other parts of the kingdom.
Such was the situation when Odo died, and Charles the Simple was
universally recognised as king. The Northmen pillaged Aquitaine and
pillaged Neustria, but Charles remained unmoved. Another party went
up the Somme, and this was a direct menace to the Carolingian's own
possessions. He therefore gathered an army and repulsed the pirates,
who fell back into Brittany (898). At the end of that year they invaded
Burgundy, burning the monasteries and slaughtering the inhabitants.
Charles made no sign, but left it to the Duke of Burgundy, Richard,
to rid himself of them as best he might. Richard, indeed, put them
to flight, but allowed them to carry their ravages elsewhere. In 903
other Northern bands, led by Eric and Baret, ascended the Loire as far as
Tours and burnt the suburbs of the town; in 910 they pillaged Berry
and killed the Archbishop of Bourges ; in 911 they besieged Chartres,
the king still paying no attention. These facts are significant; evidently
the king gives up the idea of defending the kingdom as a whole, and
leaves it to each individual to cope with his difficulties as he may.
When the region where he exercises direct authority is endangered, he
intervenes, but as soon as he has diverted the fury of the pirates upon
another part of the kingdom, his conscience is satisfied, and his example
is followed on all hands.
In 911 Charles entered into negotiations with Rollo, and, as we have
seen, the result was that a great part of the Norman bands established
themselves permanently in the districts of Rouen, Lisieux and Evreux,
but the character which the negotiations assumed and the share that
the king took in them are uncertain. In any case, the chief object of
the convention of St-Clair-sur-Epte was to put a stop to the incursions
by way of the Seine and the Oise; as to the other Norman bands, or
the Northmen of the Loire, the king does not concern himself with them,
and we shall find them in 924 vociferously demanding a settlement like
that of Rollo.
For the rest, the so-called Treaty of St-Clair-sur-Epte however bene-
ficial it may have been, was far from bringing about peace even in the
northern part of the kingdom. Though for the most part converted to
Christianity, the companions of Rollo were not tamed and civilised in
a day. Increased in numbers by the fresh recruits who came in from


## p. 87 (#133) #############################################

Royal impotence against the Hungarians
87
the north, they more than once resumed their raids for plunder, often
in concert with the Northmen of the Loire. And at the same time a new
scourge fell upon the country. Troops of Hungarians, having de-
vastated South Germany, Lorraine and Alsace, advanced in 917 into
French Burgundy and threatened the very heart of the kingdom.
Confronted with this danger, Charles endeavoured to exert himself.
But it was now that the utter weakness of the monarchy was made
manifest; the barons, ill-pleased with their sovereign, with one accord
refused to join the ost. Only the Archbishop of Rheims appeared
with his vassals, and upon him alone the safety of the kingdom was left
to depend.
Thenceforward the Northmen in the north and west, and the
Hungarians in the East, harry the country with frenzied pillaging and
burning. As long as the king was not directly threatened he remained
indifferent and supine: not only did he allow the Normans to devastate
Brittany from one end to the other, indeed he had officially permitted
them to pillage it in 911, but he allowed them also to go up the Loire,
fix themselves at Nantes, burn Angers and Tours, and besiege Orleans
(919). The only resistance the spoilers met with in that quarter came,
not from the king, but from the Marquess of Neustria, Robert, who in
921 succeeded in driving them out of his duchy at the cost of leaving
them at full liberty to settle in the Nantes district. In 923 they
plundered Aquitaine and Auvergne, the Duke of Aquitaine and the
Count of Auvergne being left to deal with them on their own account.
In the same year King Charles himself summoned the Northmen to the
north of the kingdom in order to resist Raoul, whom the magnates had
just set up in his stead as king. From the Loire and from Rouen the
pirates burst forth upon Francia; they again went up the Oise and
pillaged Artois and the Beauvaisis, so that at the beginning of 924 the
threatened lords of Francia were forced to club together to bribe them
into retiring. Even then the Normans of Rouen would not depart
until they had extorted the cession of the whole of the Bayeux district,
and doubtless of that of Séez also.
Still the devastastions went on. The Northmen of the Loire, led by
Rögnvald also demanded a fief in their turn, and committed fresh
ravages
in Neustria. Here were the domains of Hugh the Great, King
Raoul consequently made no movement. In December 924 the robbers
invaded Burgundy, and being repulsed after a determined and bloody
struggle, came and fixed themselves on the Seine near Melun. Much
alarmed, King Raoul found in Francia a mere handful of barons
prepared to follow him, Church vassals from Rheims and Soissons, and
the Count of Vermandois. These could not suffice. He set off at once
for Burgundy to try to recruit additional troops. Duke Hugh the
Great, fearing for his own dominions, came and took up a post of
observation near the Northmen's entrenchments. But while the king was
CH. I.


## p. 88 (#134) #############################################

88
The provinces provide their own defence
a
in Burgundy with difficulty collecting an army, the Northmen decamped
without the slightest effort on Hugh's part to pursue them.
The Northmen of Rouen thereupon resumed operations more fiercely
than ever; they burned Amiens, Arras and the suburbs of Noyon.
Once again directly threatened, the king hurried back from Burgundy
and convoked the inhabitants of the district to the ost. This time the
lords felt the necessity for union, and responded to the king's appeal ;
all took up arms, the Count of Vermandois and the Count of Flanders
among others, and getting possession of Eu they slaughtered a whole
band of pirates. Some months later the Northmen surprised the king at
Fauquembergue in Artois. A bloody struggle ensued, the king was
wounded and the Count of Ponthieu killed, but a thousand Northmen lay
dead upon the field. The remainder fled, and indemnified themselves by
pillaging the whole of the north of Francia.
Just at this time (beginning of 926) the Hungarians fell upon the
country, and for a moment even threatened the territory round Rheims.
Once again contributions were raised to buy the departure of the
Northmen, and, meanwhile, the Hungarians re-crossed the frontier without
let or hindrance.
Raoul, however, seemed disposed to make an effort to do his duty as
king. In 930, as he was endeavouring to subdue the Aquitanians, who
had rebelled against his authority, he met a strong party of Northmen
in the Limousin ; he pursued them valorously and cut them to pieces.
Five years later, as the Hungarians were invading Burgundy, burning,
robbing, and killing as they went, Raoul suddenly came up, and his
presence sufficed to put the ravagers to fight. The Northmen, for their
part, content themselves thenceforward with ravaging Brittany.
But hardly was Raoul dead when the Hungarians grew bolder.
Repulsed from Germany in 937, they flooded the kingdom of France,
burning and pillaging the monasteries around Rheims and Sens. They
penetrated into the midst of Berry, and, traversing the whole of
Burgundy, passed into Italy to continue their ravages there. In 951
Aquitaine was devastated in its turn; in 954 having burnt the suburbs
of Cambrai, they pillaged Vermandois, and the country round Laon and
Rheims, as well as Burgundy.
Against all these incursions, the atrocity of which left a strong
impression on the minds of contemporaries, the monarchy did nothing.
After having attempted to lead the struggle against the barbarians, it
had gradually narrowed its outlook and had thought it sufficient to
protect—though even this was in an intermittent way—the territories
in which its actual domains lay, leaving to the dukes and counts of
other districts the task of providing for their own defence. All care for
the public interest was so far forgotten that each man, the king as well
as the rest, felt that he had performed his whole duty when he had
thrust back the predatory bands upon his neighbour's territory. The


## p. 89 (#135) #############################################

Rise of the great duchies
89
conception of a State divided into administrative districts over which
the king placed counts who were merely his representatives, had been
completely obliterated. The practice of commendation, as it became
general, had turned the counts into local magnates, the immediate lords
of each group of inhabitants whose fealty they thenceforth transmit
from one to another by hereditary right. After 888 not a single legislative
measure is found emanating from the king, not a single measure
involving the public interest. There is no longer any question of royal
imposts levied throughout France; even when the buying off of the
Northmen by the payment of a tribute is concerned it is only the
regions actually in danger which contribute their quota.
Once entered on this path, the kingdom was rapidly frittered away
into fragments. Since the king no longer protected the people they
were necessarily obliged to group themselves in communities around
certain counts more powerful than the rest, and to seek in them
protectors able to resist the barbarians. Besides, the monarchy itself
fostered this tendency. From the earliest Carolingian times it had
happened more than once that the king had laid on this or that count
the command of several frontier counties, forming them under him into
a “march” or duchy capable of offering more resistance to the enemy
than isolated counties could do. From being exceptional and temporary
this expedient, in the course of years, had become usual and definitive.
The kingdom had thus been split up into a certain number of great
duchies, having more or less coherence, at the head of which were
genuine local magnates, who had usurped or appropriated all the royal
rights, and on whose wavering fidelity alone the unity of the kingdom
depended for support.
In appearance, the sovereign in the tenth century ruled from the
mouths of the Scheldt to the south of Barcelona. Some years before
the final overthrow of the dynasty we still find the Carolingian king
granting charters at the request of the Count of Holland or the Duke
of Roussillon, while we constantly see the monasteries of the Spanish
March sending delegates to Laon or Compiègne to secure confirmation in
their possessions from the king. From Aquitaine, Normandy, and
Burgundy, as from Flanders and Neustria, monks and priests, counts and
dukes are continually begging him to grant them some act of confirma
tion. This was because the traditional conception of monarchy with
its quasi providential authority was thoroughly engrafted in men's minds.
But the actual state of things was very different.
The Gascons, never really subjugated, enjoyed an independent exis-
tence; though they dated their charters according to the regnal year
of the king of France, they no longer had any connexion with him.
To the east of Gascony lay the three great marches of Toulouse,
Gothia and Spain. The latter, dismembered from ancient Gothia (whence
CH, P.


## p. 90 (#136) #############################################

90
The March of Spain and Gothia
iPo
came its name of Gothalania or Catalonia) extended over the southern
slope of the Pyrenees beyond Llobregat. Since 875 it had been governed
by the Counts of Barcelona, who, as early as the end of the ninth
century, had gained possession of all the other counties of the March,
those of Gerona, Ampurias, Perelada, Besalu, Ausonia, Berga, Cerdaña,
Urgel, Pailhas and Ribagorza. They had even at last extended their
suzerainty north of the Pyrenees over the counties of Conflent and
Roussillon, which certain counts of their family had succeeded in
detaching from Gothia, in the hope, perhaps--though this is not certain
--of securing for themselves an independent sway'. It was a strange
thing, but in these remote parts the king's name—no doubt by the
very reason of his distance-still inspired a certain awe. In 944, we
find the monks of San Pedro de Roda in the county of Ausonia, by the
advice indeed of Sunifred, the Count of Barcelona, coming as far as
Laon to ask of Louis IV a charter expressly recognising their inde-
pendence, which was threatened by two neighbouring convents. Louis IV
granted them a formal charter by which he takes them under his
protection, and, employing the ancient formula, forbids “all counts,
all representatives of the public power, and all judicial authorities to
come within their domains. It must be added, however, that the
”
royal authority does not seem to have been scrupulously respected, for
four years later, the monks of San Pedro and their rivals found it
advisable to come to a compromise, for which, nevertheless, they made
a point of coming to beg the king's confirmation. And in 986 even
the Count of Barcelona reflects that his sovereign owes him protection,
and being attacked by the Musulmans, does not hesitate to appeal to
him. But, as a fact, the March of Spain was almost as completely
independent as that of the Duchy of Gascony. The king's sovereignty
was recognised there, the charters were dated with careful precision
according to the year of his reign, the Count of Barcelona no doubt
came and did him homage, but he had no power of interfering in the
affairs of the country, except in so far as his action was invited.
The March of Gothia, between the Cevennes and the Mediterranean,
the Lower Rhone and Roussillon, had gradually lost its individual
existence and fallen under the suzerainty of the Counts of Toulouse,
whom the records of the tenth century magniloquently style “Princes of
Gothia. " They recognised the king's authority, and came to do him
homage; and the charters in their country were dated according to his
regnal year, but further than this the connexion between the sovereign
and his subjects did not extend.
Further north, between the Loire and the ocean, lay the immense
1 We shall even find one of them, at the end of the tenth century, in the time
of King Lothair, taking the title of duke. But the two charters in which they
are thus designated (Recueil des actes de Lothaire et de Louis V rois de France, edited
by Louis Halphen) are not perhaps of very certain anthenticity.


## p. 91 (#137) #############################################

The Duchy of Aquitaine
91
duchy of Aquitaine, a region never fully incorporated with the Frankish
state. From 781 onwards Charlemagne had found himself obliged to form
it into a separate kingdom, though subordinate to his own superior
authority, for the benefit of his third son Louis the Pious. When the
latter became Emperor in 814 the existence of the kingdom of Aquitaine
had been respected, and down to 877 the Aquitanians had continued to
live their own life under their own king. But at this date their king,
Louis the Stammerer, having become King of France, formed the land
into a duchy, a measure which, as may easily be imagined, did not
contribute to bind it more closely to the rest of the kingdom. The
ducal title, long disputed between the Counts of Toulouse, Auvergne
and Poitiers, ended, in the middle of the tenth century, by falling to the
latter, despite reiterated attempts on the part of Hugh the Great and
Hugh Capet to tear it from their grasp. In the course of these struggles
King Lothair several times appeared south of the Loire in the train of
the Duke of the Franks. In 955 we find him laying siege with Hugh
to Poitiers, and in 958 he was in the Nivernais, about to march against
the Count of Poitou. Finally, in 979 Lothair took a decisive step, and
restored the kingdom of Aquitaine, unheard-of for a century, for the
benefit of his young son Louis V, whom he had just crowned at
Compiègne. A marriage with Adelaide, widow of the Count of
Gevaudan, was no doubt destined in his expectation to consolidate Louis's
power. It was celebrated in the heart of Auvergne, in the presence of
Lothair himself and of a brilliant train of magnates and bishops. But
this attempt at establishing direct rule over Aquitaine led only to a
mortifying check. Before three years had passed, Lothair found himself
compelled to go in person and withdraw his son from Auvergne. In fact,
no sooner was the Loire crossed than a new and strange France seemed
to begin; its manners and customs were different, and when young Louis V
tried to adopt them, the Northerners pursued him with their sarcasms. And
later, when Robert the Pious married Constance, their indignation was
aroused by the facile manners, the clothes, and customs which her suite
introduced among them. Such things were, in their eyes,
“the manners
of foreigners. ” The true kingdom of France, in which its sovereigns felt
themselves really at home, ended at the Aquitanian frontier.
To the north of that frontier the ties of vassalage which bound the
counts and dukes to the sovereign were less relaxed than in the south.
But the breaking-up of the State into a certain number of great
principalities had gone forward here on parallel lines. Not counting
Brittany, which had never been thoroughly incorporated, and thence-
forward remained completely independent, the greater part of Neustria
had split off, and since the ninth century had been formed into a
March, continually increasing in extent, for the benefit of Robert the
Strong and his successors. Francia, in its turn, reduced by the formation
of Lorraine to the lands lying between the North Sea and the Channel,
CH. I.


## p. 92 (#138) #############################################

92
Neustria and Flanders
the Seine below Nogent-sur-Seine and the lines of the Meuse and
Scheldt, was also cut into on the north by the rise of Flanders, and on
the west by that of Normandy which at the same time reduced the
former area of Neustria by one-third, while to the east the March or
Duchy of Burgundy was taking shape in that part of ancient Burgundy
which had remained French. The study of the rise of these great
principalities is in the highest degree instructive, because it enables us
to point out the exact process by which the diminution of the royal
power was being effected.
For Flanders it is necessary to go back to the time of Charles the
Bald. About 863 that king had entrusted to Count Baldwin, whose
marriage with his daughter Judith he had just sanctioned, some counties
to the north, among which were, no doubt, Ghent, Bruges, Courtrai and the
Mempisc district. These formed a genuine “March,” the creation of
which was justified by the necessity of defending the country against the
northern pirates. The danger on this side was not less serious than from
the direction of the Loire, where the March of Neustria was set up,
almost at the same time, for. Robert the Strong. The descendants of
Count Baldwin I not only succeeded in holding the March thus
constituted, but worked unceasingly to extend its limits. Baldwin II
the Bald (879-918), son of Baldwin I, took advantage of the difficulties
with which Odo and Charles the Simple had to struggle to lay hands
upon Arras. In the year 900, Charles the Simple having intended, by
the advice of Fulk, Archbishop of Rheims, to retake the town, Baldwin II
had the prelate assassinated, and not content with keeping Artois,
succeeded in fixing himself in the Tournaisis, and in getting a foothold,
if he had not already done so, in the county of Therouanne by obtaining
from the king the Abbey of Saint-Bertin. His son, Arnold I (918–
964) shewed himself in all respects his worthy successor.
Devoid of
scruples, not hesitating to rid himself by murder of William Longsword,
Duke of Normandy, whom he considered dangerous (942) just
father had done in the case of Archbishop Fulk, Arnold attacked
Ponthieu where he got possession of Montreuil-sur-Mer (948). Thus at
that time the Flemish March included all the lands lying between the
Scheldt as far as its mouth, the North Sea and the Canche, and by the
acquisition of Montreuil-sur-Mer even stretched into Ponthieu.
This progressive extension towards the south could not be other
than a menace to the monarchy. As in the case of Aquitaine, Lothair
endeavoured to check it by a sudden stroke, which on this occasion was
at least partly successful.
In the first place he was astute enough to
persuade Arnold I, now broken in spirit, it would appear, by age and the
loss of his eldest son Baldwin, to make him a donation of his duchy (962).
It was stipulated only that Arnold should enjoy the usufruct. Three
years later on 27 March 965 Arnold died, and immediately Lothair
marched into Flanders, and, without striking a blow, took Arras, Douai,
a
$


## p. 93 (#139) #############################################

The Duchy of Burgundy
93
Saint-Amand and the whole of the country as far as the Lys. But he
could penetrate no farther; the Flemings, who were determined not to
have the king of France for their immediate sovereign, had proclaimed
Count Arnold II grandson of their late ruler, with, as he was still a
child, his cousin Baldwin Bauce as his guardian. Negotiations were
begun between the king and the Flemish lords. Lothair consented to
recognise the new marquess who came and did him homage, but he kept
Douai and Arras. It was not long, however, before these two places
fell back under the rule of the Marquess of Flanders; certainly by 988
this had taken place. Thus the king had succeeded in checking for
a moment the expansion of the Flemish March, but had not in any way
modified its semi-independence.
We must also go back to the middle of the ninth century in order
to investigate the origin of the Duchy of Burgundy. When the Treaty
of Verdun (843) had detached from the kingdom of France all the
counties of the diocese of Besançon as well as the county of Lyons,
Charles the Bald naturally found himself more than once impelled to
unite two or three of the counties of Burgundy which had remained
French so as to form a March on the frontiers under the authority of
a single count. On the morrow of Odo's elevation to the throne (888)
the boundaries of French Burgundy, which in the course of the political
events of the last forty years had undergone many fluctuations, were
substantially the same as had been stipulated by the Treaty of Verdun.
At this time one of the principal counties of the region, that of Autun,
was in the hands of Richard called Le Justicier (the lover of Justice),
brother of that Boso who in 879 had caused himself to be proclaimed
King of Provence. Here also there was need of a strong power capable
of organising the resistance against the incessant ravages of the Northman
bands. Richard shewed himself equal to the task; in 898 he inflicted
a memorable defeat upon the pirates at Argenteuil, near Tonnerre; a
few years later he surprised them in the Nivernais and forced them once
again to take to flight. We see him very skilfully pushing his way into
every district and adding county to county. In 894 he secures the county
of Sens, in 896 he is apparently in possession of the Atuyer district, in 900
we find him Count of Auxerre, while the Count of Dijon and the Bishop of
Langres appear among his vassals. He acts as master in the Lassois
district, and in those of Tonnerre and Beaune, and is, it would seem,
suzerain of the Count of Troyes. Under the title of duke or marquess
he rules over the whole of French Burgundy, thus earning the name
of “Prince of the Burgundians” which several contemporary chroniclers
ܪ
give him.
At his death in 921 his duchy passed to his eldest son Raoul in the
first place, then, when Raoul became King of France (923), to his second
son, Hugh the Black. The latter, for some time, could dispose of
considerable power; suzerain, even in his father's lifetime, of the
CH. I.


## p. 94 (#140) #############################################

94
The Duchy of Burgundy
counties of the diocese of Besançon, and suzerain also of the Lyonnais,
he ruled in addition on the frontiers of the kingdom from the Seine
and the Loire to the Jura. But its very size and its want of cohesion
made it certain that this vast domain would sooner or later fall apart.
Hugh the Black was hard put to it to prevent Hugh the Great from
snatching the whole of French Burgundy from him. Soon after the
death of Raoul in 936 (July) the Duke of the Franks, bringing with
him the young King Louis IV, marched upon Langres, seized it, spent
some time at Auxerre, and forced Hugh the Black to cede to him the
counties of Langres, Troyes, and Sens. Later, in 943, he obtained from
the king the suzerainty of the whole of French Burgundy, thus making
Hugh the Black his vassal.
This complex situation, however, did not last long. In 952 Hugh
the Black died, and as a result, French Burgundy was separated from the
counties of the Besançon diocese and from that of Lyons. For four years
Count Gilbert, who was already master of the counties of Autun, Dijon,
Avallon and Châlon, was the real duke though he did not bear the
title. But he acknowledged the suzerainty of Hugh the Great and at
his death in 956 bequeathed him all his lands. Finally, Hugh the
Great, in his turn, having died a few weeks later, the duchy regained its
individual existence, when after lengthy bickering the two sons of
Hugh the Great, Hugh Capet and Otto, ended by agreeing to divide
their father's heritage, and Otto received from King Lothair the
investiture of the duchy of Burgundy (960).
The formation of the Marches of Flanders and Burgundy, as also
that of the March of Neustria, which has already been sufficiently dwelt
upon, shew us what was the normal development of things. A count,
specially conspicuous for his personal qualities, his valour and good
fortune, has conferred on him by the king a general authority over
a whole region; he imposes himself on it as guardian of the public
security, he adds county to county, and gradually succeeds in eliminating
the king's power, setting up his own instead, and leaving to the king
only a superior lordship with no guarantee save his personal homage.
And this same formative process, slow and progressive, is to be seen
in many of its aspects even in the duchy of Normandy. In 911 at St-
Clair-sur-Epte Charles the Simple conceded to Rollo the counties of
Rouen, Lisieux and Evreux, and the lands lying between the Epte on the
east, the Bresle on the north and the sea to the west. But the Norman
duke was not long content with this fief; in 924, in order to check fresh
incursions, King Raoul found himself forced to add to it the district of
Bayeux, and, no doubt, that of Séez also. Finally, in 933, in order to
make sure of the allegiance of William Longsword who had just succeeded
his father Rollo, he was obliged to cede also the two dioceses of Avranches
and Coutances, thus extending the western frontier of the Norman duchy
to the river Couesnon. But these many accretions of territory were not


## p. 95 (#141) #############################################

Break-up of the duchies
95
always gained without resistance. A brief remark of an annalist draws
attention in 925 to a revolt of the inhabitants of the Bayeux country,
and doubtless more than once the Normans, whose newly adopted
Christianity suffered frequent relapses into paganism, must have found
difficulty in assimilating the populations of the broad regions placed
under their rule. The assimilation, however, took place rapidly enough
for the Norman duchy to be rightly ranked, at the end of the tenth
century, as one of those in which centralisation was least imperfect.
On all sides, indeed, the rulers of the marches or duchies, the forma-
tion of which we have been tracing, saw in their turn the crumbling away
of the authority which they had been step by step extending, and the
dissolution of the local unity which they had slowly and painfully built
up. How, indeed, could it have been otherwise ? No duke had even
succeeded in acquiring the immediate possession of all the counties in-
cluded within his duchy. The counts who co-existed with him, had
originally been subordinate to him, but this subordination could only
be real and lasting if the authority of the duke was never for a moment
impaired. On the other hand, when by chance the duke held a large
number of counties in his own hands, he was obliged, since he could not
be everywhere at once, to provide himself with substitutes in the viscounts,
and it was in the natural course of things that these latter should make
use of circumstances to consolidate their position, often indeed to usurp
the title of count, and finally to set up their own authority at the
expense of their suzerains.
Such was the final situation in the March of Neustria. The most enter-
prising personage there was the Viscount of Tours, Theobald (Thibaud)
the Trickster, who made his appearance very early in the tenth century,
and gradually succeeded first in getting himself recognised throughout
his neighbourhood, then, before 930, in laying hands on the counties
of Chartres, Blois and Châteaudun, thus shaping out for himself within
the Neustrian March, a little principality for which he remained in
theory a vassal of the Duke of the Franks, while day by day he was
emancipating himself more and more from his vassalage. His son Odo I
(Eudes) (975-996) actually attempted to shake it off: in 983, having
become joint lord of the counties of Troyes, Meaux and Provins, which
had fallen vacant by the death of Herbert the Old, he took up an indepen-
dent position and treated directly with the king, over the head of the
duke, Hugh Capet, whose suzerainty over him had become quite illusory.
A more effective overlordship was preserved even at this time by the
Duke of the Franks over the county of Anjou, but here again his im-
mediate lordship had ceased, having passed to the viscount, who about
925 had become count. Slowly and unobtrusively the petty Counts of
Anjou worked to extend their own rule, hampered by the neighbourhood
of the turbulent Counts of Blois. With rare perseverance Fulk the Red
CH. IV.


## p. 96 (#142) #############################################

96
Break-up of Neustria and Burgundy
1
}
2
'S
(died 941 or 942), Fulk the Good (941 or 942-c. 960) and Geoffrey
Grisegonelle (c. 960-987) continued to extend their county at the expense
of Aquitaine by annexing the district of Mauges, while in Touraine
they set up a whole series of landmarks which prepared the way for
their successors' annexation of the entire province. And as at the same
time the county of Maine and the county of Vendôme to the west, and
the county of Gâtinais to the east had each for its part succeeded in regain-
ing its separate existence, the March of Neustria was hardly more than
a memory which the accession of Hugh Capet to the throne was finally
to obliterate, for, outside the districts of Orleans, Etampes and Poissy,
the Duke of the Franks preserved nothing save a suzerainty which the
insubordination of his vassals threatened to reduce to an empty name.
Neustria is perhaps of all the ancient “Marches” the one which
shews us most plainly and distinctly the process of the splitting up of
the great “regional entities” into smaller units. Elsewhere the course
of events was more complex; in Burgundy for instance, where the trans-
mission of the ducal power gave rise, as we have seen, to so much friction
and dislocation, a break-up which seemed imminent was over and over
again delayed and often definitely averted as the result of a concurrence
of unforeseen circumstances. It would have been enough, for instance, if
Hugh the Black had not died childless, or, still more, if an understand-
ing had not been arrived at by Hugh the Great and Gilbert, the powerful
Count of Autun, Dijon, Avallon, and Châlon, to imperil the very
existence of the duchy as early as the middle of the tenth century.
The Dukes of Burgundy were, nevertheless, unable to safeguard the in-
tegrity of their dominions. From the very beginning of the ninth century
the growing power of the Bishop of Langres had been undermining their
rule in the north. Through a series of cessions the Bishop of Langres had
succeeded in acquiring first Langres itself, then Tonnerre, then gradually
the whole of the counties of which these were the chief towns, as well as Bar-
sur-Aube, Bar-sur-Seine, and the districts of Bassigny and the Boulenois,
whence at the end of the tenth century the authority of the Duke of
Burgundy was wholly excluded. On the other hand, the county of
Troyes which, from the days of Richard le Justicier, had formed part of
the Duchy of Burgundy, before long in its turn had become gradually
separated from it. In 936 it had passed into the possession of
Herbert II, Count of Vermandois, then into that of his son Robert, from
which time the suzerainty of the Duke of Burgundy over the land had
appeared tottering and uncertain. On the death of Count Gilbert,
Robert openly severed the tie which bound him to the duke, and trans-
ferred his homage directly to the king (957), against whom, notwith-
standing, he immediately afterwards rebelled. The duke, none the less,
continued to regard himself as the suzerain of the Count of Troyes; but
his suzerainty remained purely nominal, and the count thenceforward
had only one object, that of carving out a principality for himself at the


## p. 97 (#143) #############################################

Disintegration
97
expense both of Francia and Burgundy. Robert attempted in vain in
959 to seize Dijon, but succeeded in securing the county of Meaux which
by 962 was under his rule. His brother, Herbert II the Old, who succeeded
him in 967, and proudly assumed the title of Count of the Franks, found
himself ruler not only of the counties of Troyes and of Meaux but also
those of Provins, Château-Thierry, Vertus, the Pertois, and perhaps of
some neighbouring counties such as Brienne. The latter was, like that
of Troyes, a dismembered portion of the Burgundian duchy from which,
from the opening of the eleventh century, strip after strip was to be
detached, as the county of Nevers, the county of Auxerre and the county
of Sens, so that the power of the Duke of Burgundy came to be limited
to the group consisting of the counties of Mâcon, Châlon, Autun,
Beaune, Dijon, Semur, and Avallon.
The same movement towards disintegration may be observed in the
tenth century throughout the whole kingdom of France, shewing itself
more or less intensely in proportion as the rulers of the ancient duchies
had succeeded in keeping a greater or less measure of control over their
possessions as a whole. In Normandy and Flanders, for instance, unity
is more firmly maintained than elsewhere, because, over the few counties
which the duke or marquess does not keep under his direct control, he has
contrived to set members of his own family who remain in submission to
him. In Aquitaine, for reasons not apparent, the course of evolution is
arrested halfway. In the course of the tenth century its unity seems about
to break up, as the viscounts placed by the duke in Auvergne, Limousin,
at Turenne and Thouars, with the Counts of Angoulême, Périgueux,
and La Marche seem to be only waiting their opportunity to throw off
the ducal suzerainty altogether. But despite this, the suzerainty con-
tinues intact and is almost everywhere effective, a fact all the more
curious as the Duke of Aquitaine hardly retained any of his domains
outside the Poitevin region.
But, with more or less rapidity and completeness, all the great regional
units shewed the same tendency towards dissolution. Francia escapes
no more than the rest; but alongside of the county of Vermandois and
the counties of Champagne, whether it were the result of chance or, as
perhaps one may rather believe, of political wisdom, a whole series of
episcopal lordships grow up in independence, which, by the mere fact
that their holders are subject to an election requiring the royal con-
firmation, may prove a most important source of strength and protection
to the monarchy. At Rheims as early as 940 Louis IV formally granted
the archbishop the county with all its dependencies; about the same time
the authority of the Bishop of Châlons-sur-Marne was extended over the
entire county of Châlons, and perhaps also that of the Bishop of Noyon
over the whole of the Noyonnais. At about the same time (967) King
Lothair solemnly committed the possession of the county of Langres
into the hands of the Bishop of Langres.
7
C. MED. H. VOL. III. CH. IV.


## p. 98 (#144) #############################################

98
Influence of the bishops
Surrounded as the monarchy was by so many disobedient vassals,
it was precisely the existence of these powerful prelates which enabled it
to resist. The whole history of the tenth century is filled with the
struggles which the kings were forced to wage against the counts and
dukes, and with the plots which they had to defeat. But everywhere
and always, it was the support, both moral and material, supplied by the
Church which enabled them to maintain themselves. The Archbishop of
Rheims, from the end of the ninth century, is the real arbiter of their
destiny; as long as he supported the Carolingians they were able, in
spite of everything, to resist all attacks; on the day when he abandoned
them the Carolingian cause was irretrievably lost.
-
1


## p. 99 (#145) #############################################

99
CHAPTER V.
FRANCE IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY.
Hugh Capet was no sooner elected king than he found himself in
the grip of difficulties, amidst which it might well seem that his authority
would sink irretrievably. Nevertheless, he shewed every confidence in
himself. After having his son Robert crowned at Orleans and granting him
a share in the government (30 December 987) he had asked on his behalf
for the hand of a daughter of the Basileus at Constantinople, setting
forth with much grandiloquence his own power and the advantages
of alliance with him. He had just announced his intention of going to
the help of Borrel, Count of Barcelona, who was attacked by the Musul.
mans of Spain ; when suddenly the news spread, about May 988, that
Charles, Duke of Lower Lorraine, had surprised Laon. Immediately, the
weakness of the new king became apparent : he and his son advanced
and laid siege to the place, but were unable to take it. In August,
during a successful sortie, Charles even contrived to set fire to the
royal camp and siege engines. Hugh and Robert were forced to decamp.
A fresh siege in October had no better result, again a retreat became
necessary, and Charles improved his advantage by occupying the Laon-
nais and the Soissonnais and threatening Rheims.
As a crowning misfortune, Adalbero, archbishop of the latter city, died
at this juncture (23 January 989). Hugh thought it a shrewd stroke of
policy to procure the appointment in his place of Arnulf, an illegitimate
son of the late King Lothair, calculating that he had by this means
secured in his own interest one of the chief representatives of the
Carolingian party, and, in despair, no doubt, of subduing Charles by
force, hoping to obtain his submission through the good offices of the
new prelate. Arnulf, in fact, had pledged himself to accomplish this
without delay. Before long, however, it was plain to the Capetian that
he had seriously miscalculated. Hardly was Arnulf seated on the
throne of Rheims (c. March 989) than he eagerly engaged in schemes
to bring about a restoration of the Carolingian dynasty, and about the
month of September 989 he handed over Rheims to Charles.
It was necessary to put a speedy end to this state of things, unless
the king and his son were to look on at a Carolingian triumph. Never-
CH. v.
7-2


## p. 100 (#146) ############################################

100
Elimination of the Carolingian dynasty
theless the situation lasted for a year and a half. Finally, having tried
force and diplomacy in turn, and equally without success, Hugh resolved
to have recourse to one of those detestable stratagems which are, as it
were, the special characteristic of the period. The Bishop of Laon,
Adalbero, better known by his familiar name of Asselin, succeeded in
beguiling Duke Charles ; he pretended to go over to his cause, did
homage to him, and so far lulled his suspicions as to obtain permission
from him to recall his retainers to Laon. On Palm Sunday 991
(29 March) Charles, Arnulf and Asselin were dining together in the
tower of Laon ; the bishop was in high spirits, and more than once
already he had offered the duke to bind himself to him by an oath even
more solemn than any he had hitherto sworn, in case any doubt still
remained of his fidelity. Charles, who held in his hands a gold cup
of wine in which some bread was steeped, offered it to him, and, as a
contemporary historian Richer tells us, "after long reflection said to him:
"Since to-day you have, according to the decrees of the Fathers, blessed
the palm-branches, hallowed the people by your holy benediction, and
proffered to ourselves the Eucharist, I put aside the slanders of those
who say you are not to be trusted and I offer you, as the Passion of our
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ draws near, this cup, befitting your high
office, containing wine and broken bread. Drain it as a pledge of your
inviolable fidelity to my person. But if you do not intend to keep your
plighted faith, abstain, lest you should enact the horrible part of Judas. '
Asselin replied: 'I take the cup and will drink willingly. Charles went
on hastily: • Add that you will keep your faith. ” He drank, and added :
'I shall keep my faith, if not may I perish with Judas. ' Then, in the
presence of the guests, he uttered many other such oaths. " Night came,
”
and they separated and lay down to sleep. Asselin called in his men,
Charles and Arnulf were seized and imprisoned under a strong guard,
while Hugh Capet, hastily summoned from Senlis, came up to take
possession of the stronghold. It was to this infamous betrayal that the
Capetian owed his triumph over Charles of Lorraine. Death was soon
to relieve him of his rival (992).
But Hugh was not at the end of his embarrassments. Arnulf was
shielded by his priestly character, and it was clear that neither the Pope
nor the Emperor, who had countenanced his intrigues, was disposed
to sacrifice him. Hugh at last resolved to accuse him before a Council
“of the Gauls,” to which he was careful to convoke a majority of pre-
lates favourable to the Capetian cause. The council met at Verzy, near
Rheims, in the church of the monastery of Saint-Basle (17–18 June
991). In the end, Arnulf acknowledged his guilt, and casting himself
upon the ground before the two kings, Hugh and Robert, with his arms
stretched out in the form of a cross, he implored them with tears to
spare
his life. The kings consented. He was raised from the ground, and the
assembly proceeded to the ceremony of degradation. Arnulf began by


## p. 101 (#147) ############################################

Struggle with the Papacy
101
surrendering to the king the temporalities which he held of him, then he
placed in the hands of the bishops the insignia of his episcopal dignity.
He then signed an act of renunciation drawn up on the model of that of
his predecessor Ebbo, who had been deposed under Louis the Pious.
In it he confessed himself unworthy of the episcopal office and renounced
it for ever. Finally he absolved his clergy and people from the oaths of
fidelity which they had sworn to him. Three days later (21 June)
Gerbert was elected in his stead.
All seemed ended, and the future of the Capetian dynasty definitely
secured. But they had reckoned without the Papacy. Not only, in
defiance of the Canons, the Sovereign Pontiff had not been consulted,
but his intervention had been repudiated in terms of unheard-of violence
and temerity. Arnulf, the Bishop of Orleans, constituting himself, in
virtue of his office of “promotor” of the council, the mouthpiece of the
assembly, in a long speech in which he had lashed the unworthy popes of
his day, had exclaimed: “What sights have we not beheld in our days !
We have seen John (XII) surnamed Octavian, sunk in a slough of
debauchery, conspiring against Otto whom he himself had made emperor.
He was driven out and replaced by Leo (VIII) the Neophyte, but when
the Emperor had quitted Rome, Octavian re-entered it, drove out Leo
and cut off the nose of John the Deacon and his tongue, and the fingers
of his right hand. He murdered many of the chief persons of Rome,
and died soon after. The Romans chose as his successor the deacon
Benedict (V) surnamed the Grammarian. He in his turn was attacked
by Leo the Neophyte supported by the Emperor, was besieged, made
prisoner, deposed and sent into exile to Germany. The Emperor Otto I
was succeeded by Otto II, who surpasses all the princes of his time in
arms, in counsel and in learning. In Rome Boniface (VII) succeeds, a
fearful monster, of super-human malignity, red with the blood of his
predecessor. Put to fight and condemned by a great council, he re-
appears in Rome after the death of Otto II, and in spite of the oaths
that he has sworn drives from the citadel of Rome (the Castle of
Sant'Angelo) the illustrious Pope Peter, formerly Bishop of Pavia,
deposes him, and causes him to perish amid the horrors of a dungeon.
Is it to such monsters, swollen with ignominy and empty of knowledge,
divine or human, that the innumerable priests of God (the bishops)
dispersed about the universe, distinguished for their learning and their
virtues, are to be legally subject ? ” And he had concluded in favour of
the superior weight of a judgment pronounced by these learned and
venerable bishops over one which might be rendered by an ignorant
pope “so vile that he would not be found worthy of any place among
the rest of the clergy. "
This was a declaration of war. The Papacy took up the challenge.
John XV, supported by the imperial court, summoned the French
bishops to Rome, and also the kings, Hugh and Robert. They retorted
CH. V.


## p. 102 (#148) ############################################

102
Weakness of the Capetian monarchy
1
בר י
1
by assembling a synod at Chelles, at which it was declared “ that if the
Pope of Rome put forth an opinion contrary to the Canons of the Fathers,
it should be held null and void, according to the words of the Apostle
• Flee from the heretic, the man who separates himself from the Church
and it was added that the abdication of Arnulf, and the nomination of
Gerbert were irrevocable facts, having been determined by a council
of provincial bishops, and this in virtue of the Canons, by the terms
of which it is forbidden that the statutes of a provincial council should
be rashly attacked by anyone (993). The weakness of the Papacy made
such audacity possible; a series of synods assembled by a legate of
the Pope on German soil, and later at Rheims, to decide in the case of
Arnulf and Gerbert, led to nothing (995-996).
But this barren struggle was exhausting the strength of the Capetian
monarchy. Hardly had that monarchy arisen when it seemed as if the
ground were undermined beneath it. Taking advantage of the diffi-
culties with which it was struggling, Odo (Eudes) I, Count of Chartres,
had, in the first place, extorted the cession of Dreux in 991, in exchange
for his co-operation at the siege of Laon (which co-operation still
remained an unfulfilled promise), then, in the same year, had laid
hands upon Melun which the king had afterwards succeeded, not
without difficulty, in re-taking. Finally, in 993, a mysterious plot
was hatched against Hugh and Robert; the conspirators, it was said,
aimed at nothing less than delivering them both up to Otto III, the
young King of Germany. Odo was to receive the title of Duke of the
Franks, and Asselin the archbishopric of Rheims ; possibly a Caro-
lingian restoration was contemplated, for though Charles of Lorraine
had died in his prison in 992, his son Louis survived, and was actually
in custody of Asselin. All was arranged; Hugh and Robert had
been invited to attend a council to be held on German soil to decide
upon Arnulf's case. This council was a trap to entice the French
kings, who, coming with a weak escort, would have been suddenly seized
by an imperial army secretly assembled. A piece of indiscretion foiled
all these intrigues. The kings were enabled in time to secure the
persons of Louis and of Asselin. But such was their weakness that they
were obliged to leave the Bishop of Laon unpunished. An army was
sent against Odo, but when he offered hostages to answer for his fidelity,
the Capetians were well content to accept his proposals and made haste
to return to Paris.
What saved the Capetian monarchy was not so much its own power
of resistance as the inability of its enemies to follow up and co-
ordinate their efforts. Odo I of Chartres, involved in a struggle with
Fulk Nerra, Count of Anjou, and attacked by, illness, could only
pursue his projects languidly, and had just concluded a truce with
Hugh Capet when he died (12 March 996) leaving two young children.
The Papacy, for its part, was passing through a fearful crisis; forced to


## p. 103 (#149) ############################################

Death of Hugh Capet
103
defend itself with difficulty in Rome against Crescentius, it was in no
position to take up Arnulf's cause vigorously. The support of the
Empire could not but be weak and intermittent; up to 996 Otto III
and his mother, Theophano, had more than they could do in Germany
to maintain their own authority.
When Hugh Capet died, 24 October 996, nothing had been decided.
Supported by some, intrigued against by others, the Capetian monarchy
lived from hand to mouth. Uncertain of the morrow, the most astute
steered a devious course, refusing to commit themselves heartily to either
side. Even Gerbert, whose cause seemed to be bound up with the king's,
since he owed his episcopate only to Arnulf's deprivation, took every
means of courting the favour of the imperial and papal party. He had
made a point of hurrying to each of the synods held by the papal legate
in the course of 995 and 996 to decide in Arnulf's case, pretending that
he had been passed over immediately after the death of Adalbero “on
account of his attachment to the See of St Peter," and entreating the
legate for the sake of the Church's well-being, not to listen to his
detractors, whose ill-will, he said, was in reality directed against the
Pope. Then he had undertaken a journey to Rome to justify himself
personally to the Pope, taking the opportunity, moreover, to join the
suite of young Otto III who had just had himself crowned there, and suc-
ceeding so well in winning his good graces as to become his secretary.
Hugh Capet had hardly closed his eyes when a fresh complication
King Robert had fallen in love with the widow of Odo I of
Chartres, the Countess Bertha, and had resolved to make her his wife.
But Bertha was his cousin, and he had, besides, been sponsor to one of
her children, thus the priests and the Pope, who was also consulted,
firmly opposed a union which they looked upon as doubly “ incestuous. ”
Robert took no notice of their prohibitions, and found a complaisant
prelate, Archibald, Archbishop of Tours, to solemnise his marriage,
towards the end of 996. This created a scandal. With the support
of Otto III, Pope Gregory V, who had in vain convoked the French
bishops to Pavia at the beginning of 997, suspended all who had had
any share in the Council of Saint-Basle, and summoned the king and all
the bishops who had abetted his marriage to appear before him on pain
of excommunication.
Alarmed at the effect of this double threat, Robert opened negotia-
tions. Gerbert, naturally, would be the first sacrificed, and, losing
courage, he fled to the court of Otto III. The Pope, far from inclining
to any compromise, made it plain to the Capetian envoy, the Abbot of
St-Benoît-sur-Loire, that he was determined to have recourse to the
strongest measures. The unlucky Robert hoped that he might soften
this rigour by yielding on the question of the archbishopric of Rheims.
As Gerbert had fled, Arnulf was simply and merely restored to his see
(January or February 998).
CH. v.