No More Learning

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.


## p. 104 (#150) ############################################

104
Consolidation of the dynasty
A
t
3
Thenceforward, besides, Arnulf was no longer dangerous. The
Carolingian party was finally destroyed. Charles of Lorraine had been
several
years dead;
his son Louis had, it would appear, met with a like
fate, or was languishing forgotten in his prison at Orleans; the other
two sons, Otto and Charles, had gone over to the Empire (the first in the
character of Duke of Lower Lorraine), and no longer had any connexion
with France. From this quarter, then, the Capetian had nothing to fear.
A fresh revolt of Asselin, the same Bishop of Laon who had so flagi-
tiously betrayed Arnulf, was soon crushed. Only the Papacy refused to
be won over as easily as Robert had calculated ; as the king refused to
separate from Bertha, Gregory V pronounced the anathema against him.
But when Gerbert succeeded Gregory V, under the name of Sylvester II
(April 999), relations with the Papacy improved, and Robert, to whom
Bertha had borne no children, before long separated from her in order
to marry Constance, daughter of William I, Count of Arles, and of
Adelaide of Anjou (circa 1005).
The period of early difficulties was over. But the position of the
monarchy was pitiable. From the material point of view, it was limited
to the narrow domain which, after many infeudations, remained to it of
the heritage of the Carolingians and the March of Neustria. This,
in its essence,—not reckoning some outlying possessions, of which the
most important was the county of Montreuil at the mouth of the
Canche,-consisted in the territories of Paris, Senlis, Poissy, Etampes
and Orleans, with Paris and Orleans as chief towns. Within this
modest domain the king was only just able to exact obedience; he was
unable directly to put an end to the exactions of a petty baron, the
lord of Yèvre, who oppressed the Abbey of St-Benoît-sur-Loire with
his violence.
In the other parts of the kingdom his authority had sunk
still lower; the great feudatories openly spoke of him in contemptuous
terms; a few years later at the village of Héry in the diocese of Auxerre,
almost in his presence, and just after the Peace of God had been pro-
claimed, the Count of Nevers was not afraid to plunder the monks of
Montierender, “knowing well,” as a contemporary tells us, “ that the
king would prefer to use gentle methods rather than force. ”
The task of Robert the Pious and his successors was to work slowly
and unobtrusively, but perseveringly and successfully, to build up afresh
the domain and the moral strength of the monarchy which had so greatly
declined. The domains were, it is true, not extensive, but a policy of
additions and enlargements built up around them a compact and con-
stantly enlarging kingdom. And on the moral side something of the
prestige and tradition of the old anointed kings still held the minds of
men. The firm but not aggressivė rule of the new dynasty skilfully
used both sentiment and territorial fact, and did so not only to their
own advantage but to that of the land in which they stood for peace
and order amid contending vassals.
.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

114
Philip's last years
name.
In spite of this oath, Philip and Bertrada continued to live together,
but for the future, the Pope indulgently closed his eyes. On most of
the points raised an agreement was arrived at, and in the beginning of
the year 1107 Paschal even travelled through France, had a meeting
at St-Denis with Philip and his son, and spoke of them as “the very
pious sons of the Holy See. "
But already Philip, grown old before his time, was king only in
Since 1097 he had handed over to his son Louis the task of
leading military expeditions, for which his own extreme corpulence un-
fitted him.