No More Learning

1015
C. I.


## p. 78 (#124) #############################################

78
Feudal Rebellions
late King Raoul : then he drew him in his wake to Paris. But Louis
proved to have the same high and independent spirit, the same energetic
temper as his father. He shewed this markedly by reviving Charles the
Simple's claims to Lorraine, which, in the reign of Raoul, had been re-
taken by the king of Germany (925) and reduced to a duchy. Louis
invaded it in 938 at the request of its duke, Gilbert (Giselbert). But
the results of this firm and decided course were the same as in the case
of Charles the Simple. The party of opposition gathered again around
Hugh the Great and Herbert of Vermandois, whom a common hostility
drew together. The Carolingian's chief support lay in Artaud, Arch-
bishop of Rheims.
The rebels marched straight upon Rheims. The place made but
a faint resistance, Hugh the Great and Herbert entering it after brief
delay. Artaud was driven from his see and sent to the monastery
of St Basle, while Herbert procured the consecration in his stead of his
own son Hugh, the same candidate whom a few years earlier King
Raoul had replaced by Artaud. The rebels proceeded to besiege Laon.
Louis defended himself vigorously. In company with Artaud, who had
fled from his monastery, he advanced to raise the blockade of Laon.
But his bold attempt upon Lorraine had resulted in drawing Otto, the
new King of Germany, towards Hugh the Great and Herbert. At their
request he entered France, stopping at the palace of Attigny to receive
their homage, and for a short time even pitching his camp on the banks
of the Seine (940).
Defeated in the Ardennes by Hugh and Herbert, forced to flee into
the kingdom of Burgundy, cut off from Artaud (who had been deposed
in a synod held at Rheims, and again shut up in the monastery of
St Basle, while his rival Hugh obtained the confirmation of his dignity
from the Holy See), King Louis seemed to be in a desperate position
(941). But at this moment came one of those sudden reversals of policy
which so frequently occur in the history of the tenth century. From
the moment when he seemed likely to prevail, Hugh the Great was
deserted by Otto, who had every interest in maintaining the actual state
of instability and uncertainty in France. Louis and Otto had an
interview at Visé on the Meuse, in the month of November 942, at
which their reconciliation was sealed. Simultaneously, Pope Stephen VIII
raised his voice in favour of the Carolingian, ordering all the inhabitants
of the kingdom to recognise Louis afresh as king, and declaring that
“if they did not attend to his warnings and continued to pursue the
king in arms, he would pronounce them excommunicate. ” Hugh the
Great consented to make his submission. Soon afterwards the death
of Herbert of Vermandois was to rid Louis of one of his most dangerous
enemies (943).
An accident very nearly caused the settlement to fall through.
Louis, like his father, was taken in an ambush in Normandy and handed


## p. 79 (#125) #############################################

Death of Louis d'Outremer
79
79
over to Hugh the Great (945). But the latter quickly realised that an
attempt at revolution would only end in disappointment, and thought it
better policy to obtain from the king the surrender of his capital, Laon.
As soon as he was set at liberty, Louis appealed to Otto. The
kings joined in re-taking Rheims, drove out the Archbishop, Hugh of
Vermandois, and restored Artaud (946). Then in June 948 a solemn
council assembled on German soil at Ingelheim, under the presidency of
the Pope's legate, to consider the situation. The kings, Louis and
Otto, appeared there side by side. Hugh of Vermandois was excom-
municated. Louis himself made a speech, and recalled how “ he had
been summoned from regions beyond the sea by the envoys of Duke
Hugh and the other lords of France, to receive the kingdom, the
inheritance of his fathers; how he had been raised to the royal dignity
and consecrated by the universal desire and amid the acclamations of
the magnates and warriors of the Franks; how then, after that he had
been driven from his throne by the same Hugh, traitorously attacked,
made prisoner and detained by him under a strong guard for a whole
year ; how at last in order to recover his liberty he had been compelled
to abandon to him the town of Laon, the only one of all the royal
residences which the queen, Gerberga, and his faithful subjects had
been able to preserve. "
In conclusion he added that “if anyone would
maintain that these evils endured by him since he had obtained the
crown had come upon him by his own fault, he would purge himself of
that accusation according to the judgment of the Synod and the
decision of King Otto, and that he was even prepared to make good
his right in single combat. ” Touched by this remonstrance, the Fathers
of the Council replied by the following decision: “For the future, let
none dare to assail the royal power, nor traitorously to dishonour it by
a perfidious attack. We decide, in consequence, according to the decree
of the Council of Toledo, that Hugh, the invader and despoiler of the
kingdom of Louis, be smitten with sword of excommunication, unless,
within the interval fixed, he shall present himself before the Council, and
unless he amends his ways, giving satisfaction for his signal perversity. "
And, in fact, Hugh the Great, who had not feared even further to expel
the Bishop of Laon from his see, was summoned under pain of ex-
communication to appear at a forthcoming council which was to meet at
Trèves in the ensuing month of September. He did not appear and
was excommunicated. Not long after, a lucky stroke made Louis again
master of Laon (949) and Hugh, again solemnly excommunicated by
the Pope “until he should give satisfaction to King Louis," was soon
constrained to come and renew his submission (950).
Everything considered, the power of Louis seemed to have been
greatly strengthened, when he died suddenly on 10 September 954, as a
result of a fall from his horse. This explains why the nobles, Duke
Hugh foremost among them, without raising any difficulties chose his
ca. IV.


## p. 80 (#126) #############################################

80
Lothair and Otto II
eldest son Lothair (Lothar) to succeed him. The latter, then aged
about fourteen, was crowned at Rheims on 12 November 954.
Delivered ere long from the embarrassing patronage of Hugh
the Great, whom death removed on 17 June 956, Lothair, a few
years later, thought himself strong enough to resume the policy of his
father and grandfather in Lorraine. He gave secret encouragement to
the nobles of that country who were in revolt against Otto II, the new
King of Germany, and in 978 attempted by a sudden stroke to recover
the ground lost in that direction since the days of Raoul. He secretly
raised an army and marched upon Aix-la-Chapelle, where he counted on
surprising Otto. The stroke miscarried. Otto, warned in time, had
been able to escape. Lothair entered Aix, installed himself in the old
Carolingian palace, and by way of a threat, turned round to the east the
brazen eagle with outspread wings which stood on the top of the palace.
But provisions failed, and three days afterwards he was obliged to beat
a retreat. Otto, in revenge, threw himself upon the French kingdom,
destroyed Compiègne and Attigny, took Laon and pitched his camp
upon the heights of Montmartre, He was only able to burn the
suburbs of Paris, and then after having a victorious Alleluia chanted by
his priests he fell back upon the Aisne (November 978). Lothair only just
failed to cut off his passage across the river, and even succeeded in
massacring his camp-followers and taking his baggage. This barren
struggle was not, on the whole, of advantage to either sovereign. An
agreement took place ; in July 980 Lothair and Otto met at Margut
on the Chiers on the frontier of the two kingdoms, when they embraced
and swore mutual friendship.
It was a reconciliation in appearance only, and a few months later
Otto eagerly welcomed the overtures of Hugh the Great's son, Hugh
Capet, Duke of the Franks. The death of Otto on 7 December 983
deferred the final rupture. But dark intrigues, of which the Arch-
bishopric of Rheims was the centre, were soon to be woven round the
unfortunate Carolingian,
The Archbishop of Rheims, Adalbero, belonged to one of the most
important families of Lorraine. One of his brothers was Count of
Verdun and of the Luxembourg district. Talented, learned, alert and
ambitious, his sympathies as well as his family interests bound him to
the Ottonian house. In the same way Gerbert the scholasticus, the
future Pope Sylvester II, whom a close friendship united to Adalbero,
owed the foundation of his fortune and his success in life to Otto I and
Otto II. As he had long been a vassal of Otto II, from whom he had
received the rich abbey of Bobbio, his devotion was assured in advance
to young Otto III who had just succeeded, and to his mother, the
Empress Theophano. Lothair having thought well to form an alliance
with Henry, Duke of Bavaria', young Otto's rival, Adalbero and Gerbert
1 See infra, p. 210.


## p. 81 (#127) #############################################

The last Carolingian
81
a
did not hesitate to plot his ruin. A whole series of obscure letters,
with a hidden meaning, often written on a system agreed upon beforehand,
were exchanged between Adalberd and Gerbert and the party of Otto III.
Hugh Capet was won over to the imperial cause, and a skilful system of
espionage was organised around Lothair.
The latter, nevertheless, defended himself with remarkable courage
and firmness. He contrived to recruit followers even among the vassals
of Hugh Capet, threw himself upon Verdun, surprised the place, and
so took captive several Lorraine nobles of Adalbero's kindred who had
shut themselves up there. Finally he summoned Adalbero on a charge
of high treason before the general assembly to be held at Compiègne
on 11 May 985. Unfortunately, all these exertions were in vain;
Hugh Capet came up with an army and dispersed the assembly at
Compiègne. Not long after the king took a chill and died suddenly on
2 March 986.
Lothair had taken the precaution, as early as 979, to have his son
Louis V acknowledged and crowned king. The latter, who was nineteen
years of age, succeeded him without opposition. He was about to take
up his father's policy with some vigour, and had just issued a fresh
summons to Adalbero to appear before an assembly which was to meet
at Compiègne, when a sudden fall proved fatal (21 or 22 May 987).
Louis left no children. There remained, however, one Carolingian
who might have a legitimate claim to the crown, Charles, brother of the
late King Lothair. After a quarrel with his brother, Charles, in 977,
had taken service with the Emperor, who had given him the duchy of
Lower Lorraine. From that time Charles had taken up the position
of a rival to Lothair ; in 978 he had accompanied Otto II on his
expedition to Paris and perhaps had even tried to get himself recognised
as king. But soon there was a complete change; Charles had become
reconciled to his brother in order to plot against Otto III. At the same
time he had fallen out with Adalbero, and when the succession to the French
crown was suddenly thrown open in 987, his prospects of obtaining it
seemed from the first to be gravely compromised.
The truth was that for a century past political conceptions had
gradually been transformed. Although the kingship had never ceased,
even in Charlemagne's day, to be considered as in theory elective, it
seemed, up to the time when Odo was called to the throne, that only
a Carolingian could aspire to the title of king. The theory of the
incapacity of any other family to receive the crown
was still
brilliantly sustained during the last years of the ninth century by Fulk,
Archbishop of Rheims. In a very curious letter of self-justification,
which he wrote in 893, he laid it down that Odo, being a stranger to the
royal race, was a mere usurper; that the King of Germany, Arnulf, having
refused to accept the crown which he himself and his supporters offered
C. MED. H. VOL. III. CH. IV.
6


## p. 82 (#128) #############################################

82
Theories of kingship
him, they had been forced to wait until Charles the Simple,“ with
Arnulf, the only remaining member of the royal house,” should be of an
age to ascend the throne, which his brothers, Louis III and Carloman, had
occupied. He added that by conferring power on him they had merely
observed the principle almost universally known, by virtue of which
royalty, among the Franks, had not ceased to be hereditary. Con-
sequently he entreated King Arnulf to interfere for the maintenance of
this principle, and not to permit that usurpers should prevail against
“those to whom the royal power was due by reason of their birth. ”
In 987 these principles were far from being forgotten. Adalbero,
Hugh Capet himself, according to a contemporary historian, Richer,
monk of St Remi at Rheims, declared that "if Louis of divine memory,
son of Lothair, had left children, it would have been fitting that they
should have succeeded him. ” Nor shall we find the rights of Charles of
Lorraine, brother of King Lothair, denied in principle, and in order to
eliminate them it was necessary to have recourse to the argument that
Charles by his conduct had rendered himself unworthy to reign.
Another principle had indeed been gradually developing, to the
prejudice of hereditary right, namely, that the king, having as his
function to defend the kingdom against enemies from without, and to
preserve peace and concord within it, ought to be chosen by reason of
his capacity. We have seen' that Archbishop Fulk himself had de-
liberately set aside Charles the Simple in 888, “ because he was still too
young both in body and mind, and consequently unfit to govern. " In
the same way, the historian Richer makes Adalbero
say
" that only a
man distinguished for valour, wisdom and honour should be put at the
head of the kingdom. " And in fact, since the death of Charles the
”
Fat, the Carolingians had more than once been supplanted by kings
unconnected with their house.
Now even before the succession fell vacant, there was a personage in the
kingdom who, as Gerbert wrote in 985, although under the nominal king
was in fact the real king. This personage was the Duke of the Franks,
Hugh Capet, son of Hugh the Great. With singular skill and per-
severance, Hugh the Great, and afterwards Hugh Capet had never in
fact ceased to extend through the kingdom, if not their direct domination,
at least their preponderating influence. We have seen how, at the
accession of Louis IV, Hugh the Great had attempted to act the part
of regent of the kingdom. In a charter of the year 936 Louis himself
declares that he acts" by the counsel of his well-beloved Hugh, duke
of the Franks, who in all our kingdoms holds the first place after me. ”
This guardianship had soon become burdensome to the young king who
had freed himself from it, but Hugh had none the less manoeuvred very
adroitly to increase his prestige. Having lost his wife, Eadhild, sister
i See supra, p. 71.


## 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.