No More Learning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Champagne and Blois
123
wool no longer sufficed to occupy the workmen. Wool from neighbour-
ing countries was sent in great quantities to the Flemish fairs, and
already commerce was bringing Flanders into contact with England,
Germany, and Scandinavia.
Champagne and Blois. The contrast with the territories of the
Counts of Champagne is striking. Here there is no unity; the lands
ruled by the count have no cohesion whatever; only the chances of
succession which at the opening of the eleventh century caused the
counties of Troyes and Meaux to pass into the hands of Odo II, Count
of Blois, Tours and Chartres (996-1037).
The count's power, naturally, suffered from the scattered position of
his lands. The first to unite under his authority the two principalities
of Blois and Champagne, Odo II, has left in history only a reputation
for blundering activity and perpetual mutability. In Touraine, in place
of steadily resisting the encroaching policy of the Counts of Anjou', we
find him rushing headlong into one wild enterprise after another, in-
vading Lorraine on the morrow of his defeat by Fulk Nerra at Pontlevoy
in 1016, then joining with reckless eagerness in the chimerical projects
of Robert the Pious for dismembering the inheritance of the Emperor
Henry II (1024), and upon the death of Rodolph III, Alinging himself
upon the kingdom of Burgundy (1032). We shall see how the
adventurer fared, how Odo, after a brilliant and rapid campaign, found
himself face to face with the Emperor Conrad, threatened not only by
him but by Henry I King of France, whose enmity, by a triumph of
unskilful handling, he had brought upon himself. A prompt retreat
alone saved him. But it was only to throw himself into a new project;
he at once invaded Lorraine, carrying fire and sword through the country;
he began negotiations with the Italian prelates with a view to obtaining
the Lombard crown, and even dreamed of an expedition to Aix-la-
Chapelle to snatch the imperial sceptre from his rival. But the army
of Lorraine had assembled to bar his way; a battle was fought on
15 November 1037, in the neighbourhood of Bar, and Odo met with a
pitiful end on the field of carnage where his stripped and mutilated body
was found next day.
With the successors of Odo II came almost complete obscurity.
The counties of Champagne and Blois, separated for a brief interval by
his death, then re-united up to 1090 under the rule of Theobald III, go
on in an uneventful course, diminished by the loss of Touraine, which
the Counts of Anjou succeed in definitely annexing.
Burgundy. The history of the duchy of Burgundy in the eleventh
century is hardly less obscure. Its Dukes, Robert I, son of King Robert
the Pious, Hugh and Odo Borel seem to have been insignificantenough, with
neither domains, nor money, nor a policy. Although theoretically they
1 See supra, p. 108.
Chapter vi, pp. 143–4.
CH. V.


## p. 124 (#170) ############################################

124
Burgundy
were masters of very extensive territories, they saw the greater part of
their possessions slip from under their control to form genuine little
semi-independent principalities, such, for example, as the counties of
Châlon-sur-Saône and Mâcon, or else ecclesiastical lordships such as the
Abbey of Molesme which, before fifty years from its foundation (1075),
came to possess immense domains all over the north of Burgundy as
well as in southern Champagne.
There is thus no reason for surprise that the Dukes of Burgundy in
the eleventh century should play rather a petty part. Robert I (1032–
1076) seems, unlike a duke, to have been the type of an unscrupulous
petty tyrant such as at this period the lords of the smaller castles too
often were. His life was spent in pillaging the lands of his vassals, and
especially those of the Church. He carried off the crops of the Bishop of
Autun, seized upon the tithes of the churches of his diocese, and swooped
down upon the cellars of the canons of St Stephen of Dijon. His
reputation as a robber was so well established throughout his country
that about 1055 Hardouin, Bishop of Langres, dares not adventure himself
in the neighbourhood of Dijon to dedicate the Church of Sennecey,
fearing, says a charter, “to be exposed to the violence of the Duke. " He
hesitates at no crime to satisfy his appetites and his desire for vengeance;
breaks into the abbey of St-Germain at Auxerre by armed force, has
his young brother-in-law, Joceran, assassinated, and with his own hand
kills his father-in-law, Dalmatius, lord of Semur.
His grandson and successor, Hugh I (1076-1079), was far from
imitating the example set him, but he was quite as incapable as Robert
of establishing any real control over Burgundy, and after having taken
part in a distant expedition into Spain to succour Sancho I of Aragon
he suddenly carried his contempt for the world so far as to exchange
a soldier's restless life for cloistered peace, becoming a monk at the age
of twenty-three.
Odo Borel, Hugh's brother (1079-1102), returned to the family
tradition and became a highway robber. We have on this subject a
curious anecdote, related by an eye-witness, Eadmer, chaplain to Anselm,
Archbishop of Canterbury. As Anselm was passing through Burgundy
in 1097 on his way to Rome, the duke was informed of his approach
and of the chance it afforded of booty worth taking. Allured by the
account, Odo, mounting his horse immediately, took Anselm and his
escort by surprise. “Where is the Archbishop ? ” he cried in a
threatening tone. Yet at the last moment, confronted by the calm and
venerable demeanour of the prelate, some remnant of shame held him
back, and instead of falling on him he stood confounded, not knowing
what to say. “My lord Duke," said Anselm to him, “suffer me to
embrace thee. ” In his confusion the duke could only reply “ willingly,
for I am delighted at thy coming and ready to serve thee. ” It is
possible that the good Eadmer has manipulated the incident somewhat,
>


## p. 125 (#171) ############################################

Anjou
125
yet it is a significant anecdote: evidently the Duke of Burgundy was
looked upon as a common bandit.
Anjou. The county of Anjou presents us with a case intermediary
between Flanders which was strong, and already partly centralised,
and that of Burgundy which was split up and in a state of dis-
integration.
It has already been related in detail how, from the middle of the
eleventh century onwards, the Count was engaged in the interior of his
state in combating a crowd of turbulent barons strongly ensconced in
their castles? . But in spite of this temporary weakening of the count's
authority, the Angevin lands form even in the second half of the eleventh
century a coherent whole of which the count is the effective head.
Controlling the episcopal see of Angers which could not be filled up
without his consent, and finding commonly in the Bishop a devoted and
active helper ready to brave Archbishops, Legates, Councils and Popes
at his side, secure of the loyalty of the greater number of the secular
clergy, master of the chief abbeys also, besides being, as it would seem,
rich in lands and revenues, the count, in spite of everything, remains an
imposing figure. Under Fulk Rechin (1067-1109), when the spirit
of independence among the lesser Angevin fief holders was at its height,
the great lords of the county, such as those of Thouarcé or Trèves, were
to be found contending for the offices about the count's court which was
organised, apparently, on the model of the royal court, in a regular
fashion, with a seneschal, a constable and a chaplain (who was also
charged with the work of the chancery), chamberlains, cellarers, etc.
Nothing, however, more plainly shews the space which the Counts of
Anjou filled in the minds of contemporaries than the considerable body
of literature which, throughout the eleventh century and up to the middle
of the twelfth gathered round them, by means of which we have come to
know them better, perhaps, than even most of their contemporaries did.
Few figures, for instance, are stranger or more characteristic of the time
than that of Fulk Nerra, whose long reign (987-1040) corresponds with
the most glorious part of the formative period of the county. He
appears before us as a man ardent and fierce of mood, giving free course
to his ambition and cupidity, and governed by a passion for war, then
suddenly checking himself at the thought of eternal retribution, and
trying by some gift or some penance to obtain pardon from God or the
Saints whom his violence must needs have offended. One charter shews
him to us too much engrossed in warfare to give a thought to ecclesiastical
affairs; in another there is an allusion to his fierce, hasty temper incapable
of bearing any contradiction. Does he find himself hampered by a rival?
He will not shew himself scrupulous in the choice of means of getting
rid of him. In 1025 he lured the Count of Maine, Herbert Wake-dog
· See supra, p. 118 sq.
CH. V.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

132
Two bishops: Fulbert and Ivo of Chartres
God at Orleans which at that time was under an interdict. Immediately
Fulbert takes up his pen and writes to the king: “Amidst the numerous
occupations which demand my attention, my anxiety touching thy
person, my lord, holds an important place. Thus when I learn that
thou dost act wisely I rejoice; when I learn that thou doest ill I am
grieved and in fear. ” He is glad that the king should be thinking on
peace, but that with this object he should convoke an assembly at Orleans,
"a city ravaged by fire, profaned by sacrilege, and above all, condemned
to excommunication,” this astonishes and confounds him. To hold an
assembly in a town where, legally, neither the king nor the bishops
could communicate, was at that time nothing short of a scandal!