he British Library's Ashley manuscript 5069 is a hardcover notebook with sewn binding that contains a series of previously unpublished essays written by Swinburne probably in his final year at Balliol College (see Letters, I, 35). Upon forty-nine of the notebook's fifty-nine pages Swinburne has written five essays on historical subjects: (1) "Notes on Roman and Feudal Law" (pp.2-4); (2) one on Charlemagne (pp. 5-9); (3) "Crusades" (pp.10-14); (4) one on Saint Louis (pp.15-37); and (5) "Joinville" (pp. 38-49). In addition, starting from the back of the notebook and written upside down are ten pages occupied fully or in part by notes on Henry Hallam's Middle Ages. The emphasis in all five essays is on medieval subjects, most of which deal with the history surrounding the development of courtly literature. Swinburne's knowledge of his subject here demonstrates not only his preoccupation with the medieval period but also a self-confidence lacking in his undergraduate essays on Greek literature, logic, philosophy, and the other standard subjects of the Balliol "Greats" curriculum in 1860.1 In these essays on medieval history, Swineburne's most important sources are Hallamfs Middle Ages; Michelet's Saint Louis;[163/164] and a biography of Joinville. Swinburne's fidelity to Michelet's text is often so great that his paragraphs appear to be virtual translations of that source.
In general, Swinburne revised these essays very little, and what changes he did make seem to have been immediate. The manuscript pages are therefore quite clean, and, of the approximately 8,500 words, only about 10 remain indecipherable. I have placed cancellations in angle brackets, and indecipherable words are indicated thus [illegible]. All such matter in italics is supplied by me. In spelling, grammar, and capitalization, I have normally followed the rule of literal presentation. Misspellings should not be viewed as typographical errors; the words are as they appear in the original text. Throughout, I have retained Swinburne's punctuation, but I have always spelled in full the following abbreviations he often used: & (and); agst (against); Cmagne (Charlemagne); kg. (king); bp. (bishop); wh: (which or who); wd (would); Gk: (Greek); altho' (although); cd (could); yt (that); amg (among); acct (account); wh (with); knts (knights). In Swinburne's notes, which are redactions of Hallam's introductory comments on the period from A.D. 486 to 1300, I have attempted to retain Swinburne's spelling, punctuation, and symbols exactly, as well as to approach as closely as possible the format he used.
Obviously, encyclopedic notes could be provided to comment on the people, places, and events in these essays. I have, however, tried to dispense almost entirely with such notes except in cases where a reference is particularly obscure and not easily found in Swinburne's sources, in other easily accessible historical studies, in encyclopedias, or in dictionaries.
In most respects these essays speak for themselves. They tell us much about Swinburne's background in historical studies of the medieval[164/165] period; they display his impressive ability to master facts and details, which lasted till his death; and they give us some sense of Swinburne's developing prose style.
Notes on Roman and Feudal Law
The idea of nations is a later one than that of races.2 This latter is the idea which, prior to the feudal system, occupied historians and patriots: the former is a product simply of the feudal system. In the tenth century, law, which had previously been individual,-a matter of persons-became local,-a matter of tribes and governments. The earlier laws which obtained weight after the virtual destruction of the Roman empire touched in several points on the previous jurisdiction of classical periods; and in many diverged from it. An early Teutonic law was that which in Homer appears as . This system of personal reprisals and physical retribution was an established and legal custom among the Rissciarian tribe of the Franks.
An opposite instance-an instance of the broad difference made between the barbarian conquerors and those who had once enjoyed the privilege and now endured the disadvantage of Roman citizenship-is as follows. While it is matter of doubt among antiquarians whether this stigma could be removed at the will of the citizen suffering from it, it is certain that this was the scale of charges at which men were valued by the laws. A bishop was worth 100 pieces of gold, a Frank noble 600, a Roman noble 300-a Frank plebeian 200-a Roman plebeian 100 or even 50. Judicial proceedings had two separate bases: first-conpurgators, men who bore witness as to the general repute and standing of the person accused and to their own opinion of his character-secondly, the famous institution of combat or ordeal known as the Judgement of God, against whose unfairness a Towbard chieftain, a man of such clear and strong intellect as also to comprehend the perilous injustice of charges of witchcraft, was the first to[165/166] appeal. The very notion of evidence as to the actual facts of the case is entirely a late invention. Of the two kinds of Judgement the ordeal was classical, the combat purely feudal.
The name of Charlemagne is one of those names which history acknowledges as great, while as a rule it abstains from defining the component parts which go to make up its greatness.3 And in fact the position of Charlemagne is one altogether anomalous and unlike that of other conquerors or other statesmen. He is in French history a sort of compound of the legendary Arthur and the Alfred of the chronicles. He is the central figure of a wide and various body of legends. The "emporeur à la barbe [illegible]"-of innumerable traditions, the constantly reappearing Deus e machinâ of mediaeval poetry at least as far as the 13th century. Witness the legends, to take only two instances out of many,4 of Amis and Amiloun and Floris and Blancheflor. From these and such as these his name passed over into England and assumed a simi1ar prestige there. Even late and grave historians have not thoroughly disengaged the idea of the historical warrior and reformer from that of the man who had been made by anticipation a model of chivalrous action, a centre of chivalrous tradition. The deep and wide anachronism, afterwards taken up by the Italians, which made of Charlemagne an Amadis or a Lancelot has to this day confused and impaired the appreciation of his real position and influence on his time. Again, writers who were most anxious to escape any such confusion as that above referred to, have under the influence of such a reaction missed understanding the actual reason and gist of his wars and his legislation. He was undoubtedly a politician and lawgiver of the most clear intuition and profound skill: but as undoubtedly he was liable to be guided and misguided by the religion of the time in which he lived and acted. Hallam for example professes himself[166/167] unable to apprehend the reason which induced the emperor to waste thirty years of his turbulent reign on the ungrateful task of subduing Saxony and Wesphalia, when Italy and Spain might far more easily have been melded into the imperial structure. The reason is surely plain, the Saxon war, with its irrational earnestness and straightforward fanaticism, was as much a religious enterprise as the crusades which it anticipated and prefigured. Such also was the Saxon war, which was (as Hallam has previously stated) Charlemagne's first great success. It is simply to assert an anachronism, to assert that Charlemagne, in taking the pope's part against the insurgent Lombards and supplanting as the champion of the church the iconoclastic emperors of the east, was actuated by principles of mere policy. That he was a statesman, and a great statesman, his capitularies and the institution of the "missi dominici" would of themselves suffice to bear witness. But to overlook the religious element of his reign is to overlook at least as vital and important an element of his character. In popular tradition, evidently, Charlemagne was for centuries the representative of the Catholic monarchy, as Desiderius the Lombard of <the> heretical usurpation.
In representing his personal character, history and legend agree. Even Hallam and Gibbon can on this ground be conciliated with the account of mediaeval poets and romances. The vigorous and passionate nature of the man comes out in all details. Those extravagant accusations as to his private life upon which Gibbon touches (not without exposing his usual facile enjoyment and subdued relish of indecent traditions) were probably enough only the exaggerations of <a> conduct not likely to have been a model of ascetic virtue. His time was coarse and fierce; and Charlemagne was not <likely> the man to anticipate it in such points. In the shedding of blood-especially with a view to conversion-he was certainly as liberal as other conquerors and practical prophets of a new faith-and certainly not more so. In spite of which we may add that Hallam's summary-totally omitting as it does the peculiar religious position and belief of Charlemagne and solely considering his intellectual power as lawgiver ruler and restorer of the empire-is so unfair, that altering the names and dates it would do almost as well for the man who, without conscience honesty or faith, attempted to give the fifteenth century a second edition of Charlemagne-for Caesar Borgia.
It was 20 years before the first crusade that Hildebrand imagined the possibility of an European expedition against Asia. The Greek empire was even then imperilled by the events of Turkish power. Under Urban II, this danger had become more pressing. But this, as Hallam remarks, was not even a secondary consideration to the men who undertook the first crusade under the stimulus solely of the religious sentiment. It is hard to realize the spiritual position of Europe at the time of this first attempt. Undoubtedly there grew up afterwards many personal and interested reasons, to further and to second the devotional impulse which first set the enterprise on foot. Immunity from the punishment of crime-from the payment of debts contracted, from liability to taxes-from the jurisdiction of civil courts in ordinary cases-all these advantages must of course have mingled their influence with that of faith and devotion. But these were the growth of a later development of the crusading impulse. In the first crusade many of the advantages above recounted must have been wanting-for this reason: that it was a mere expedition of priests, peasants and the lesser nobility. It was not the kings and emperors who dignified by their success and failure the last crusades, whose support swelled the ranks aroused by Peter the Hermit or led to destruction by Walter the Penniless. That unhappy "rabble" as historians term it which perished fruitlessly in Hungary was not only a mere caricature of the weakness, heat and haste which misguided the expedition in so many ways; it was a convincing test how thoroughly the religious passion had pervaded the lower ranks of society before it practically touched the higher.
Except in open battle the loss of the first crusaders was vast and their failure almost constant. Their final success was but the achievement of subduing the maritime parts of Syria. Bohemond, indeed obtained Antioch as a principality, and Godfrey Jerusalem as a kingdom: but the Syrian Latins, even after Tyre and Ascalon had fallen into their hands, remained liable to Mohometan aggression. From this first the second crusade failed to deliver them; and the principalities, although better protected by European volunteers than by their own insufficient military guard, and in spite of the splendid successes of[168/169] their unequal force against the Moslems in repeated battles-Jerusalem fell into the power of Saladin 40 years after the second crusade. Two years later the most renowned attempt of all-the third crusade-was undertaken by the greatest of European princes, to result in practical failure.
Passing over for the present the mistimed <attempt> endeavor of St. Louis to renew a war and rekindle enthusiasm for a cause which had already fallen out of date, we may try lastly to sum up the main causes of the crusades as follows. Fanaticism is the easiest and slightest reason to give in their explanation. To this we may add that these wars did certainly afford an outlet and diversion for the surplus of warlike and political excitement which might otherwise have been employed on European dissension. Again, as before hinted, it is no less certain that they afforded a requisite or a convenient security to men otherwise embarrassed by civil causes or criminal charges. They were also an instrument of penance and expiation suitable alike to inflict and to undergo. Men like Foulques Nerra, laden with the guilt of perjury and massacre, in a period when even the most treacherous and violent of men could not escape the consciousness of sin, and had not as yet learnt the trick of modern traitors and tyrants to shift off the blame upon their "mission" or their "star," went, doubtless with at least as much conviction as policy, to fight and to be scourged in the streets of Jerusalem or before the Sepulchre itself, accepting the labour, the peril and the humiliation as the natural price to pay for success at home-sometimes even, one may conjecture, as a cost on which they had counted from the first and found the prize worth the payment. Out of all these harmonious or conflicting reasons it is hopeless to extract the pure and simple impulse which would comment on and explain them all. To understand the crusades, we now think, we should be able to go back to their time. and when that was done, the loss of all later experience and of all analogy would perhaps have the fact actually occurring before our eyes as hard as ever to explain fully. It was not merely rational, and cannot be rationally accounted for. It was not purely religious, and cannot be submitted to purely religious appreciation. Somewhere the balance must be struck between the scepticism of the last century and the neo-Catholicism of this-between Gibbon and the school of believers in the "Ages of[169/170] Faith": and we know of no historian who has done <the> this with thorough fairness. In fact, to give a fair weight and value to both sides, a man would have to combine such utterly opposite qualities that we may almost as soon expect a historian of inspired candour and insight beyond the insight of all common men.
[On Saint Louis]
A reign that was to leave upon the popular mind an impression the more favourable for the contrast it presented to those before and after it, opened in the midst of contention and danger. Blanche of Castille, the King's mother, had to fight for her regency. The papal legate supported her with his counselr and it was the common report that he was requited by her affection. Against them were ranged, among others, Pierre de Dreux, Count of Brittany, and Philippe Hurepel, Count of Boulogne: the first had earned the name Mauclerc by his opposition to that clerical policy supported by the religious character of the queen-regent; the latter a son of Philippe Auguste, and uncle to the king, though by a marriage which the Church refused to admit as legal. These nobles and their party claimed a restitution of the political rights of their order: security against loss of property and rank unless after judgement of their 12 peers; the grant of a year's notice before anyone could be legally denounced as a public enemy; and finally they demanded the liberty of those noblemen imprisoned by the late king's father.
Blanche did not await their leave or their resistance. At Scissons her son was made knight, at Rheims anointed king. Philippe of Boulogne she conciliated by the grant of two castles which his father had [held under] occupied with royal garrisons; his father-in-law, the ex-count, she retained in prison, lest he might interfere with Philippe's claims; and a timely suicide removed him out of the way. Ferrand Count of Flanders she also liberated on payment of a ransom. Thus the coronation of a boy of eleven was made a less hazardous step. The 29 Nov. 1226 was the day on which his reign began.
Meantime however the league remained strong. In it were Richard of Aquitaine and the Countess of Angoulême, brother and mother to Henry III of England, whom they regarded as its head. Hugues de Lusignan, re-married to the English ex-queen whom he had ceded to[170/171] King John during the reign of that monarch (he had carried off Isabelle in 1200 and married her), received <for> from his wife and her son in return for this pliant forgiveness the county of Angoulême and other valuable fiefs. The English king had also claims on Anjou, Poitou, Normandy and Maine. The French nobles would have sided with him, if only to keep their own king in dependance; but his mismanagement of home affairs threw out his chance. The chance was taken up by a more illustrious hand. Thibaud Count of Champagne, the real inventor of the league, hateful to the royal house by his support of the feudal rights of his order, hateful to the priests by his Albigensian sympathies and regrets, came forward to take up arms against the queen-mother, to whom he had paid court at least in his poems, and probably by personal suit. Blanche had resolved to forestall her lover's purpose, and had summoned the crown vassals to Tours for a levy of the army, when Thibaud appeared to do homage for his fiefs and was cordially received. This some attribute to the queen's negociations, supposing her desirous to get rid of Philippe Hurepel-Thibaud's hereditary and deadly enemy-at all costs, before his friendship became too dangerous: others to an untimely outbreak of the count's poetical affection for Blanche. After this the League melted away by degrees-at last in March the counts of Brittany and LaMarche rescinded their oaths to the king of England at Vendôme. Hereupon Philippe Hurepel, seeing his rival's influence increase, accused him of adultery with the queen-mother and of the murder by witchcraft of the late king. To revenge this he convoked the disaffected nobles; and so nearly was the League renewed in full power that the queen, flying from <Orel> Orleans5 with her son, had to be escorted, by a detachment of citizens summoned from Paris, past the enemy's army at MontChéri and so into the city; a timely aid, accompanied with expressions of loyalty and devotion, which the king in after life mentioned with grateful pleasure <in his> to Joinville.
At this time Blanche had other enemies to contend with. The popes Honorius III and Gregory IX took part against her for the king of England. The regent conciliated them by a renewal of the Albigensian war, which ended in the ruin of Raymond VII after a few recesses[171/172] whose effect was impaired by his cruelties. Arles fell to the popes for a time-Languedoc to the French crown. The daughter of Raymond was ransomed for a marriage with the king's third brother. In carrying out this crusade Folquet bishop of Toulouse took a main part; he lived till 1231, strenthening the inquisition by all his influence and intrigue. The final cession had been made by Raymond in April 1229.
Thibaud of Champagne, after the war in Brittany in which Henry III took part <after> in spite of a winter's delay caused by the French leaving of Hubert de Burgh his favourite, was obliged by the league, which had already raised up against him the claims of his cousin, Alice queen of Cyprus, was <now> obliged to undertake a crusade which he could not accomplish for years. The same year a disturbance fell out between the students of Paris and the citizens; the soldiers intervened at Blanche's order: blood was shed, and the university dispersed in other towns for a period of more than a year, when a papal rebuke to the regent and the bishop of Paris settled the dispute.
In <April> May the King of England came to the aid of the barons in Brittany; after the peace made with Thibaud and the <King> <the> queen he went back; and soon after Mauclerc came to terms. After this treaty had been signed July 1231, the civil war of the regency ended.
There were however disputes with the bishop of Beauvais, the rights of whose town were infringed by the appointment of a foreign mayor and its resistance cruelly punished, and with the bishop of Rouen, in both which the Pope and the ecclesiastical power of interdict got the better of the regent. Another slight attempt was made by Henry III on the expiration of a three years' truce; on its failure, Mauclerc broke with England definitively. Reconciled to France, he took part in the unfortunate crusade of 1235 with Thibaud, now king of Navarre on the death of Sancho, his father-in-law; who had agreed to leave it to the king of Arragon; but the king of Arragon was occupied in a war against the Moors in Majorca for which he had recruited Provence: and Thibaud, Philippe Hurepel having died (not without suspicions of poison) while urging the claims of the queen of Cyprus, bought off her claim with money received from Blanche in return for the cession of certain fiefs.
At this period (1236) Louis IX attained his majority. We have seen[172/173] that the courageous and active intellect of the queen-mother had brought him through great and various perils to a prosperous security. Two years before she had made him accept the hand of Margaret daughter of Raymond Beranger IV, Count of Provence. The king's mind was already, it is probable, turned towards the chances of a crusade. It may not be out of place to give here such brief summary as we can of his character and position. Hitherto he has done nothing: from this point his becomes the principal figure, and that of Blanche recedes.
Nature had made him constitutionally reverent and gentle; education had developed these qualities to a point almost morbidly sensitive. His submission to his mother was so much a matter of conscience that for years after his marriage he complied with her desire that he should scarcely ever see his wife; or the wife and husband would meet by a secret passage and part hastily when a signal warned them of the queen's coming. We say the queen advisedly, for Margaret was thwarted in every way by Blanche. Again, the king was come into a fair and full inheritance: but even if his claim to Normandy, Poitou and the other provinces wrested from England was a small one, the southern provinces had been won at the cost of that Albigensian crusade which to this day remains a portent of cruelty among <the> European wars. It was perhaps not without an idea of expiation that the Eastern war presented itself to his mind. The main qualities of Louis IX seem to have been a perfect purity, an unspotted singleness of purpose, a gentle courage mixed with a tenderness for the lives of his followers which explains their devotion to a king in whose views the wisest of them were often unable to join-Joinville for instance on the occasion of the second crusade in which he flatly refused to take part. His religion was coloured and moulded by these qualities; it was also tainted by the want of candour, justice and courage which distinguished the belief of <the> an age which had to choose between Frederick II and Gregory IX — a sceptical emperor and a pope memorable mainly for treachery, self-interest, and his share in the last cruelties inflicted on the already overthrown Albigeois. Ready to lay down his life for the Cross at all instants, the king was also ready to tear out with hot irons the tongues that spoke against the lightest article of faith. And in this <t>he was behind others of his period. Repeatedly[173/174] he has to repress or answer as he best can-and his forte does not lie in argument-the objections or doubts of Joinville — an orthodox man too, but disposed to approve of arguing with Jews (for example) where it was his duty to put them to the edge of the sword at once.
The crusade could not begin at once. Raymond of Toulouse after 14 years of a humiliated peace was up again in the South. He -vvould have married Beatrice of Provence and united that province with <Toulouse> Languedoc in defiance of the Parisian treaty of <1225> 1227. Trencavel, the dispossed (Probably "dispossessed" was intended.) heir of Nimes and Carcassonne, also reappeared. Henry III was to help him: Navarre Castille and Arragon were his allies. But Henry III was again too late. But for his brother Richard's intercession, his army would have perished at <Ni> Taillebourg: at Taintes he was routed and fled to Bordeaux. Louis used his success with a wise leniency. He even left to Raymond the old terms of the treaty of 1229.
At length the seizure of Gaza and Jerusalem and the treacherous massacre of their inhabitants by the Mongol tribes determined the king to that action by which he is yet most widely remembered. A vow made at the point of death and renewed in health in spite for once of the opposition of Blanche and even of the priest, was the ostensible and immediate cause. Gregory IX, by this time expelled (Swinburne probably left out "from." Italy and forced to extort by soliciation leave to enter Lyons, threw every hindrance possible in his way, to divert his arms against the emperor or the King of England, with both of whom he was then at enmity. But Louis gave no heed to this. He even restored to England some of the French conquests. He gave money to Trencavel in payment of his lands and attached him to the crusade. He prepared all things necessary for the foundation, as a groundwork to the holy war, of a strong Egyptian colony. To have a harbour of his own, as the Provenc,al harbours belonged to Charles of Anjou, he <built> dug that of Aiguesmortes.
His first point was Cyprus. There the army waited for Charles and his reinforcements till it became thoroughly enervated and depraved. Ambassadors came to do the king honour from Constantinople, Syria,[174/175] the Assassins, the Mongols themselves. But there were profligate resorts established about the very tent of the king and queen. At last they set sail for Egypt and <a> the wind decided their course for Damietta, which was easily taken. But from that point the misfortunes of the ruinous enterprise began. By slow marches, harassed and decimated by the Greek fire of the Saracens, they reached Mansourah, getting through ten leagues in a month. At Mansourah, after many dangerous and vain attempts to force a passage of the Nile by a dam, they were guided to a ford.
First Robert d'Artois brother to the king crossed, and scorning the advice of the Templars to wait for the rest of the army, broke into the city with the vanguard. The Templars followed, but without hope. The Mamelukes (overpow²ered them) in a¹ short (time);8 the streets were barricaded and the windows emptied stones<,> wood etc. on the heads of the French.
Meantime the king had crossed and met the Saracens. Here it was that Joinville saw him "coming with all his battle, with great noise and great clamour of trumpets, and he paused on a raised way; but so fair a man at arms I never saw, for he showed above all his men shoulder-high, a gold helmet upon his head, a German sword in his hand." Till the evening the battle was bravely kept up; and then came the news of his brother's death. Then, Joinville says, the king answered that God should be praised for that which he had sent him; and then there fell from his eyes full great tears. Again when one asked him for news of the Count of Artois; "All I know" said he "is that he is in Paradise."
On the road to Cairo there were further encounters; the Count of Anjou was nearly captured and only rescued by Louis at his extreme personal risk. The entrenchments were notwithstanding saved: and the king could not resolve to fall back at once on Damietta. Hideous diseases broke out in the army, from impure food and damp mainly: the corpses were too loathsome to touch, although the king set the example of burying them with his own hands. At last the retreat began; but Louis was too ill himself to travel far: the Saracens enclosed them by land and water; all were massacred who would not renounce,[175/176] their faith; only the king and the prisoners of note were spared. Louis, who could not grant the cession of Jerusalem which belonged to the German emperor, had agreed to give up Damietta and pay 600,000 gold bezants, when the Sultan was murdered in a revolt of the Mamelukes.
At Damietta, three days after Margaret had heard of her husband's capture, she bore a child named Jean, surnamed Tristan.
Complete as was the overthrow of Louis IX, he remained a year after this in Palestine, fortified the main cities, and remained as long as his presence was thought useful; <when> at length the sudden death of the queen-mother recalled him to Europe.
The failure of his expedition had been utter: and such was his despondency. All Christendom, he said, was disgraced in him and by him. <There was never an completer instance of the growth of a man's greatest glory from a noble failure.> Nevertheless it was from this mistimed and mismanaged attempt that the chief reputation of St. Louis was to grow. Admitting all the impolicy and aimless misconduct which have to be deducted from the sum of his glory, yet the true valour and purity of purpose, the heroism and the patience he displayed in battle and in worse than battle-his faithful care of his people-his pity of their lost lives-his tenderness for their dishonoured bodies-all these things, even for those who need not regard him as saint or martyr, make his name and his memory among the most pure, noble, worthy of love and loving honour, in all history.
In France a fresh danger awaited "him" Louis; the insurrection, as it was called, of the Pastoureaux. This singular rising, of which any complete and judicious account would be a great help to our comprehension of the period, was for the most part religious. It broke out among the lowest of the people; shepherds chiefly, whence its name. These men, on the first news of the king's imprisonment, banded themselves together under the plea of marching to his rescue. How far this was a pretext, and how far they really saw in Louis IX their best chance of escape from oppression, we cannot determine. At all events, their main animosity fell (by an instinct which probably was not far wrong) upon the priests. These they put to the sword; but the most remarkable point is that they at once proceeded to establish a Church of their own-complete with a clergy, pope, cardinals and bishops: which according to early accounts gave them some elements of stability[176/177] and resistance. Their chief was a mysterious prophet who professed to carry always in his closed hand an autograph letter from the Virgin summoning Pastoureaux to the holy land. Paris and Orleans allowed their passage; but with time they were killed out "like mad dogs, dispersedly" as Michelet quotes from Matthew Paris.-It is easy to recognize the first ostensible and superficial reasons for the anti-clerical movement of these unfortunate Pastoreaux. At no time yet had the priestly power been so fatal, so treacherous, so merciless, as it had been during the last reigns. Even the miserable plea of private purity of life and individual regularity of devotion-that plea so often set up without sense or reason, so often bested and overthrown, only to be again seized upon and clung to with the irrational force of fear-even this they could hardly then fall back upon. If Folquet of Toulouse was steeped in innocent blood, there were brother prelates of his not less deeply dyed with falsehood and impurity: the cardinallegate Romano, e.g. was accused of adultery with Queen Blanche. Everywhere the intellectual revolt was begun or beginning. The A1bigeois [illegible] was burnt out; but the very university of Paris had incurred, although it promptly bowed to, a warning against secular teaching and tenets that attempted to prove revealed religion the equivalent of natural. St. Louis himself-and this Michelet most acutely points out as a test of the wide spread and deep root of scepticism-has to contemplate the possibility of doubt and the duty of stifling it; a duty which an earlier believer of the same purity and zeal-say for instance King Robert-would never have thought of. Oriental studies were in full growth among the great and wise-Frederic II for one, and his court; democratic leanings were visible among the populace-as this very outbreak of the Pastoureaux. And <as> to counterbalance all this, the Inquisition, with all its worst and most shameful ingredients already matured, was in full establishment and regular work. Torture indeed was not yet a system-a physical infliction at least was not: but all the elements of lying, fraudulent admissions, false promises, false pretensions, false sympathy, false charity, and the whole arsenal of moral forgeries were in play. Lismondi gives a prolonged list of the instructions drawn up for the use of inquisitors, their officials, and their converts: and a more repulsive catalogue of lies of all colours and shapes it would be hard to find and painful to read.
To St. Louis either side of the question must have been painful to[177/178] investigate. On his return, the main facts we hear of his conduct are his devotions, his disciplines, his sensitive dread of any fresh wrongdoing. To England he delivered up the Limousin, the Pirigord and other provinces on condition that the English claim on the conquered lands of Poitou Normandy etc. should be legally and definitely abandoned. This cession made for conscience' sake cost him much opposition from his brother, from the nobles, and all France; also the lasting rancour of the provinces given up, which refused to take part in the festival of his canonization. But on the other hand Louis allowed his brother Charles to accept, what for himself he steadily refused, the papal offer of a share in the Italian spoils of the German empire: and that unjust and pitiless policy, the reaction from which was the sicilian Vespers, was partly due to the same king whose tender conscience despoiled him of his own inherited lands. St. Louis was decidedly not the man to manage a home policy. For the restF Charles of Anjou had on him that influence which opposite characters often mutually exercise. "The dark man who took little sleep"-hard, unjust, hot and quick to take offence-was as complete an antithesis to St. Louis as one could well conceive.
The king's interference, solicited and reclaimed as it was by both sides, in English polities, had not a much happier result. Indeed no power could have extricated Henry III at the point he had come to. Perplexed between the Church (which he supported by introducing Itatian priests into English benefices) and the barons and people (in whom a society had sprung up to check this <It>(Swinburne probably began to write "Italian.") foreign overgrowth by the direct and simple method of murdering the papal messengers), he had fallen back on his Poitevin favourites. Against these there was a fresh rising; Simon de Montfort, the hereditary enemy of Southern France, turned suddenly against the king: the Oxford parliament had confirmed the charter; and after six years' war they agreed to refer to the French king. Louis, on the authority of the text concerning "submission to the powers" etc., annulled the Oxford resolutions; and war at once recommenced.
We have mentioned above the influence mutually exercized by Louis and Charles. This influence by itself makes it probable that Louis cannot be with justice exempted from the charge of sharing in [178/179] the Italian campaign, of the king of Sicily. Into the detail of those wars this is not the place to enter: we will simply refer in passing to the observation of Michelet that to St. Louis they might have appeared almost in the light of a new species of crusade. For the Church was thoroughly with them; and the Imperial house which they went to destroy was taxed, not simply with licence and rebellion, but also with actual disbelief. Manfred, the bastard successor of Frederic II, was challenged by Charles as the Sultan of Nocera in which place as in Luceria he had posted the Saracen troups on which, like his father, he mainly relied for Italian support. [illegible] That the concord between the brothers was a real and complete one, a contemporary anecdote proves. Louis had chosen to take personal part in the building of a monastery at Roiaumont-wheeling barrows-full of stones, for one thing; he pressed his brothers into the same service. If they wished in the intervals of hod-carrying to indulge in [illegible] merriment or conversation, the king said to them: "the monks at work here keep silence, and so ought we to keep it." If they wished to sit down and rest while wheeling their hand barrows-"The monks" said the king "take no rest, neither should you take any."
They were soon to take part with him in an enterprise more weighty than mason's work, and less guilty if less hopeful than an Italian war. In Syria, the Mamelukes who had come to supplant the Mongols were carrying on a persecution more terrible even than theirs. In Antioch alone seventeen thousand Christians were massacred, <20,000> 10,000 sold into slavery. On May 25th 1267 the king of France entered the great hall of the Louvre, weakened with austerities, carrying in his hand the crown of thorns which he had purchased from the Greek Emperor as a relic beyond price. He resumed the cross and compelled his three sons to do likewise. His brothers Alphonse and Charles, with many nobles, followed their example. Louis left no stone unturned to attach to his enterprise the neighbouring princes. He paid 70,000 livres to the English princes; he offered to furnish equipages, reconcile disputes, anything to get livres. To the Southern assemblies of Carcassonne <and> Beaucaire he gave <the licence of> leave to have representatives of the citizens-the first germ of the States of Languedoc. In spite of all, when the army was gathered together, there remained great opposition without and great despondency within. For two months it loitered at Aigues-Mortes, in an unhealthy [179/180] neighbourhood; with its direction undetermined. Egypt was alarmed. A mouth of the Nile was stopped up. The Greek emperor, dreading (says Michelet) <C> the ambition of Charles of Anjou, sent to offer a reconciliation between the Eastern and Western Churches. The passage was very slow; Pisa <refused leave to> closed her harbours against the Genoese ships <to land>; Louis could hardly get leave to land his numerous sick. At this rate they could never get as far as Palestine or Egypt. Tunis was suggested as a substitute: to reduce Tunis was the interest of the king of Sicily. It was thought that the Sultan, who was on friendly terms with France, might be converted rather by a mild intimidation than by force. Louis had formerly made the Tunis ambassadors witnesses of the baptism of a converted Jew and had then sent by them the following message of their Sultan: "That I desire so earnestly the <salvation> wellbeing of his soul that I would choose to be in the Saracen prisons all my life through and not see the light of day again, if at such cost I might make your king and his people Xtians, even as this man is made."
But such was not the outlook for the Genoese. Plunder was their aim, and Tunis was reported to be worth the sacking. They seized the ships that fell in their way off Carthage. On landing, the Moors drew them on by <means> feigned attacks and sudden retreats.10 The Genoese seized the fort of Carthage, its Saracen garrison of 200 men were slaughtered, or perished in the fire. Their corpses had to be deared out before Louis and his army could get lodging among the ruins. Here they were to wait for Charles of Anjou. The very name of that king seemed to bring ill fortune to his brother; this <w> <same> was a repetition of the reverse which had maimed the Egyptian expedition on first setting out. In eight days the plague broke out. It was no wonder: they had no vegetable food; the air was hot and foul; shelterless sand and the stench of corpses completed the bad work. Many nobles perished; also the youngest and favourite son of the king. <Ten> Eight days later, when Louis himself was near death, his confessor saw fit to give him the news. After this he quietly went through such ceremonies of religion as there remained for him; he received the Greek ambassadors who came to ask his intercession and help[180/181]against the designs of Charles; spoke justly to them, promised his aid and goodwill should he live; but it never availed them. He made them take him out of bed and lay him in ashes. Then he spread out his arms cross-wise, and prayed, with his hands lifted, saying: "Fair lord God, take pity on this people that abides here, and bring my men back to their own land that they fall not into the hand of their enemies and be not driven to deny the holy name." They thought he might get to sleep and so die; but he sighed and said <in a low> twice under his breath: "O Jerusalem: O Jerusalem." And so died by the break of day.
That was the end of the last crusade, or crusades either. lt seems to us that Joinville had no such great reason to thank God (as he does) that he for one took no part in it. He might have done worse than go. It was a very fair and perfect end; this at least was not <untimely> mistimed, not misplaced if Louis' work in life had been so. Old words, which are become bywords, <w> phrases used out, which are come to have no sense or merely a sense of ceremony and false worship-seem still the only fit phrases and words for it. In his life any man now [illegible] may see flaws and gaps-as many then did, only let him treat even these, as the men about <him> Louis did, not without some reverence. The world has had many men greater; no man ever won more love. And to this day he has kept it, in a vague irrational <man> sort. It is not a name that many men to whom it is known at all would like to hear slighted or reviled. And then in his life he had surely failure and trouble enough. It may be best to leave him and his period-the age of which he was, so to speak, the crown and the conclusion,-even as they stand, to give in their own account. Those are not wise who would reproduce it for profit of some modern cause or party; neither are those who would cast stones at it for our satisfaction. It is gone for good, and neither regret nor contempt can alter that. As little can either alter one whit of its good or evil. <There> Let us leave it, even as it went out with the life of Louis-saying as little as need be of praise or sorrow or blame; the one will not help it; for the other we have no heart, were it as just as is unjust and dull. But as to regretting such an end for it, no man need think of that. Louis had no regret for it or for himself; he <did> had nothing to repent of for his share. That he could not enter Jerusalem to purify it-could not earn the right to give thanks for leave given to complete his good service-this may have been a sorrowful thing to him; there was much more to[181/182] wish done, but little surely to wish undone. <We will [illegible] with the [illegible].> His last words he said were the words of this prayer: words fit to wind up his life: "Lord God, give us heart that we may despise the bitterness of this world, so that we may have no fear of any adversity."
The debateable ground between history and biography is a ground attractive to all men for all reasons. It seems likely to give us a true and clear notion of all that lies choked in an overgrowth of statistics or wanders before modern eyes in the mist of speculation. It is also dangerous ground. A thoroughly bad historical memoir is about the most thoroughly bad book that can well be written. It has claims beyond the classics of romance, and duties less strict than the duties of history. If it abuse this prestige and this privilege, the dullest <history> chronicle, the loosest historical novel, is far preferable. We in England have been of late years much plagued with an infectious and illegitimate growth of this kind. The best mode of bringing to the test such a swarm of counterfeits is to confront them for an instant with a really great work of the same class.
M. Caboclu in his late work on the historical memoirs of France has done, we think, bare justice to Joinville. There is a taint, a twang of modernism about his references and citations, which <seems> does not seem to promise well for his handling of the matter. He has a cold candour, a placid sense of judgement, which is apt to turn irritating after a few sentences. Clearly the duc de Saint-Simon is more in his line than Froissart or than Joinville. Now Joinville was undoubtedly not a great man. To say that he has not the grace, the brilliant strength, the facile beauty, the perfect dramatic power and the superb enjoyment of Froissart, is simply to say that Froissart, not Joinville, was the greatest of all historians. It is here, as M. Caboclu remarks, that Joinville did not enjoy the crusade. He was drawn-rather, haled-into it by St. Louis. Evidently the seneschal of Champagne and Brie was lost, in his own opinion, at home. He was in many ways what <men> we might now call a cool man of hard and healthy common sense. The zest with which he throws the whole weight of his mind and the whole interest of his daily life into the regulations of life and behaviour[182/183] at his castle is the reverse of Froissart's changeable, active, inquisitive life as the guest now of one knight or queen, now of another. The Canon of Chimay, had he been the head of a knightly household, would by no means have thought of the following domestic ordinance.
"Never heard I him (St. Louis) name the devil unless it were in some book where he must of necessity be named, or in the life of the saints of whom the book spoke. And it is great shame to the kingdom of France land the king when he suffers it) that one can scarce speak but he shall say "the devil take it!" And it is a great fault in language of discourse when one <shall> makes over to the devil the man or the woman who were given to God at their baptism. In the castle of Joinville he that says such a word <owes the> incurs a blow on his cheek or a box on his ear, whereby this evil langauge is there almost wholly beaten down."
Joinville is distinctively a respectable man-not in the worst sense of the word. For he has a sufficient independence of his own when you come at it. At times he will hold his own against St. Louis himself. Take these examples following:
"He asked me, did I wash the feet of poor men on Holy Thursday. Sir, said I, in an evil hour should 1 do it; the feet of these unclean villains will I <wash> never wash.-Truly, said he, that was ill said."
But Joinville held to his own aristocratic taste, for the conversation is repeated with additions towards the end of the book. Neither did he spare the king by proxy, in the persons of his favourites: witness this word-combat with Robert de Cerbou:
"He said to me (this was at Pentecost feast) You are greatly to blame in that you are clad more nobly than the king: for you clothe yourself with vair and green which the king does not. And I answered him; Master Robert, saving our favour, I do nought to blame if I wear green and vair, for this coat my father and mother left me; but you are to blame, for you are <a peasant and a peasant's son> son of a low father and a low mother (fils de vilain et de vilainne) and are clothed with richer stuff than the king is. And then I took the skirt of his surcoat and the skirt of the king's and <held> said to him; Now look whether or no I speak truth. And then the king undertook to defend Maitre Robert with words to the best of his power." Afterwards in private the king took Joinville's part and allowed that he had only come to the rescue because the founder of the Sorbonne was so utterly discornfited.[183/184] This independence Joinville always retained. Having occasion to cite a saying of Louis IX on God's justice, he adds; "Therefore let the king that now is take heed, for he has escaped as great peril or more than did we: so let him amend himself of his misdeeds <but> in such manner that God smite not heavily on him or his." A warning of which Philip the Fair stood in as much need as most men, but which in a memoir addressed to his son is at least a singular instance of plain speaking.
Joinville himself divides his work into two distinct parts-the collection of <various> sayings and doings of the king; and the account of that war in which the writer took a personal part. In such rough and scanty notice as we here give, it may be well to follow this division. We shall then treat first, and separately, of what may be called the miscellaneous half of the book. Careful analysis might perhaps, were it worth while, range under various heads the various anecdotes strewn over the opening passages: might for instance part off one branch of stories as illustrative of the king's religious views, another as illustrative of his opinions on policy, morals, social duties and conduct, and so on. We will be content to select from the <vari> different groups, at first, such points as may serve to illustrate the subject in hand-that is, the quality and worth that is in this book.
And first, then, there is this one merit which no reader who dips upon any stray page can fail to catch; the merit of a noble and reasonable loyalty; a loyalty as far as man can imagine from the servility which is engrained in a courtier or the affected union-confusion rather-of rapture and recurence which is in the nature of a sentimental theorist. Secondly, allowing for the changes of belief and expression since the 13th century, we may say that what Joinville admires in St. Louis is what makes him really admirable. It is not his blind tenacity of devotion to a cause which most men even then saw to be a delusion; it was not, we believe, the submission of <the> his intellect to religious tenets and religious teachers; but his lofty theories of general right and universal duty, his noble care for his people, his loving and sincere nature.
Of the second quality sighted take this instance: Joinville mentions with a just applause the words of Louis to his son "Fair son, I pray thee that thou wilt make thyself beloved by the people of kingdom for truly I would rather that a Scot came out of Scotland to rule[184/185] the people of the kingdom well and loyally, than that thou shouldst govern it amiss."
Of his high theories of moral worth the following is a witness: "He asked me would I be honoured in this world and win <honour> heaven at my death. And I said yes. Then he said to me: Take heed then that you do or say nothing to your knowledge, which if it were known to all the world, you could not acknowledge, saying this have I said; this have I done."
It is not till Joinville is fairly launched into the Crusade that the main interest of the book begins. Hitherto we have had only detached remarks and miscellaneous anecdotes, each severally of interest and value: from this point we attain a coherent narrative. The style seems to kindle and quicken; the narrator seizes on those points only which have had a personal relation if not to himself yet to his immediate neighbours: there was little taken on trust before, but now there is nothing. The war with Henry III is dismissed almost as briefly as the baronial feuds which disturbed the regency of Blanche. For the summons given by the king after his illness, Joinville at once passes to the adoption of the cross by himself. We see him distributing among those to whom he had done any wrong the value of their claims; we see him passing out of his castle to visit the relics at Blechicourt and St. Urbain, when "I would not all the while turn back my head towards Joinville lest my heart should be moved for the fair castle I was leaving and for my two children." The action marches rapidly, encumbered only by a few rare and quaint reflections. Everywhere we can observe in Joinville a man of keen sight and cool head, quick to decide and sharp-witted in the execution of his designs. What happened is told with a clear simplicity and a direct choice of matter which bring out every [illegible] point <with> worth knowing at once and vividly.
Between France and Cyprus nothing occurs worth mention, except the phenomenon of a round-shaped mountain off Barbary, <at> before which after a whole night's sailing they again found themselves in the morning; an inconvenience from which they were only delivered by the spiritual offices of a priest on board.
At Cyprus the main facts recorded are the embassy from the "great king of Tartary"-supposed to mean the <Vatican's> Khan's lieutenant in Asia-Minor,-which came to offer <the> his assistance in[185/186] wresting Jerusalem from the keeping of the Saracens: the tent made in fashion of a chapel which St. Louis sent in return, with the Annunciation and other miracles wrought therein as an instrument of conversion: the rumours of war between the <sultan> king of Armenia and sultan of Iconium which drew away some of the French army to join on the chance of success-these <of> naturally were not heard of again: and the arrival of the Greek Empress to seek help for her husband; <who> her courteous reception by the king; and the destitution she was in by the miscarriage of her ships, a destitution so complete that Joinville had to provide her with suitable apparel at his own charge. He and others undertook her defence if the king would supply them with 300 knights when they were at liberty; but when the disastrous campaign of Egypt was over St. Louis had no knights to spare.
The landing at Damietta is given in full and spirited detail. The loss for the time of the greater nurnber of the ships (ships were dispersed by a sudden wind)-the difficulty of getting to the shore-the (seemingly) instant malevolence of Jean de Beaumont towards Joinville-the knight who was drowned in trying to leap into a boat as it put off-the two mortal enemies who had "taken each other by the hair" at Cyprus and whom Joinville compelled to a reconciliation before landing. The counsel held in which the rash advice of the Count of Artois to march for Cairo as the capital of Egypt unhappily prevailed over the sounder opinions of the majority-all these matters are recounted one after another with the same straightforward and business-like ease.
St. Louis had a touch of hard discipline in him too. When Gauclier d'Aubreclu charged the Saracens by himself and received wounds of which he died, the king's comment was that he would be sorry to have 1000 such that would not obey his commandment. The passage is no bad instance of Joinville's simple picturesque power.
"Late that evening Mgr. Aubert de Nancy proposed to me to go and see him, as we had not yet had sight of him and he was a man of great name and great worth. We came into his tent, and his chamberlain met us to say that should walk softly and not awake his master. We found him Iying under a coverlet of miniver and drew towards him quietly and found that he was dead."[186/187]
After this came fresh delay; they had to wait for the count of Poitiers. They became weary after some time, but a procession of three consecutive Saturdays suggested by Joinville as the remedy which had delivered him and his in the matter of the Barbary rock restored the absent count to the army just late enough to escape a hurricane that dispersed <many> 12 score ships.
The main errors of the march on Damietta have been previously stated. We will add to them some of the little dramatic touches by which Joinville gives life to the recital.
On St. Nicholas' day the march began; orders were strictly given that there should be no charge made: which the Turks perceiving took advantage of to make an onset in which the Templar (brother Renaud de Bichiers) was overthrown. When he saw this he cried out to his brothers: Now upon them for God's sake, for this can I not suffer. The result of charging with fresh horses the wearied horses of the enemy was that all were destroyed either in the battle or in flight by the river.
Hallam's Middle Ages
Division of Empire
Vandals in Africa-Spain = Suevi S Visigoths: Visigoths = part of Gaul:
Burgundians = provinces of Rhone & SaÔne: Ostrogoths over Italy:
N.W. of Gaul (between Seine & Loire) =? Armorican Republic (federations under bishops)
(486) Soissons (lst victory of Clovis) & received titles of Counsul & Patrician fr: the Emp:
(496) defeated Allemanni (=Suabians) at Zulpich, nr. Cologne; converted (God of Clotilda)
(507) defeated Alaric (Kg. of Visigoths) near Poitiers (Urlick Third) and reduces Goths to Septimania:[187/188]
Reduces chiefs of his own family abt. <surrounding> the Rhine: Dies
(511): kingdom divided amg four sons: (three sons of Clotilda's)
Kingdom of Clovis
1)France: 2)western & central Germany: 3)Bavaria & (?) 4)Swabia
(under hired: subordinates)
2)Austrasia (=German section) falls to Thierry: capital at Metz:
Clodomir at Orleans: Childebert at Paris: Clotaire at Soissons.
(N.B. Aquitaine divided into 3 (or 2? Th: Ch: had shared, but? as to Clod?("Th:" stands for Thierry; "Ch:" for Chilperic; "Clod" for Clodomir.) ___________ :) Then
Paris afterwards capital of Neustria (=Soissons & Paris & Orleans.)
(558) Clotaire inherits & re-divides all amg his four sons:
(613) Clotaire (his grandson) re-unites all: (Period of Brunehaut & Fredegonde)
After Dagobert (son of Clotaire II) came the Fools (insensati) 628-638
Louis the Debonair attempts to perpetuate system of election subordinate to that of primogeniture or virtual superiority of the first born.
Lothaire revolts _______
Elective Mayors of Neustria & Austrasia: Pepin d'Heristal.
(N.B. ) Burgandy (elective government) subordinate to Neustria:
) Aquitaine (from Dagobert downwards governed by ducal dynasty of Aribert (D's brother.)
Pepin Duke of Austrasia allows a Merovingian kg. in Neustria:
(732) Charles Martel (his son) gains Septimania from Saracens aft:
battle between Tours and Poitiers
((752) Pepin completes the conquest.)
Accession of Pepin (752) (son of Ch: Martel, grandson of Heristal.)
Childeric(This name should be Chilperic.) III. deposed by Pope Zacharias
Affairs of Italy
Gk. iconoclasts alienate Rome:
Lombards seize exarchate of Ravenna; (752=date of Pepin's accession)
Accession of Charlemagne 768-772 (=death of Carloman)[188/189]
Expedition agst Lombardy (774)
Resistance of dukes of Friuli and Benevento:
Conquest of Spanish March fr. Pyrenees to Ebro (kept by France till 12th century) (reduction of 1)Saxon, 2)Sclavonians, 3)Avars)
(834) Treaty of Verdun.
Charles the Bald, Louis & Lothaire (sons of Louis le Débonnaire Charlemagne's grandson)
break up the French & German empire. Louis <gets> "the Germanic" gets all beyond the Rhine
Lothaire Italy & Lorraine: Charles France.
Empire dismembered, kgdom. of Arles (Provence & pt of Switzerland)
Charles Fat deposed (887)
Accession of Hugh Capet on death of Louis V. (987)
Incursion of Normans under Carlovingian kgs.
Policy of Charles Simple-Cession of Normandy (918)
Conversion of Rollo.________
Proofs of Hugh's usurpation & non-election: (p.23)13
Robert-Henry I-Philip I:
Louis VI. reduces the barons: Rivalry of France & England begins:
Louis VII. (1137) repudiates Eleanor:
Normandy & Anjou & Guienne fall to Henry II. of England:
Philip Augustus (1180) summons John before a court of his peers; as Duke of Normandy & his vassal
John loses Anjou. Maine. Normandy;
(1223) Louis VIII. reconquers Guienne: Languedoc turns Albigensian:
Crusade of Simon de Montfort (_________Ph. Aug:)("Ph. Aug:" stands for Philip Augustus.)
Cession by count of Toulouse of part of Languedoc, after Louis VIII.
And reversion of the rest to Alphonso, St. Louis; brother: or to the kg. in person.
St. Louis (1259) restores part of conquest to Henry III.
His commissaries appointed for restitution of unjust gains.[189/190]
First idea of Europe attacking Asia started by Hildebrand <(1027)> 1074
Peter the Hermit (1095); councils of Piacenza & Clermont: (Deus [illegible] )
Crusaders freed from debts taxes . . .
First, Second & Third Crusade.
Crusade of St. Louis in Egypt
____________________ to Tunis:
Death of St. Louis: Accession of Philip III: under whom
Poitou, Saintonge, Auvergne, & Toulouse fall to the crown: (1270-1285)
War of Aragon: Champagne falls to Philip IV. (the Fair) by his wife:
Who also outwits Edmund, brother of Edward 1., & seizes fortresses of Guienne
Edward being occupied in Scotch wars overlooks it:
Matters adjusted by marriage of Isabel Philip's daughter to Edward II.
Failures of Philip in Flanders: battle of Courtray. (4000 pair of gilt spurs taken)
Philip seizes Angoulême & La March: city of Lyons wrested fr: the archbishop
Louis de Hutin dies after a year's reign:
leaves one daughter, & Margaret of Burgandy pregnant:
Philip V. & Eudes of Burgandy agree that Navarre & Champagne (the inheritance of Louis de Hutin's mother) shall fall to his daughters when of age, if Margaret has a daughter:
Further-if the princesses refuse this, their claim to France stands;
Philip has the reversion of Navarre and Champagne. (1315 - 1316)
A son (John I) is born & dies in three or four days: whereupon Philip
V. proclaims himself king in violation of treaty wh Eudes___
conciliates Eudes by promising his daughter's hand (Philip's) Eudes abandons the cause of his niece Jane (Margaret's daughter) as well as her claim to Nav: & Cha: as to France. (p. 44-46)
First establishment of (nominally) Salic Law:
Philip V. Ieaves three daughters: his brother Charles succeeds.
Charles IV. Ieaves one daughter: Philip VI. count of Valois* succeeds. (*grandson of King Ph: III.)
The claim of Edward III. false:
For, put away the Salic Law, & these princesses succeed:
Or, if only male issue of female heirs is to succeed, Jane's son
(kg. of Navarre) comes in.
? Did Edward claim France before accession of Ph: VI.?
He does homage for Guienne.
(End of c.1.pt. 1.)
Expedition of Edwd. III. agst Phi of Valois & John:
Is allied wth emperor Louis, Flanders, & princes of Netherlands & Rhine:
But unsuccessful till the war passes from Flanders to Poitou & Normandy.
Action of States <-> General after battle of Poitiers.
Two pbs.("Pbs." perhaps stands for "principles.") were before established:
() No resolution carried without consent of all three orders:
() Taxes to be levied & regulated by them)
Charles the Bad kg of Navarre, son of Jane, marries daughter of John: Assassinated Kg John's favourite:
Allies himself to Edward: his inheritance of Evreux in Normandy.
Pestilence of 1348:
General ravages of the Tree Lawes:
Jacquerie of 1358.
Peace of Bretigni 1360:
Cession of six provinces <to> & Calais to Edwd: within the year, who resigns title of kg of France.
Doubt as to which party failed in making the "renunciations" at Bruges ( (1361) ) but Edwd: governs the Provinces thenceforward & establishes his son in Aquitaine; who taxes Guienne after his Castile expedition.
(1368) Guienne & Gascony appeal to Chas. V. who had been kg. 6 years: he summons the Prince to answer: war resume<d>s.
1) These became hereditary in 13th cent:
Feudal System (c. 2, pt. 2)
Hallam thinks yt the feudal system of tenure can be traced no higher than the Merovingian kgs. He distinguishes it fr: dieutage or[191/192] commendatio by the element of landholding, & the essential fact yt it depended not on <a> the kg but on a lord. It entered England first after the Conquest - then Scotland Canaque bequeathed it to Aragon. the Lombards of Benevento to Naples.
The chapter is devoted to French-German institutions.
1. Nobility. The beneficiaries becoming a hereditary class added the influence of rank to that of wealth. The Dukes & Counts as they became provincial lords instead of governors, were at the head. After them came the vassals, rich alodialists &c. induced to claim this rank [illegible], down to every holder of a fief, the military privileges were above those of the commonalty. In France even those who held at____________fr. the Emp: or kg: were not ignoble. Surnames, & coats of arms 1) (derived fr: the crusades or fr: tournaments), grew up in the 11th & 12th centuries. Franc-fief was a fine pd to the crown every 20 yrs by plebeians holding land on a noble tenure.
A possession of 3 generations — ennobled — after heirs or purchasers had been allowed fiefs.
In france nobility was self-created.
English baronies by tenure were given by the crown.
1271 Philip the Hardy granted letters of nobility without regard to land tenure.
Lawyers got ennobled by official exercise of magistracy therefore they reduced all subj to the kg's grant.
Chivalry [increased] multiplied gentlemen, [illegible].
Landed aristocracy was weakened.
Orders of nobility () Barons: who held directly of the crown: (: Val-
vassores Majores & Capitanei of the empire.) fought under their own banner:
higher territorial jurisdiction.
() Vavassors: of whom the Chatelains (who held fortified houses & had larger rights of justice) were the highest.
A Vavassor knighted = bachelor: unknighted = squire.
60 solidi(Written upside down on the next page, which is otherwise blank.)[192/193]
II. Clergy. The higher clergy (tho' not bound to military service except when they held military services as a condition of their benefices) were expected to <do so> give it (instance at Arincourt). Cmagne had capitularies against their personal service. Frankalmoigne was a tenure dispensing them fr: every service but that of masses. Tho they elected advocates amg the feudal lords in their neighborhood.
III. Classes below the gentry. a)Freemen b)Villeins.
1)Citizens of chartered towns. Socagers in England. Tenants for life or yeomen.
1&2 confounded in French records as gens potestatis. More a)("a" seems to stand for freemen.) in S. France than in N.
Freedom comes by the mother. Salic law mentions Tributarii, Lidi, Coloni, who were bound to reside on or cultivate their lord's estate, but, had civil rights. The kgs were called Fiscalini. As private wealth increased men became slaves for the sake of 1)food (Charles Bald permits redemption fr: this) 2)protection 3)by failure to pay fines for offences or 4)Heribann to the kg for nonattendance in war: or even 5)for superstition, to the church.
A villein must remain on the land; could not sell land: his person was bound.
Serfs were without redress, slaves = villeins proper (tho' liable to particular oppression) were only bound to fixt payments & duties-not to menial service.
Last modified June 2000