FRANCE, NORMANDY, AND ANJOU, AND THE BEGINNINGS OF THE GREATNESS OF THE
CAPETIAN MONARCHY (1108–1189)[21]
Contrast between French and German History—Character and Policy of
Louis VI.—Suger—The Conquest of the Royal Domain—Louis VI.’s
relations with Normandy, England, Blois, and Aquitaine—Louis VI.’s
dealings with the Church and the Towns: Character of Louis VII.—The
first ten years of his reign—Divorce from Eleanor of Aquitaine—Rise
of Blois and Anjou—The Rivalry of Louis VII. and Henry II.—Progress
of the Monarchy under Louis VII.—The early years of Philip
Augustus—Death and defeat of Henry II.
[Sidenote: Contrast between the course of French and German History.]
While the imperial rulers of Germany lavished their resources on the
pursuit of impossible ideals, the kings of France worked up their way
from small beginnings to the possession of great power. In the beginning
of the twelfth century there could be no effective comparison between
the insignificance of Philip I. and the grandeur of Henry IV. even in
the moments of his worst difficulties. Before the century was out, the
power of Philip Augustus was worthy to rival that of Henry VI., and a
few years later triumphed in the field over all the forces of the German
Empire.
[Sidenote: Character and policy of Louis VI.]
The reign of Louis VI. (1108–1137) marks the first and most important
stage in this development. The only son of Philip I. and Bertha of
Holland, Louis was born in 1081 and brought up in the abbey of
Saint-Denis, which he left in 1092, on receiving from his father the
investiture of the Vexin, where he learnt his first experience in war
and statecraft while defending his appanage against William Rufus. About
the end of the century he was associated with his father as
king-designate, and for the next eight years the premature infirmities
of Philip I. gave Louis a large share of power. On Philip’s death in
July 1108, he was at once crowned king at Orléans.
In person Louis was very like his father, with his great height, pale
face, and the excessive corpulence that neither constant activity in the
field nor unwearied labours in the chase could subdue, and which gave
him his almost contemporary surname of the Fat. Like his father also, he
was greedy and sensual. But with all his faults, he had acquired at
Saint-Denis the softness and mildness of disposition which was his most
essential characteristic. He was, moreover, just, loyal, and upright,
ever preferring to reach his aims by simple and direct means rather than
by craft and treachery. ‘A mighty athlete and an eminent gladiator,’ as
his biographer calls him, he was constantly engaged fighting from youth
upwards, and never abandoned his military habits, though at the age of
forty-six he was too bulky to be able to mount on horseback. His nobles
disliked him, as the Normans disliked Henry I., for his love of men of
low condition. He was no knight-errant, but a shrewd practical warrior,
ever bent on maintaining or increasing his power, and making the chief
object of his activity the abasement of the barons of the royal domain
and the protection of the poor and the weak from their high-handed
violence. He also carefully watched the overgrown power of the great
feudatories. Unlike his father, Louis kept on good terms with the
Church, posing as the protector of churchmen from the brutality and
greed of the lay baronage. He was ever mindful of the monks, and never
lost his love for the home of his youth. [Sidenote: Suger.] His famous
minister Suger became, in 1122, Abbot of Saint-Denis, and the relations
of king and minister went back to the days when Louis abode within the
great abbey where Suger, a boy like himself, was being prepared for the
religious vocation. A man of humble origin, small and mean appearance,
and with wretched health, but restless, indefatigable, clear-sighted and
politic, Suger’s brain suggested a subtle policy such as the rough
soldier-king delighted to follow. Suger accompanied his master in all
his travels, and kept so constantly at court that the zealots reproached
him with neglecting the administration of his abbey. In Louis’ later
years the influence of St. Bernard induced the statesman-monk to make
the reform of the discipline of Saint-Denis one of his main objects of
attention. But he never lost his influence over Louis, and to his
interest in the strong Church party must be largely attributed the
direction of Louis’ ecclesiastical policy. After the king’s death, Suger
wrote his biography, and gave us the clearest notion of the life and
work of the first Capetian king who approached greatness.[22]
[Sidenote: The conquest of the royal domain.]
There was a real danger of the hereditary domain of the Capetians
slipping away as completely from the control of the house of Capet as
the more remote regions which only acknowledged the king as suzerain.
The proprietor of the strong tower of Montlhéry could block the road
between Paris and Orléans, and the bishops and abbots of the Isle de
France, the most faithful supporters of the crown, had to witness the
constant aggressions of a swarm of petty tyrants. It was an everyday
thing for the local lord to take up his quarters in a monastery, with
his greedy following, steal the wine, corn, and cattle of the hosts, and
pollute the cloister with orgies and bloodshed. Conspicuous among these
high-born brigands were Hugh of Le Puiset, the tyrant of the rich plains
of La Beauce, and Thomas of Marle, a member of the house of Coucy, and
the cruellest and most able of the barons of the royal domains. Louis
VI. ever gladly responded to the complaints of a bishop or abbot against
a baronial oppressor. He led countless expeditions against the barons of
the Isle de France; expeditions which were individually unimportant, but
which in the aggregate completely revolutionised the position of the
monarchy within its domain. He was as a rule successful, though his task
was complicated by his insignificant enemies rallying to their support
more formidable foes, such as the King of England or the Count of Blois,
the most rebellious representatives of the great feudatories. Confident
of the support of the clerks, the townsfolk, and the lesser people, the
king was able, by his vigour and persistence, to crush the most
formidable of his enemies. Hugh du Puiset, after repeated defeats, was
forced to betake himself to the Holy Land. Thomas de Marle died a
defiant captive of the prince that he had so often disobeyed. Louis’
numerous campaigns kept clear the roads that united the royal towns,
such as Paris, Orléans, Bourges, Sens, Beauvais, Mantes, Etampes,
Senlis, Noyon, Montreuil. Before his death the baronage of the domain
had learnt that the king was no mere suzerain, but an effective ruler.
Moreover, Louis’ triumphs in war enabled him largely to dispense with
the disloyal assemblies of magnates who had claimed to direct his
policy. The power of the state fell into hands that Louis could trust,
like Suger and the bishops. Among laymen the barons were superseded by
warriors and men of business, whose whole occupation was in the royal
household. Three brothers of the family of Garlande had among the
knights of the court the same pre-eminence that Suger had among the
clerks; and the fourth Garlande, Stephen, though tonsured, succeeded two
of his brothers as royal seneschal, and was the only cleric who ever
held that knightly office.
The establishment of the royal authority over the royal domain was but
analogous to the process which was going on all over France, and making
the chief feudatories of the crown centres of stronger and better
organised patrimonies. [Sidenote: Louis VI. and the great feudatories.]
Each of the leading states of France had become more self-centred, more
concentrated within its own resources. As a natural consequence their
relations with each other and with the crown assumed a different
character. Each fief lived its own life apart, and followed a different
course of development. Of all the French kings Louis VI. had the least
frequent dealings with the great vassals of the crown. What relations he
had remind us rather of international than of domestic relations.
[Sidenote: Louis VI. and Henry I.]
In 1106 Henry I. of England became Duke of Normandy by the defeat of his
brother Robert at Tinchebrai, and Louis VI. had to contend for the
greater part of his reign against him. Before long, two strong
coalitions were formed under Louis and Henry. Louis supported the
rebellious barons of Normandy, who hoped to make Robert’s son, William
Clito, their duke, and ultimately found more powerful allies in Baldwin
VII. of Flanders and in Bertrada’s son by Fulk le Réchin, Fulk V., Count
of Anjou. After Baldwin’s death, Louis VI. secured the succession to
Flanders for Charles of Denmark, whose brief reign of peace, justice,
and benevolence secured for him the title of Charles the Good. Charles’s
murder in 1127 filled Europe with horror. Louis prevailed on the
Flemings to accept William Clito as their next count, and to him Thierry
of Alsace became a rival claimant. The Clito died in 1128 after
destroying his prospects by his folly, and Louis was now forced to
recognise Thierry. All through his reign he thus exercised a real
influence over the course of Flemish affairs.
GENEALOGY OF THE HOUSE OF BLOIS.
Herbert I., Count of
Vermandois and Troyes
(_d._ 943).
|
+-------------------+----------+------------+
| | | |
Albert, Count Robert, Herbert, Liutgarde, _m._ Theobald I.,
of Vermandois, Count of Count of | the Old, first
whose great-great- Troyes Troyes | hereditary
granddaughter (_d._ 968). (_d._ 993). | Count of
brought Vermandois | | Blois (_d._ 978).
to Hugh Stephen I. |
of France (_d._ 1101). of Troyes Odo I., Count of Blois,
(_d._ 1019). (_d._ 995).
|
+------------------+----------------------+
| |
Theobald II., Odo II.,
Count of Blois Count of Blois,
(_d._ 1004). 1004–1037;
Count of Troyes,
1019–1037.
|
+-------------------+--+
| |
Stephen II., Theobald III., Count
Count of Troyes, of Blois, 1037–1089;
(1037–1047). I. of Troyes, 1047–1089
(commonly called Count
of Champagne after the
acquisition of the
Counties of Vitry and
Bar-sur-Aube, 1076).
|
+-----------------+------------+-----+
| | |
Odo II. Hugh I. Stephen of Blois,
of Champagne, of Champagne, 1089–1102,
1089–1097. 1097–1125, _d._ in _m._ Adela, daughter
Holy Land. of William the
Conqueror.
|
+------------------------+--+--------------+
| | |
Theobald IV., the Great, Stephen Henry,
of Blois, 1102–1152; II. of of Boulogne, Bishop of
Champagne, 1125–1152. King of England. Winchester.
|
+-----------+------+---------------------+----------------+
| | | |
Henry I., the Alice, or Adela, Theobald V., William,
Liberal, of _m._ Louis VII. the Good, of Archbishop
Champagne, 1152–1180, of France. Blois, 1152–1191, of Rheims.
_m._ Mary,daughter of | _m._ Alice, daughter
Louis VII. Philip II. of France. of Louis VII.
| |
+----+----------+------------+ +----+-----------+
| | | | |
Henry II., Mary, Theobald III. Louis of Blois, Margaret,
the Young, _m._ Baldwin of Champagne, 1191–1205. who took
of Champagne, of Flanders, 1197–1201, | Blois to the
1180–1197; King Eastern _m._ Blanche, Theobald VI., houses of
of Jerusalem, Emperor. heiress the Young, Avesnes and
1192–1197, of Navarre. of Blois, Châtillon.
_m._ Isabella of | 1205–1218.
Jerusalem. |
Theobald IV., the Posthumous or the Great,
of Champagne, 1201–1253; King of Navarre,
1234–1253.
|
+---------------+----------------+
| |
Theobald V., the Young, Henry III., the Fat,
of Champagne and Navarre, of Champagne and Navarre,
1253–1270. 1270–1274, _m._ Blanche of Artois.
|
+-----------------+
|
Joan (_d._ 1305), _m._ Philip IV. of France.
Henry of England was equally active on his side. Besides his Breton
vassals, he could rely upon the special enemies of Louis, the barons of
the Isle de France. He became a warm partisan of Thierry of Alsace, and
intrigued with the Flemish townsfolk, who were seldom on good terms with
their counts. [Sidenote: Louis VI. and the House of Blois.] Above all he
had the powerful support of his nephews, Theobald IV., Count of Blois,
surnamed the Great, and of his younger brother Stephen, who through his
wife had become Count of Boulogne, and was later to become King of
England. Theobald the Great was a much abler man than his brother, and
the most rancorous and persistent of Louis VI.’s foes among the leading
feudatories. In 1125 he once more united the counties of Blois and
Champagne, so that he could attack his suzerain both from the south and
from the east. But the most powerful combinations of twelfth century
diplomacy proved singularly weak when brought into action. Almost
ceaseless war was waged between Louis and Theobald, and the struggles of
Louis and Henry were only less constant. The desolating, unending,
purposeless, and unskilful warfare of the twelfth century was utterly
fruitless in results. It was enough for Louis that, despite some
defeats, he held his own fairly well.
[Sidenote: Louis VI. and Aquitaine.]
Before the end of Louis’ reign new complications ensued. In 1128,
finding the hostility of Anjou a chief obstacle in the way of his plans,
Henry I. married his widowed daughter and heiress, the Empress Matilda,
to Geoffrey, the son and heir of his old enemy Fulk of Anjou. The way
was thus prepared for the Angevin Empire of Henry II., though the
refusal of England to accept Matilda as Henry’s successor in 1135 seemed
for the moment to remove any imminent danger. While England received
Stephen, Geoffrey of Anjou established himself a few years later as duke
of Normandy. Soon after, Stephen’s brother, Theobald of Blois, made his
peace with Louis. Moreover, two years later Louis negotiated another
alliance that seemed to offer even greater prospects to the heir to the
French throne. On Good Friday 1137 William X., Count of Poitou and Duke
of Aquitaine, died on pilgrimage. He was the last male of his house, and
his daughter Eleanor succeeded peaceably to his great inheritance.
William had wished that his daughter should marry Louis the Young, the
eldest surviving son of his suzerain. In a few months the marriage was
effected. The vast domains of Eleanor in Poitou, Saintonge, and Guienne
at once doubled the domain of the crown, and made the young Louis
immediate lord of most of the great barons between the Loire and the
Pyrenees. But so long as the interests and feelings of south and north
were so absolutely different, it was no great gain to a king, who had
only just secured the overthrow of the feudal castles of the Seine and
Oise, to begin in his old age a similar but more hopeless struggle on
the Charente and the Dordogne.
[Sidenote: Louis VI. and the Church.]
While Philip I. kept both Rome and Cluny in check, his son became the
stalwart champion of the rights of the Church. It was his friendship for
the Church that conquered the Isle de France and made it possible for
Suger to serve two such different masters as Louis VI. and St. Bernard.
Louis VI. restored the strong alliance with the Papacy that prepared the
way for the time when the French king could boast that he was ‘the
eldest son of the Church.’ He ardently supported Innocent II. against
Anacletus, welcomed Innocent to his dominions, and attended the Council
of Sens in 1131. Nevertheless he did not scruple to show priests and
monks that he meant to be master in his own kingdom, making bishops as
well as barons respect the royal justice, and never relaxing his rights
over ecclesiastical appointments. Even when Suger was chosen abbot by
the over-zealous monks of Saint-Denis, who had neglected to wait for the
King’s authorisation to elect, Louis, though he confirmed the election,
put in prison the monks who brought him the news of their brethren’s
unconstitutional haste. Louis quarrelled with leading bishops like Ivo
of Chartres and Henry of Sens. Indignation at Louis’ treatment of his
bishops drew Bernard from his retreat to denounce a king who ‘persecuted
not so much bishops, as the zeal for justice, and the habit of religion
which he finds in them.’ But these examples of friction were
exceptional. If the clergy would but accept his authority, they could
have no better friend than Louis VI. And besides his alliance with the
Church, Louis VI. drifted gradually into an alliance with the lesser
people, which reminds us of the constant championship by the Norman
kings of England of the popular as against the feudal party. The better
peace that now prevailed throughout France made town life, trade and
commerce, possible on a larger scale than in the rough times of absolute
feudal anarchy. [Sidenote: The communal movement.] The communal movement
was now beginning in northern France, and though the king was far from
being, as the older historians make him, the ‘enfranchiser of the
communes,’ he was at least not fiercely hostile to the less
revolutionary sides of the new movement.[23] He issued a large number of
charters to towns and villages under ecclesiastical control, which,
though meant to help the Church, also tended to help forward the
municipal movement. Even more than this, his zeal to uphold sound
justice was an incalculable boon to his people. The simple peasants saw
in the good king a wonder-worker and a thaumaturgist, and were ready to
give almost divine honours to the prince whom they celebrated as ‘the
Justiciar.’
Ill health and anxiety wore out the health and spirits of Louis. His
last days were full of trouble. He desired to retire to the home of his
youth clad in the Benedictine garb, but he was too ill to be able to
realise his wish. He died at Paris almost in the odour of sanctity,
lamenting with his last breath that it was not the lot of man to combine
the energy of youth with the experience of age.
Louis VII., surnamed the Young, the eldest of the five sons that
Adelaide of Maurienne bore to her husband, had already, when a child
nine years old, been crowned at Reims by Innocent II. He was still in
his new Aquitanian domains when his father’s death gave him the
exclusive rule over France. [Sidenote: Character of Louis VII.] Suger
and the other ministers of the old king did their best to carry on still
further the policy which had so much improved the position of the French
monarchy. But Louis VII. was very unworthy to continue the work of his
strong and vigorous father. He is praised by the chroniclers for his
honesty, simplicity, and benevolence. He was a fair soldier, but his
love of peace made him reluctant to assume the sword, and his weakness
and indecision of character often led him into deceit and
double-dealing. The chief positive trait in his disposition was a rigid
and monastic piety, which kept his private life pure, but led to
scruples of conscience and hesitation in conduct that not a little
unfitted him for the rude tasks of kingship. The feudal party soon
realised his weakness, and Suger found that the work of Louis the Fat
had to be done over again. If the petty lords of the Isle de France were
still kept in check, the independent great vassals soon began to enlarge
their pretensions. It was a time of feudal reaction all over Europe. The
weak Stephen had succeeded Henry I., ‘the lion of righteousness,’ in
England. Conrad III., the slave of the Church, had replaced the capable
but limited Lothair of Supplinburg. Under Louis VII. the same tendencies
manifested themselves in France. It speaks well for Louis VI. and Suger
that it was a period of stagnation rather than of positive reaction in
the fortunes of the French monarchy.
[Sidenote: The first ten years of Louis VII., 1137–1147.]
The first ten years of Louis VII.’s reign were filled with petty and
purposeless wars. In his zeal to assert the rights of his wife, Louis
spent much time south of the Loire to the neglect of his more immediate
interests in northern France. Besides useful but not very fruitful
efforts to carry out in Eleanor’s domains the policy of his father in
the Isle de France, Louis led, in 1141, an expedition against the Count
of Toulouse, Alphonse Jordan, who had refused the homage claimed from
him to the Duke of Aquitaine. The city of Toulouse offered him a
vigorous and successful resistance, and the first direct action of a
descendant of Hugh Capet in Languedoc did not increase the prestige of
the royal power. Nor were affairs in the north much more favourable. All
his monastic virtues did not prevent him quarrelling with Innocent II.,
who had consecrated Peter de la Châtre to the archbishopric of Bourges
despite the strenuous efforts of the king to prevent his election
(1141). As Louis would not yield, Innocent excommunicated him, declaring
that he was a child who had to be taught the lesson of not resisting the
authority of the Church. Bernard re-echoed the thunders of the Pope,
though Suger remained true to his master. Graver danger set in when
Theobald of Champagne, who up to this point had remained on good terms
with Louis, took up the cause of Peter de la Châtre, and gave him a
refuge within his dominions. Louis indignantly went to war against
Theobald and invaded Champagne. In the course of the campaign that
ensued the king captured Vitry by assault. In the midst of the tumult
the church, packed with fugitive townspeople, was set on fire, and more
than a thousand men, women, and children were believed to have perished
in the flames. Louis, terribly shocked at the sacrilege and slaughter,
soon sought peace both with the Church and with Theobald, and allowed
Peter de la Châtre to take possession of his see. Vitry was restored to
Theobald, and Celestine II., who had now succeeded the truculent
Innocent, made no difficulty in absolving Louis (1144). But the massacre
at Vitry still weighed on the king’s conscience, and led him to seek
expiation by taking the crusader’s vow. In 1147 Louis and Eleanor set
out for the Second Crusade. The disasters and miseries of that fatal
expedition have been already chronicled [see pages 191–193]. [Sidenote:
The Second Crusade, 1147–1150.] In 1150, Louis came back humiliated and
defeated. During his absence the aged Suger had striven with all his
might to uphold the royal authority, though he had disapproved of the
king’s crusading project, and never ceased to urge upon him the
necessity of a speedy return. His fears were more than justified, for
all the spirits of disorder took advantage of Louis’ absence to disturb
the realm. It was proposed to depose Louis in favour of his brother
Robert, Count of Dreux. The return of the discredited king was quickly
followed by the death of Suger (1152). With him expired the last hope of
carrying on the work of national development at which he had so long
laboured. To the first great error of the Crusade Louis now added his
second mistake of repudiating his wife. In both cases the king put his
personal feeling above the interest of his house and realm. As his
absence on crusade led to a new wave of feudal anarchy, so his divorce
helped on the growth of the great Angevin power, which was, for the rest
of his life, to put an insurmountable obstacle in the way of the
development of the French monarchy.
[Sidenote: Divorce of Louis VII. and Eleanor of Aquitaine, 1152.]
The relations between Louis and Eleanor had long been strained. After
many years of barrenness, the two children which, as it was believed,
came to the pair as the result of the prayers of St. Bernard, were both
girls, and Louis ardently desired a son and successor. There was,
moreover, a strange contrast of character between the weak, pious, and
shifty king and the fierce, imperious, and ambitious queen. New grounds
of dispute arose during the Crusade, when Eleanor strove to divert the
French host from their projected march to Jerusalem in order that its
presence might support her uncle Raymond of Antioch in his schemes for
the aggrandisement of his principality. The relations of husband and
wife became so bad that Suger wrote imploring the king to conceal his
anger against the queen. After their return to France nothing but the
influence of Suger prevented a breach. Soon after his death, the
question of divorce was formally raised. St. Bernard, still omnipotent
over Louis’ mind, approved the step. In March 1152 a church council held
at Beaugency annulled the marriage on the ground of consanguinity.
Eleanor withdrew to her own dominions, which were now again separated
from the French crown. Anxious to do all in her power to spite her
former husband, she offered herself in marriage to young Henry of Anjou.
At Whitsuntide their marriage at Poitiers exposed the French monarchy to
the gravest danger. [Sidenote: The rise of the House of Blois.] So long
as the chief fiefs were held by separate and rival houses it was not
impossible for the crown to hold its own against them, but an
aggregation of several great fiefs into the same hands might easily set
up a rival power whose forces could overbalance the scanty strength of
the king. The union of Chartres, Blois, and Champagne under Theobald the
Great had been the gravest obstacle to the plans of Louis VI. The
establishment of Theobald’s younger brother in Boulogne, Normandy, and
England would have been even more dangerous but for the incompetence of
Stephen. Side by side with the union of several fiefs under the house of
Blois, was the union of Anjou, Maine, and Normandy, brought about by the
policy of Henry I. in marrying his daughter, the Empress Matilda, to
Geoffrey, the son of Fulk of Anjou. These two amalgamations neutralised
each other, when the accession of Stephen to England and Normandy
brought the old interests of Blois and Anjou into fierce antagonism, and
for a time neither side won a preponderating position over the other.
Though Matilda the Empress failed to conquer England, her husband
established himself in Normandy, and in 1144 received from Louis VII.
the formal investiture of the duchy. In 1149 Geoffrey and Matilda handed
over their Norman claims to their son Henry, now sixteen years old.
[Sidenote: The growth of Anjou.] In September 1151 the death of Geoffrey
made Henry Fitz-Empress (so the young prince was commonly described)
sole lord of Normandy, Anjou, Maine, and Touraine. Anjou now rapidly
prevailed over Blois. Young as he was, Henry had already a character and
a policy. After his marriage with Eleanor he had a position in France
far stronger than that of King Louis himself; from the Somme to the
Pyrenees, from the Bay of Biscay to the mountains of Auvergne, Henry and
Eleanor ruled directly or indirectly over the fairest half of France.
[Sidenote: The Empire of Henry II.] Two years later, the death of
Stephen made Henry King of England. In 1158 Henry added to his
possession the county of Nantes and re-enforced the old Norman claims of
overlordship over Duke Conan of Brittany. Later he secured the hand of
Constance, Conan’s daughter and heiress, for his second son Geoffrey,
who in 1171 peacefully succeeded his father-in-law as Duke of Brittany.
Henry was equally successful in realising the many pretensions of
Eleanor over the lands of south-western France. In 1158 Eleanor’s claims
to overlordship over the county of Toulouse led Henry to lead an
expedition against Count Raymond V., who had succeeded his father
Alphonse in 1148, and by his marriage with Constance, sister of Louis
VII., and widow of Eustace of Boulogne, King Stephen’s son, had united
himself against the Angevin with the houses of France and Blois. The
personal intervention of King Louis saved Raymond from absolute
submission, though the peace transferred Cahors and the Quercy from
Toulouse to the duchy of Aquitaine. In 1173 Henry accomplished his
purpose. Henceforth the county of Toulouse, with its dependencies the
Rouergue and the Albigeois, became, by Raymond’s submission, recognised
dependencies of Aquitaine. With equal energy Henry pressed his claims to
overlordship over Berri, where his aggressions were particularly
unwelcome by reason of the large strip of royal domain which ran from
Bourges southward. Henry also revived successfully the old Aquitanian
claim to the overlordship of Auvergne, while his alliance with the
rising house of Maurienne, now Counts of Savoy, gave him some command of
the upper Rhone valley and the chief passes over the Alps. The
extraordinary ability of Henry made his commanding position the more
formidable. He was no mere feudal chief like the Counts of Blois, but a
statesman capable of building up a mighty empire.
[Sidenote: Rivalry of Louis VII. and Henry II.]
After the consolidation of the Angevin Empire, Louis had to watch
narrowly the actions of a vassal more powerful than himself. Before long
war became almost chronic between him and Henry. It was not that
constant efforts were not made to secure peace and alliance. Henry
married his eldest son to Louis’ daughter, Margaret, receiving as her
marriage portion the long-coveted possession of the Vexin. In 1162 Louis
VII. and Henry again made common cause in favour of Alexander III.
against the Antipope [see page 257]. During his exile in France
Alexander frequented the dominions of Henry as much as he did those of
Louis. It was in Henry’s town of Tours that the council assembled that
excommunicated the Antipope. Henry seemed too strong to make direct
resistance of much avail.
Before long Henry II. fell into his quarrel with Archbishop Thomas of
Canterbury, which gave Louis an opportunity of adding to his rival’s
difficulties, by giving as much support as he could to his enemies.
After Thomas’s death Louis found an even better way of effecting this
purpose by forcing Henry to divide his dominions among his sons, and
then fomenting the discord that soon burst out between Henry and his
wife and children. In 1170 the young Henry, Louis’ son-in-law, was
crowned joint king with his father, after the French fashion. Geoffrey
was already Duke of Brittany, and in 1172 Richard, the third son, was
enthroned Duke of Aquitaine, and betrothed to Alice, Louis VII.’s
younger daughter. Louis soon persuaded the vain and weak Henry III.—so
he was often styled—to make common cause with him against his father. In
1173 a well-devised conspiracy burst forth against the power of Henry
II. [Sidenote: The War of 1173 and 1174.] The feudal party in England
and Normandy, the King of Scots, and Henry’s discontented vassals in
Britain, made common cause with Louis VII. and the younger King Henry
against the archenemy of the Capetian house. The vassals of France, who
feared Henry more than Louis, joined the confederacy, and at their head
were Geoffrey of Brittany and Richard of Aquitaine, and even Queen
Eleanor herself. Among Louis’ greater vassals Philip of Alsace (son of
Thierry of Alsace), Count of Flanders, entered into the league. So did
the sons of Theobald the Great—Henry the Liberal, Count of Champagne,
and Theobald V., the Good, Count of Blois, both married to Louis VII.’s
daughters. The representative of the younger branch of Blois, the Count
of Flanders’ brother, who ruled Boulogne as the husband of King
Stephen’s daughter Mary, also took up the hereditary policy of his
house. The good luck and the genius of Henry prevailed over Louis and
his associates, and in 1174 peace was patched up on conditions that left
matters much as they had been before the war. Eleanor of Aquitaine,
captured as she was endeavouring to escape to her divorced husband’s
court, was the chief sufferer. She was immured in a prison, from which
she hardly escaped during the rest of Henry II.’s life.
[Sidenote: Progress of the Monarchy under Louis VII.]
In the last seven years of his life Louis VII. made no sensible advance
against Henry II., but though beaten in the field, he had broken up the
unity of the Angevin power, and could still count upon the support of
the sons of his enemy. His reign ended as ingloriously as it had begun.
Nevertheless, the constant interest of the king in the policy of the
remotest parts of the monarchy was a step forward in the royal
operations. The intervention of Louis in Toulouse, in Auvergne, in
Burgundy, though not always successful, marked an advance over the
incuriousness and indifference of his father’s reign in matters not
directly concerning the domain. He even looked beyond his kingdom into
the Arelate, where Barbarossa’s coronation in 1178 was a source of
inquietude to him. Moreover, Louis VII.’s constant friendship for the
Church stood him in good stead in his dealings with his remoter vassals.
His pilgrimages to distant shrines, to St. James of Compostella, to the
Grande Chartreuse, and to the new shrine of St. Thomas at Canterbury,
spread his fame. The younger monastic orders, especially the Cistercians
and the Carthusians, were his enthusiastic friends, and the
unostentatious and timid support of a crowd of bishops and abbots gave
Louis VII.’s reign its peculiar position in history. The chronicler
tells us how, in Louis VII.’s days, war was rare, and the realm ruled
peacefully and strenuously; many new towns established, and ancient ones
increased; many forests were cut down; and divers orders of religion
marvellously multiplied in various parts of the land.
[Sidenote: Family, old age, and death of Louis VII.]
Louis VII. was thrice married. His first two wives brought him daughters
only. Eleanor of Aquitaine’s children, Mary and Alice, became the wives
of the two brothers, Henry of Champagne and Theobald of Blois. Constance
of Castile, Louis’ second wife, was the mother of Margaret, afterwards
wife of the young king, Henry III., and of another Alice, long betrothed
to his brother, Richard of Aquitaine. Fourteen days after Constance’s
death, Louis VII. married his third wife, Alice or Adela of Champagne,
sister of his sons-in-law, Henry the Liberal and Theobald the Good. For
five years they had no children, and Louis, fearing the division of his
kingdom between his daughters, longed earnestly for a son. He visited
Citeaux, and threw himself on his knees before the General Chapter that
was in session, and only rose when he had been assured that God would
soon answer his prayers. In August 1165 the long-wished-for son was born
at Paris, amidst heartfelt rejoicings, and was christened Philip, but
soon became known by the surnames ‘Godgiven’ and ‘Augustus.’ When Philip
was only fourteen years old, Louis VII. was stricken with paralysis. On
All Saints’ Day 1179, he was crowned joint-king at Reims by his mother’s
brother, Archbishop William of Blois. In September 1180 the old king
died, and Philip Augustus became sole King of France.
In the first ten years of the reign of Philip II., the fierce factions
that had raged round the death-bed of Louis VII. were continued. The
chief influences to which the boy-king was exposed were those of Philip
of Flanders, and of the house of Blois. Philip of Alsace had shown more
than the usual energy and skill of a feudal prince in his administration
of Flanders. He is celebrated in Flemish history as the founder of ports
and cities, the granter of charters of liberties, the maker of canals,
the cultivator of sandy heaths and barren marshes, the strong
administrator, the vigilant upholder of law, the friend and patron of
poets and romancers. He also laboriously built up a great family
connection, from which he hoped to establish a power such as might rival
the aggregated fiefs of Blois or Anjou, and might well have anticipated
the later unions of the Netherlands under the Bavarian and Burgundian
houses. [Sidenote: The early years of Philip Augustus, 1180–1189.]
Himself lord of Flanders and Artois, Philip became, by his marriage with
Isabella of Vermandois, the descendant of Hugh the Great the Crusader,
Count of Amiens and Vermandois. His nephew Baldwin was Count of
Hainault. His brother Matthew and his niece Ida were in succession Count
and Countess of Boulogne. Moreover, Philip was the most trusted
counsellor of the old age of Louis VII., and the godfather of Philip
Augustus. Just before Louis’ death his influence was confirmed by the
marriage of his niece, Isabella of Hainault, to the young king. Being
childless, he promised that after his death Artois should go to his
niece and her husband.
The house of Blois had hoped much from the accession of a king whose
mother was a Champenoise. But Philip of Flanders chased Adela of
Champagne from the court, and showed a fierce hostility to her brothers.
Theobald of Blois and Henry of Champagne were forced to make alliance
with their old enemy, Henry of Anjou. William of Reims, disgusted that
the Archbishop of Sens was called upon to crown the new queen, strove to
act once again the part played by Thomas of Canterbury when the younger
Henry was crowned by Roger of York. War seemed imminent between the two
Philips, and a strong coalition that included the houses of Blois and
Anjou, and a vast swarm of smaller feudatories, who rejoiced that the
reign of a boy of fifteen bade fair to give them a chance of striking an
effective blow against the power of their suzerain. But Philip of
Flanders pressed his advantages too far. A natural reaction from the
overbearing Count of Flanders soon drove King Philip towards his mother
and her family. Henry of Anjou’s mediation patched up peace between
Philip II. and his mother’s kinsfolk, and enabled him to shake off his
dependence on Philip of Flanders.
Peace did not last very long. For a short time Henry II. was on good
terms with the French king, and strove to persuade him to associate
himself with the declining fortunes of Henry the Lion, and swell the
coalition against Frederick Barbarossa. But Philip II. gave the deposed
Saxon no effective help, and before long the old relations were
restored. In 1183 Philip was again backing up the rebellious sons of
Henry II. against their father, though the sudden death of Henry, the
young king, quickly brought this struggle to an end. In the next year,
1184, Philip went to war against Philip of Flanders, who on the death of
his wife, Isabella of Vermandois, in 1183, had kept possession of her
lands, which Philip II. had declared forfeited. So fierce a struggle
seemed imminent that the Count of Flanders was glad to get the support
of the house of Blois, which had now again drifted into opposition to
the king. At the same time he called in the Emperor as a counterpoise
against his other suzerain. But Philip of Flanders was afraid to face
the great host which the French king now turned against him. He sought
the intervention of Henry II., who, in November 1185, personally
negotiated the peace of Aumâle, by which the Vermandois was added to the
royal domain, and the promise of Artois and the Somme towns at the
Count’s death was renewed. It was the first real triumph of the young
king’s reign.
[Illustration: FRANCE in 1189]
Flushed by his success against Flanders, Philip II. soon fell again into
hostilities against Henry II. He clamoured for the restoration of the
Vexin, the marriage portion of his sister Margaret, widow of Henry the
younger, but finally allowed it to remain in the English king’s hands as
the future portion for his other sister Alice, the promised bride of
Richard of Aquitaine. But he still intrigued actively with Henry’s
disloyal sons. In 1186 Geoffrey of Brittany went to Paris to plot new
designs against his father, but was cut off by fever when still the
French king’s guest. Projects of crusade delayed for a time the weaving
of the network of intrigue. But in 1189 Philip again found Richard at
war against his father. [Sidenote: Defeat and death of Henry II., 1189.]
A sharp campaign was fought, which resulted in the complete defeat of
Henry II., who on 4th July 1189 was forced to make a complete submission
at Colombières, and died two days afterwards. It was the second great
triumph of Philip’s reign. Though the Angevin heritage passed unimpaired
to Richard, the new king was not statesman long enough to keep together
so precarious an inheritance. Henceforth the advantage was increasingly
on Philip’s side. [Sidenote: The call to the Third Crusade, 1187–1189.]
The call to the Third Crusade postponed the inevitable struggle between
them. But the historian of France may well pause at the death of Henry
II. The period of struggling and waiting was now almost over. In the
later and more brilliant portion of his reign, the conqueror of Philip
of Alsace and Henry of Anjou had to gather in the fruits of his
victories. Yet the future position of France was already assured in the
year that saw the death of the most resourceful of her enemies.