Accession of King Robert II.
FRANCE: A. D. 1031.
Accession of King Henry I.
FRANCE: A. D. 1060.
Accession of King Philip I.
FRANCE: A. D. 1070-1125.
Enfranchisement of Communes.
"The establishment of the commune of Mans, towards the year
1070, was not a fact, isolated, and without respect to what
passed in the rest of France; it was, on the contrary, a
symptom of the great revolution which was working in the
opinions, the manners, and the condition of the mass of the
people; a symptom which, bearing a certain date, must serve to
establish the epoch of a crowd of analogous efforts made in
the other towns of France. History has not preserved the
memory of these different efforts, but it has shown us the
results. During the two following centuries, the cities ceased
not to obtain charters, to found or secure by legitimate
authority, the immunities and franchises which constituted the
communal rights. ... All, or nearly all had, however, already
conquered liberty; they had experienced how advantageous it
was to be governed by themselves, and the high price which
they put upon the favor they solicited, bears witness to their
experience. The enfranchisement of the communes is almost
universally reported in the ... reign ... of Louis the Fat;
and the honor of this great revolution, which created the
third estate [tiers-état], and liberty in France, has been
given either to the generosity or the wise policy of that
prince. There is doubtless some truth in this opinion, since
we find in France no communal charter anterior to the reign of
Louis VI., and he is also the first king who was seen to ally
himself with the burgesses, to make war on the nobility.
However, the idea which is formed of this event, when one
attributes it to the act of the monarch's will, or the effect
of his system, is completely erroneous. The French people owed
whatever degree of liberty it enjoyed in the middle ages, to
its own valor; it acquired it as liberty must always be
acquired, at the sword's point; it profitted by the divisions,
the imprudence, the weakness, or the crimes of its lords, lay
or ecclesiastic, to seize it from and in spite of them. ...
The origin of every commune was, as indicated by the different
names by which they are designated, a communion, a conjuration,
or confederation, of the inhabitants of a town who were
mutually engaged to defend each other. The first act of the
commune was the occupation of a tower in which was set up a
clock or belfry; and the first clause of the oath of all the
communers, was to repair in arms, when the bell sounded, at
the place assigned them, to defend each other. From this first
engagement resulted that of submitting to magistrates named by
the communers: it was the mayors, echevins, and juries, in
northern France, and consuls or syndics in southern France, to
whom the consent of all abandoned the sole right of directing
the common efforts. Thus the militia was first created; the
magistracy came afterwards. ... The reign of Phillip I. had
been but a long anarchy. During those forty-eight years the
royal government had not existed, and no other had
efficaciously taken its place. At the same time, greatly
differing from the other feudal monarchies, all legislative
power was suspended in France. There were no diets like those
of the kingdoms of Germany and Italy, no parliament like that
of England, no cortes like those of Spain, no field of March
like that of the antient Frankish kings, no assemblages, in
fine, which bound by their acts the great vassals and their
subjects, and which could submit them to common laws.
{1161}
The French had not desired a participation in the sovereignty
which they could only acquire by sacrificing their
independence. Thus, two great vassals, or the subjects of two
great vassals, could scarcely believe themselves compatriots.
... The anarchy which was found in the great state of the
French monarchy, because all the relations between the king
and the count were relaxed, was found also in the petty state
of the county of Paris, or of the duchy of France; for the
lords and barons of the crown's domains no better obeyed or
respected more the prerogatives of their lord, than the great
vassals those of the suzerain. The anarchy was complete, the
disorder seemed carried to its height, and never had the
social bond in France been nearer to being broken: yet never
had France made so real a progress as during these forty-eight
years. Phillip, at his death, left his son quite another
people to that which he had received from his father: the most
active monarch would never have done so much for France as she
had without him done for herself during his sleep. The towns
were more numerous, more populous, more opulent, and more
industrious; property had acquired a security unknown in the
preceding centuries; justice was distributed between equals,
and by equals; and the liberty of the burgesses, conquered by
arms, was defended with energy."
_J. C. L. S. de Sismondi,
France under the Feudal System,
chapters 9 and 12._
"Liberty ... was to have its beginning in the towns, in the
towns of the centre of France, which were to be called
privileged towns, or communes, and which would either receive
or extort their franchises. ... All coveted a few franchises
or privileges, and offered to purchase them; for, needy and
wretched as they were, poor artisans, smiths and weavers,
suffered to cluster for shelter at the foot of a castle, or
fugitive serfs crowding round a church, they could manage to
find money; and men of this stamp were the founders of our
liberties. They willingly starved themselves to procure the
means of purchase; and king and barons rivalled each other in
selling charters which fetched so high a price. This
revolution took place all over the kingdom under a thousand
different forms, and with but little disturbance; so that it
has only attracted notice with regard to some towns of the
Oise and the Somme, which, placed in less favorable
circumstances, and belonging to two different lords, one a
layman, the other ecclesiastical, resorted to the king for a
solemn guarantee of concessions often violated, and maintained
a precarious liberty at the cost of several centuries of civil
war. To these towns the name of communes has been more
particularly applied; and the wars they had to wage form a
slight but dramatic incident in this great revolution, which
was operating silently and under different forms in all the
towns of the north of France. 'Twas in brave and choleric
Picardy, whose commons had so soundly beaten the Normans--in
the country of Calvin, and of so many other revolutionary
spirits--that these explosions took place. Noyon, Beauvais,
Laon, three ecclesiastical lordships, were the first communes;
to these may be added St. Quentin. Here the Church had laid
the foundations of a powerful democracy. ... The king has been
said to be the founder of the communes; but the reverse is
rather the truth: it is the communes that established the
king. Without them, he could not have beaten off the Normans;
and these conquerors of England and the Two Sicilies would
probably have conquered France. It was the communes, or, to
use a more general and exact term, the bourgeoisies, which,
under the banner of the saint of the parish, enforced the
common peace between the Oise and the Loire; while the king,
on horseback, bore in front the banner of the abbey of St.
Denys."
_M. Michelet,
History of France,
book 4, chapter 4._
See, also, COMMUNES.
The following comments on the passages quoted above are made
by a good authority: "The general view taken of this subject
of the enfranchisement of the communes by historians who wrote
at the middle of the century is now being seriously modified.
The studies of Luchaire have shown, I think, that such
statements as Sismondi's, which attribute everything to the
people, are exaggerations. 'Liberty,' as it existed in the
communes, was only corporate or aristocratic privilege. As for
the national assemblages, there were great councils held, such
as those which existed under the Norman monarchs in England,
and they issued the 'assizes,' which was a common form of
legislation in the Middle Ages. It was not, of course,
legislation, in its modern sense. Michelet is quite too
flowery, poetical, democratic, to be safely followed."
FRANCE: A. D. 1096.
Departure of the First Crusaders.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.
FRANCE: A. D. 1100.
The extent of the kingdom.
"When Louis [VI.] was adopted by his father in 1100, the crown
had as its own domain only the county of Paris, Hurepoix, the
Gatinais, the Orléanis, half the county of Sens, the French
Vexin, and Bourges, together with some ill-defined rights over
the episcopal cities of Rheims, Beauvais, Laon, Noyon,
Soissons, Amiens. And even within these narrow limits the
royal power was but thinly spread over the surface. The barons
in their castles were in fact independent, and oppressed the
merchants and poor folk as they would. The king had also
acknowledged rights of suzerainty over Champagne, Burgundy,
Normandy, Brittany, Flanders, and Boulogne; but, in most
cases, the only obedience the feudal lords stooped to was that
of duly performing the act of homage to the king on first
succession to a fief. He also claimed suzerainty, which was
not conceded, over the South of France; over Provence and
Lorraine he did not even put forth a claim of lordship."
_G. W. Kitchin,
History of France,
volume 1, book 3, chapter 5._
FRANCE: A. D. 1101.
Disastrous Crusade of French princes and knights.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1101-1102.
FRANCE: A. D. 1106-1119.
War with Henry I. of England and Normandy.
See ENGLAND: A. D. 1087-1135.
{1162}
FRANCE: A. D. 1108-1180.
The reigns of Louis VI., Louis VII. and
accession of Philip II.
Gain and loss of Aquitaine.
"Louis VI., or 'the Fat' was the first able man whom the line
of Hugh Capet had produced since it mounted the throne. He
made the first attempt at curbing the nobles, assisted by
Suger, the Abbot of St. Denys. The only possibility of doing
this was to obtain the aid of one party of nobles against
another; and when any unusually flagrant offence had been
committed, Louis called together the nobles, bishops, and
abbots of his domain, and obtained their consent and
assistance in making war on the guilty man, and overthrowing
his castle, thus, in some degree, lessening the sense of utter
impunity which had caused so many violences and such savage
recklessness. He also permitted a few of the cities to
purchase the right of self-government. ... The royal authority
had begun to be respected by 1137, when Louis VI. died, having
just effected the marriage of his son, Louis VII., with
Eleanor, the heiress of the Dukes of Aquitaine--thus hoping to
make the crown really more powerful than the great princes who
owed it homage. At this time lived the great St. Bernard,
Abbot of Clairvaux, who had a wonderful influence over men's
minds. ... Bernard roused the young king Louis VII., to go on
the second crusade [see CRUSADES: A. D. 1147-1149], which was
undertaken by the Emperor and the other princes of Europe to
relieve the distress of the kingdom of Palestine. ... Though
Louis did reach Palestine, it was with weakened forces; he
could effect nothing by his campaign, and Eleanor, who had
accompanied him, seems to have been entirely corrupted by the
evil habits of the Franks settled in the East. Soon after his
return, Louis dissolved his marriage; and Eleanor became the
wife of Henry, Count of Anjou, who soon after inherited the
kingdom of England as our Henry II., as well as the duchy of
Normandy, and betrothed his third son to the heiress of
Brittany [see AQUITAINE: A. D. 1137-1152]. Eleanor's marriage
seemed to undo all that Louis VI. had done in raising the
royal power; for Henry completely overshadowed Louis, whose
only resource was in feeble endeavours to take part against
him in his many family quarrels. The whole reign of Louis the
Young, the title that adhered to him on account of his simple,
childish nature, is only a record of weakness and disaster,
till he died in 1180. ... Powerful in fact as Henry II. was,
it was his gathering so large a part of France under his rule
which was, in the end, to build up the greatness of the French
kings. What had held them in check was the existence of the
great fiefs or provinces, each with its own line of dukes or
counts, and all practically independent of the king. But now
nearly all the provinces of southern and western France were
gathered into the hand of a single ruler; and though he was a
Frenchman in blood, yet, as he was King of England, this ruler
seemed to his French subjects no Frenchman, but a foreigner.
They began therefore to look to the French king to free them
from a foreign ruler; and the son of Louis VII., called Philip
Augustus, was ready to take advantage of their disposition."
_C. M. Yonge,
History of France
(History Primers), chapter 1, sections 6-7._
FRANCE: A. D. 1180-1224.
The kingdom extended by Philip Augustus.
Normandy, Maine and Anjou recovered from the English kings.
"Louis VII. ascended the throne [A. D. 1137] with better
prospects than his father. He had married Eleanor, heiress of
the great duchy of Guienne [or Aquitaine]. But this union,
which promised an immense accession of strength to the crown,
was rendered unhappy by the levities of that princess.
Repudiated by Louis, who felt rather as a husband than a king,
Eleanor immediately married Henry II. of England, who, already
inheriting Normandy from his mother and Anjou from Ins father,
became possessed of more than one-half of France, and an
over-match for Louis, even if the great vassals of the crown
had been always ready to maintain its supremacy. One might
venture perhaps to conjecture that the sceptre of France would
eventually have passed from the Capets to the Plantagenets, if
the vexatious quarrel with Becket at one time, and the
successive rebellions fomented by Louis at a later period, had
not embarrassed the great talents and ambitious spirit of
Henry. But the scene quite changed when Philip Augustus, son
of Louis VII., came upon the stage [A. D. 1180]. No prince
comparable to him in systematic ambition and military
enterprise had reigned in France since Charlemagne. From his
reign the French monarchy dates the recovery of its lustre. He
wrested from the count of Flanders the Vermandois (that part
of Picardy which borders on the Isle of France and Champagne),
and, subsequently, the County of Artois. But the most
important conquests of Philip were obtained against the kings
of England. Even Richard I., with all his prowess, lost ground
in struggling against an adversary not less active, and more
politic, than himself: But when John not only took possession
of his brother's dominions, but confirmed his usurpation by
the murder, as was very probably surmised, of the heir,
Philip, artfully taking advantage of the general indignation,
summoned him as his vassal to the court of his peers. John
demanded a safe-conduct. Willingly, said Philip; let him come
unmolested. And return? inquired the English envoy. If the
judgment of his peers permit him, replied the king. By all the
saints of France, he exclaimed, when further pressed, he shall
not return unless acquitted. The bishop of Ely still
remonstrated that the duke of Normandy could not come without
the king of England; nor would the barons of that country
permit their sovereign to run the risk of death or
imprisonment. What of that, my lord bishop? cried Philip. It
is well known that my vassal the duke of Normandy acquired
England by force. But if a subject obtains any accession of
dignity, shall his paramount lord therefore lose his rights?
... John, not appearing at his summons, was declared guilty of
felony, and his fiefs confiscated. The execution of this
sentence was not intrusted to a dilatory arm. Philip poured
his troops into Normandy, and took town after town, while the
king of England, infatuated by his own wickedness and
cowardice, made hardly an attempt at defence. In two years
[A. D. 1203-1204] Normandy, Maine, and Anjou were
irrecoverably lost. Poitou and Guienne resisted longer; but
the conquest of the first was completed [A. D. 1224] by Louis
VIII., successor of Philip."
_H. Hallam,
The Middle Ages,
chapter 1, part 1._
ALSO IN:
_K. Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings,
volume 2, chapter 9._
See, also,
ENGLAND: A. D. 1205;
and ANJOU: A. D. 1206-1442.
FRANCE: A. D. 1188-1190.
Crusade of Philip Augustus.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1188-1192.
FRANCE: A. D. 1201-1203.
The Fifth Crusade, and its diversion against Constantinople.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203.
A. D. 1209-1229.
The Albigensian wars and their effects.
See ALBIGENSES.
FRANCE: A. D. 1212.
The Children's Crusade.
See CRUSADES: A. D. 1212.
FRANCE: A. D. 1214.
Nationalizing effects of the Battle of Bouvines.
See BOUVINES.
FRANCE: A. D. 1223.
Accession of King Louis VIII.
{1163}
FRANCE: A. D. 1226-1270.
Reign and character of Louis IX. (Saint Louis).
His great civilizing work and influence.
"Of the forty-four years of St. Louis' reign, nearly fifteen,
with a long interval of separation, pertained to the
government of Queen Blanche of Castille, rather than that of
the king her son. Louis, at his accession in 1226, was only
eleven; and he remained a minor up to the age of twenty-one,
in 1236, for the time of majority in the case of royalty was
not yet specially and rigorously fixed. During those ten years
Queen Blanche governed France; not at all, as is commonly
asserted, with the official title of regent, but simply as
guardian of the king her son. With a good sense really
admirable in a person so proud and ambitious, she saw that
official power was ill suited to her woman's condition, and
would weaken rather than strengthen her; and she screened
herself from view behind her son. He it was who, in [1236],
wrote to the great vassals bidding them to his consecration;
he it was who reigned and commanded; and his name alone
appeared on royal decrees and on treaties. It was not until
twenty-two years had passed, in 1248, that Louis, on starting
for the crusade, officially delegated to his mother the kingly
authority, and that Blanche, during her son's absence, really
governed with the title of regent. ... During the first period
of his government, and so long as her son's minority lasted,
Queen Blanche had to grapple with intrigues, plots,
insurrections, and open war; and, what was still worse for
her, with the insults and calumnies of the crown's great
vassals, burning to seize once more, under a woman's
government, the independence and power which had been
effectually disputed with them by Philip Augustus. Blanche
resisted their attempts, at one time with open and persevering
energy, at another dexterously with all the tact, address, and
allurements of a woman. Though she was now forty years of age
she was beautiful, elegant, attractive, full of resources and
of grace. ... The malcontents spread the most odious scandals
about her. ... Neither in the events nor in the writings of
the period is it easy to find anything which can authorize the
accusations made by the foes of Queen Blanche. ... She
continued her resistance to the pretensions and machinations
of the crown's great vassals, whether foes or lovers, and she
carried forward, in the face and in the teeth of all, the
extension of the domains and the power of the kingship. We
observe in her no prompting of enthusiasm, of sympathetic
charitableness, or of religious scrupulousness; that is, none
of those grand moral impulses which are characteristic of
Christian piety and which were predominant in St. Louis.
Blanche was essentially politic and concerned with her
temporal interests and successes; and it was not from her
teaching or her example that her son imbibed those sublime and
disinterested feelings which stamped him the most original and
the rarest on the roll of glorious kings. What St. Louis really
owed to his mother, and it was a great deal, was the steady
triumph which, whether by arms or by negotiation, Blanche
gained over the great vassals, and the preponderance which,
amidst the struggles of the feudal system, she secured for the
kingship of her son in his minority. ... When Louis reached
his majority, his entrance upon personal exercise of the
kingly power produced no change in the conduct of public
affairs. ... The kingship of the son was a continuance of the
mother's government. Louis persisted in struggling for the
preponderance of the crown against the great vassals;
succeeded in taming Peter Mauclerc, the turbulent count of
Brittany; wrung from Theobald IV., count of Champagne, the
rights of suzerainty in the countships of Chartres, Blois, and
Sancerre, and the viscountship of Châteaudun; and purchased
the fertile countship of Mâcon from its possessor. It was
almost always by pacific procedure, by negotiations ably
conducted, and conventions faithfully executed, that he
accomplished these increments of the kingly domain; and when
he made war on any of the great vassals, he engaged therein
only on their provocation, to maintain the rights or honour of
his crown, and he used victory with as much moderation as he
had shown before entering upon the struggle. ... When war was
not either a necessity or a duty, this brave and brilliant
knight, from sheer equity and goodness of heart, loved peace
rather than war. The successes he had gained in his campaign
of 1242 [against the count of La Marche and Henry III., of
England, whose mother had become the wife of La Marche] were
not for him the first step in an endless career of glory and
conquest; he was anxious only to consolidate them whilst
securing, in Western Europe, for the dominions of his
adversaries as well as for his own, the benefits of peace. He
entered into negotiations, successively, with the count of la
Marche, the king of England, the count of Toulouse, the king
of Aragon, and the various princes and great feudal lords who
had been more or less engaged in the war; and in January,
1243, says the latest and most enlightened of his biographers
[M. Felix Faure], 'the treaty of Lorris marked the end of
feudal troubles for the whole duration of St. Louis' reign. He
drew his sword no more, save only against the enemies of the
Christian faith and Christian civilization, the Mussulmans.'"
_G. Masson,
Saint Louis and the Thirteenth Century,
pages 44-56._