given to Geoffrey chiefly because he was his father’s son. Fulk
was its real object.
[379] See the Norman writers, Orderic and William of Poitiers.
Geoffrey had been an independent ruler in a small sphere for nearly ten
years before his father’s death. In 1030 or 1031 he became master of
the little county of Vendôme by purchase from his half-sister Adela,
the only child of Fulk’s ill-starred first marriage, and the heiress
of her maternal grandfather Count Burchard. After doing homage to King
Henry for the fief, Geoffrey’s first act was to found in the capital
of his new dominions an abbey dedicated to the Holy Trinity.[380] The
appointment of an abbot proved the occasion for the first recorded
outbreak of that latent discord between Fulk and his heir which, as we
have seen, culminated at last in open war. A monk named Reginald had
just been sent at Fulk’s request from the great abbey of Marmoutier
near Tours, to take the place of Baldwin, abbot of S. Nicolas at
Angers, who had fled to bury himself in a hermitage. Before the day
came for Reginald’s ordination, however, he deserted to a younger
patron, and accepted the abbotship of Geoffrey’s newly-founded abbey
at Vendôme. Fulk, thus disappointed by two abbots in succession,
“flew,” as he himself said, “into a mighty rage,” summarily ordered
the whole colony of monks whom he had brought from Marmoutier to S.
Nicolas back to their parent monastery, and replaced them with some
of the brethren of S. Aubin’s at Angers, with Hilduin, prior of that
convent, as their head.[381] Fulk’s wrath seems to have been directed
against the monks rather than against his son; but the incident serves
as an illustration of the tendency to opposition that was springing
up in Geoffrey’s mind. The quiet, waiting policy of Fulk’s latter
years was evidently irksome to the young man’s impatient spirit, and
he chose to strike out a path for himself in a direction which, it is
not surprising to learn, did not please the old count. The only one of
his neighbours with whom Fulk seems to have been always on peaceable
terms was the count of Poitou. William Fierabras, the count from whom
Geoffrey Greygown had wrested Loudun, died about two years after the
second battle of Conquereux.[382] His wife was a daughter of Theobald
the Trickster,[383] and his son and successor was therefore first
cousin to Odo II. of Blois; but William IV.--whom Aquitaine reckoned
as her “William the Great”--seems to have had little in common with
his erratic kinsman, and to have always, on the other hand, maintained
a friendly understanding with Anjou. Like Odo, he once received an
offer of the crown of Italy; Fulk appears in the negotiations as the
friendly advocate of the duke’s interests with King Robert,[384] and
though the project came to nothing, it may have been in return for
Fulk’s good offices on this occasion that William bestowed on him the
investiture of Saintes, a gift which was to form the pretext for more
than one war between their descendants. On January 31st, 1029, William
died,[385] leaving as his successor a son who bore the same name, and
whose mother seems to have been a sister of Queen Constance.[386]
It was this new duke of Aquitaine, known as William the Fat, whom
Geoffrey Martel selected as the first victim of his heavy hand. An
Angevin story attributes the origin of the war to a dispute about
Saintes or Saintonge,[387] but it will not bear examination. Geoffrey
Martel simply trod in the steps of Geoffrey Greygown, and with more
marked success. In the autumn of 1033 he started on an expedition
against the duke of Aquitaine; William encountered him on September
20th in a pitched battle near the abbey of S. Jouin-de-Marne, not far
from Montcontour in Poitou; the Poitevins were defeated, partly, it
seems, through treason in their own ranks, and their duke was taken
prisoner.[388] For three years the duke of Aquitaine, the second
great feudatary of the realm, was kept in a dungeon by the count
of Vendôme;[389] not till the whole district of Saintonge[390] and
several important towns were ceded to Geoffrey, and an annual tribute
promised, would he release his captive. From the execution of the
last humiliating condition William was delivered by death; the cruel
treatment he had suffered in prison had done its work; Geoffrey had
exacted the ransom for his prisoner just in time, and sent him home
only to die three days after his liberation.[391]
[380] _Origo Com. Vindoc._, in _Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, vol. xi.
p. 31. See also Mabillon, _Ann. Bened._, vol. iv. pp. 378, 379.
[381] The whole story is told only by Fulk himself, in a
charter to the abbey of S. Nicolas; _Breviculum S. Nicolai_ (Le
Pelletier), quoted in Mabillon, _Ann. Bened._, vol. iv. p. 379.
[382] See editor’s note to Peter of Maillezais, _Rer. Gall.
Scriptt._, vol. x. p. 183, note _g_.
[383] Chron. S. Maxent. a. 972 (Marchegay, _Eglises_, p. 380).
[384] Adem. Chabanais, _Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, vol. x. p. 161.
Letters of William of Poitou, _ib._ pp. 483, 484; of Fulk to
Robert, _ib._ pp. 500, 501.
[385] Chron. S. Maxent. ad ann. (Marchegay, _Eglises_, p. 390).
[386] She was Adelmodia, widow of Boso, count of La Marche, and
daughter of William count of Arles and “Candida,” otherwise
Adelaide the White; see Pet. Maillezais, l. i. c. 6 (_Rer.
Gall. Scriptt._, vol. x. p. 182), and note B at end of chapter.
[387] See note C at end of chapter iv. below.
[388] Chronn. S. Maxent. a. 1032, S. Albin. and S. Flor. Salm.
a. 1033 (Marchegay, _Eglises_, pp. 391, 392, 23, 188); S. Serg.
a. 1028 (_ib._ p. 135). Fulk Rechin (Marchegay, _Comtes_), p.
378. Cf. _Gesta Cons._ (_ibid._), pp. 128–130, and note C to
chapter iv. below.
[389] Chron. S. Maxent. a. 1036 (as above, p. 392).
[390] “Sanctonas cum toto pago.” Chron. Tur. Magn., Salmon,
_Chron. de Touraine_, p. 122. (The date, “anno Henrici
Imperatoris iv et Henrici regis xiii,” is of course absurd,
like most of the dates in the Tours chronicle at this period,
except those which relate to local matters). Cf. _Gesta Cons._
(Marchegay, _Comtes_), p. 126, and note C to chapter iv. below.
[391] Will. Malm. _Gesta Reg._, l. iii. c. 231 (Hardy, p. 395).
Cf. Will. Poitiers (Duchesne, _Hist. Norm. Scriptt._), p. 182.
Then Geoffrey threw off the mask. William had no children; his next
heir was his half-brother Odo, the son of his father’s second marriage
with Brisca, heiress of Gascony.[392] But after Brisca’s death, William
the Great had married a third wife, whom he had left a still young
widow with three little children. Before William the Fat had been many
months dead, his stepmother the widowed Countess Agnes gave her hand
to Geoffrey of Vendôme.[393] Geoffrey’s motive is plain; he sought
to prevent the union of Poitou and Gascony and to get the former
practically into his own hands as stepfather and guardian to the young
sons of Agnes. But in Anjou the wedding gave great scandal; Geoffrey
and Agnes were denounced in the harshest terms as too near akin to
marry.[394] They seem in fact to have been, by the reckoning of the
canon law, cousins in the third degree, as being, one a grandson, the
other a great-granddaughter of Adela of Chalon, the second wife of
Geoffrey Greygown.[395] At any rate they were looked upon as sinners,
and by no one more than the bridegroom’s father. The whole scheme
of Geoffrey’s meddlings in Aquitaine was repugnant to Fulk Nerra’s
policy; he looked to his son to complete his own labours in Touraine
and Maine, and it was no good omen for the fulfilment of his hopes when
Geoffrey thus turned his back upon his appointed work for the love of
Countess Agnes or of her late husband’s possessions. The capture of
William the Fat had been the signal for the first outbreak of a “more
than civil war” between father and son;[396] Geoffrey’s misconduct
during his regency in Anjou brought matters to the crisis which ended
in his first and last public defeat. Nevertheless he obstinately
pursued his projects. The Poitevins, by the death of their count, were
left, as their own chronicler says, “as sheep having no shepherd”;
there was a party among them ready to support the claims of Agnes’s
sons against their elder half-brother Odo of Gascony; and one of the
leaders of this party, William of Parthenay, built with Angevin help
a fortress at Germont in which he held out successfully against the
besieging forces of Odo. The count of Gascony then proceeded to Mausé,
another stronghold of his enemies, and in assaulting this place he
was slain.[397] He left no children; the elder of Geoffrey Martel’s
stepsons was now therefore heir to Poitou. The boys were twins; the
third child of Agnes was a girl, who bore her mother’s name, and for
whom her mother and stepfather contrived in 1043 to arrange a marriage
with no less important a personage than the Emperor Henry III.,[398]
whose first wife had been a daughter of Cnut. It was not till the year
after this imperial wedding that the troubled affairs of Aquitaine were
definitely settled. In 1044 Countess Agnes came to Poitiers accompanied
by her two sons, Peter and Geoffrey, and her husband, their stepfather,
Geoffrey Martel; there they held with the chief nobles of Poitou a
council at which Peter, or William as he was thenceforth called, was
solemnly ordained as duke of Aquitaine, and his brother sent into
Gascony to become its count.[399] Agnes at least must now have attained
her object; whether Geoffrey Martel was equally satisfied with the
result of his schemes may be a question, for we do not clearly know
how wide the range of those schemes really was. If, as seems likely,
they included the hope of acquiring a lasting hold over Aquitaine,
then their issue was a failure. By the victory of Montcontour Geoffrey
had gained for himself at one blow a great military reputation; but
for Anjou the only solid gain was the acquisition of Saintonge, and
this, like some of the outlying possessions of the house of Blois, soon
proved more trouble than profit. If Martel expected that his stepsons
would hold themselves indebted to him for their coronets and remain his
grateful and dutiful miscalculation. The marriage of a duchess-dowager
of Aquitaine with Geoffrey Martel naturally suggests thoughts of the
marriage of a duchess-regnant with a later count of Anjou; but the
resemblance between the two cases is of the most superficial kind; the
earlier connexion between Anjou and Aquitaine did little or nothing
to pave the way for their later union. Geoffrey himself, indeed, had
already discovered that although the count of Vendôme might go seeking
adventures in the south, the duties and the interests of the count of
Anjou still lay to the north, or at the utmost no farther away than the
banks of the great frontier-river.
[392] Chron. S. Maxent. a. 1010 (Marchegay, _Eglises_, pp. 387,
388).
[393] Will. Poitiers (Duchesne, _Hist. Norm. Scriptt._), p.
182. Will. Malm. _Gesta Reg._, l. iii. c. 231 (Hardy, p. 395).
Chron. S. Maxent. a. 1037 (as above, pp. 392, 393); Chronn. S.
Albin. and S. Serg. a. 1032 (_ib._ pp. 23, 135). On the date
see note D at end of chapter.
[394] Chronn. S. Albin. and S. Serg. a. 1032 (Marchegay,
_Eglises_, pp. 23, 135).
[395] See note D at end of chapter.
[396] Chronn. S. Albin. a. 1032, 1033 (Marchegay, _Eglises_,
p. 23); S. Serg. a. 1028 (_ib._ p. 135); Rain. Andeg. a.
1036, 1037 (_ib._ p. 11). The Chron. S. Albin. a. 1033, says:
“Gaufridus ... Willelmum comitem Pictavorum sumpsit in bello;
quare orta est discordia inter patrem et filium.” Labbe in his
_Bibl. MSS. Librorum_ printed this “patrem et _matrem_,” and
thereby originated a perfectly groundless story of a quarrel
between Fulk and Hildegard.
[397] Chron. S. Maxent. a. 1037 (Marchegay, _Eglises_, pp. 392,
393).
[398] Hermann. Contract., a. 1043 (_Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, vol.
xi. p. 19). Chronn. S. Albin. and S. Serg. ad ann. (Marchegay,
_Eglises_, pp. 24, 135, 136). The Chron. S. Maxent. (_ib._ p.
398) dates the marriage vaguely “per hæc tempora” under 1049.
[399] Chron. S. Maxent. a. 1044 (Marchegay, _Eglises_, pp. 394,
395). It seems quite plain that the elder boy’s baptismal name
was Peter, but he signs his charters “William” (see Besly,
_Comtes de Poitou, preuves_, pp. 314, 317). The Chron. S.
Maxent. a. 1058 (as above, p. 400) calls him “Willelmus qui et
Petrus, cognomento Acer.” In recording the birth of the two
boys (a. 1023, _ib._ p. 388) the same writer calls them “Petrum
cognomine Acerrimum, et Gaufredum qui et Wido vocatus est”; and
he afterwards speaks of the latter by both names indifferently.
It seems however to have been an established rule that the
reigning duke of Aquitaine must be officially called William;
for Guy-Geoffrey also assumed the name when he succeeded his
brother in 1058.
The visions of empire to which Odo of Champagne had sacrificed the
latter years of his life had perished with him on the field of Bar. Not
a foot of land outside the limits of the kingdom of France had he left
to his heirs. He had two sons, Theobald and Stephen, whose very names
seemed to mark out their destined shares in his dominions. Stephen,
the younger, became count of Champagne; to Theobald, the elder, fell
the original territories of his house--Blois, Chartres and Tours.[400]
Theobald’s heritage however was shorn of its fairest portion. The
county of Tours now comprised little more than the capital; all
Touraine south of the Loire--by far the most fertile and valuable
half--was in the power of the Angevin; Tours itself, once a secure
central post, had become a closely threatened border-city. Theobald’s
first duty was to protect it, but it seems to have been the last thing
he thought of. Odo’s sons had inherited all his wrongheadedness without
his quickness of thought and action. Shut in as they were on all sides
by powerful foes, the two young men began their career by rebelling
after the manner of their forefathers;[401] and the king’s youngest
brother Odo was lured, by a promise of dethroning Henry in his favour,
into joining in their rebellion. Odo, a youth of weak intellect, was
in himself no very formidable person, but he might for the very same
reason become a dangerous tool in the hands of his fellow-conspirators;
and a rebellious coalition of Blois and Champagne threatened to be a
serious difficulty for the king at a moment when there was scarcely one
of the great feudataries on whom he could reckon for support. The death
of Duke Robert of Normandy had plunged his duchy into confusion and
deprived Henry of all chance of help in the quarter which had hitherto
been his chief source of strength. The county of Burgundy was governed
by the king’s brother Robert, who had with difficulty been induced to
accept it as compensation for the failure of his hopes of the crown.
Flanders and Britanny were always indifferent to the troubles and
necessities of the king; the count of Vermandois was a kinsman and ally
of Champagne; Aquitaine was as powerless as Normandy. The one vassal to
whom Henry could look for aid was the count of Anjou. Had the rebels
possessed sense and spirit they might have given Henry quite as much
trouble as their father had given Robert; but they seem to have had no
well-concerted plan; each acted independently, and each was crushed
singly. Young Odo, their puppet pretender, was easily caught and
imprisoned at Orléans; Stephen of Champagne was defeated in a pitched
battle by the king himself;[402] Theobald of Blois was left to be dealt
with by other hands. With a master-stroke of policy, Henry proclaimed
the city of Tours forfeit by Theobald’s rebellion, and granted its
investiture to the count of Anjou.[403]
[400] Hugh of Fleury, _Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, vol. xi. p. 159.
Chron. Fr. Andreæ, _ib._ p. 364.
[401] Hugh of Fleury and Chron. Fr. Andreæ, as above. _Hist.
Franc. Fragm._ (_ibid._), p. 160.
[402] _Hist. Franc. Fragm._ (_Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, vol. xi.),
p. 160. Hugh of Fleury (_ibid._), p. 159.
[403] Chron. Virdun. a. 1039 (_Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, vol. xi.
p. 144). R. Glaber, l. v. c. 2 (_ib._ vol. x. p. 60), copied in
_Gesta Cons._ (Marchegay, _Comtes_), pp. 122, 123. Fulk Rechin
(_ibid._), p. 378.
To understand the full importance of this grant and of the war which
followed it, we must know something of the history of Tours and of
the peculiar feelings and interests attached to it. The origin of
Tours as a city dates from the time of the Roman empire, when it
appears under the name of Cæsarodunum.[404] The Roman _castrum_ was
built in a broad, shallow sort of basin, watered on the north by the
Loire, on the south by the Cher; it probably occupied the site of some
village of those Turones or Turoni, who play a part in the Gallic wars
of Cæsar,[405] and whose name in the end superseded that which the
place received from its conqueror. The “city of the Turones” became
the central point of a network of roads connecting it with Poitiers,
Chartres, Bourges, Orléans, Le Mans and Angers;[406] and owing to the
convenience of its situation for military and administrative purposes
it was made the capital of the Third Lyonnese province.[407] But
its hold on the minds of men was due to another gift of Rome, more
precious than roads or fortifications or even political traditions.
It was the holy city of Gaul, the cradle of Gaulish Christianity. Its
first bishop, Gatian, was one of seven missionaries sent out from
Rome to evangelize the Gallic provinces in the days of the Decian
persecution.[408] S. Gatian’s episcopate of half a century fell in
one of the most distracted periods of the Empire; after his death the
Church which he had planted remained untended for nearly forty years,
and it was not till after the death of Constantine that Tours received
her second bishop in the person of Lidorius, one of her own sons, who
laid the foundations of a cathedral church.[409] But the fame of the
two first bishops of Tours was completely overshadowed by that of the
third. The work of S. Gatian and S. Lidorius was confined to their own
immediate flock; S. Martin was the apostle not only of Touraine but of
all central Gaul. Born at Sabaria[410] in the Upper Pannonia, in the
reign of the first Christian Emperor, but of heathen parents, Martin
rose to high military distinction under the Cæsar Julian, accompanied
him into Gaul, and enjoyed his utmost esteem and regard till he
forfeited them by renouncing the standard of the eagles for that of
the Cross. Neither the wrath of his commander nor the entreaties of
his fellow-soldiers, by whom he was greatly beloved, availed to shake
his resolution; he fled to Poitiers, and there found a friend and
counsellor in the holy bishop Hilary, from whom he received the minor
orders. After braving toil and peril by land and sea in a journey
to his native country for the conversion of his family, he returned
to a life of seclusion in Gaul, and acquired such a reputation for
holiness that on the death of Lidorius in 371 the people of Tours,
in spite of his strenuous resistance, actually forced him to become
their bishop.[411] From that moment Tours became a mission-centre
whence the light of the faith spread with marvellous rapidity over
all the surrounding country. Anjou and all the neighbouring lands
owed their conversion to S. Martin and the missionaries sent out by
him; everywhere paganism gave way before his eloquent preaching, his
dauntless courage, his almost apostolic endowments--above all, perhaps,
his good example. He was looked upon as the Thaumaturgus of Gaul, and
countless legends were told of his wonder-working powers; more famous
than all of them is a story of the saint in his soldier-days, when,
Christian already in feeling though not yet in profession, he stopped
his horse one cold winter’s night, drew his sword and cut his military
cloak in halves to share it with one whose necessity was greater than
his own. That night he dreamed that the Lord whom, not knowing, he yet
instinctively served, appeared to him wearing the half cloak which he
had thus given away; and it was this vision which determined him to
receive baptism.[412] Amid all his busy, active life he never lost the
love of solitary contemplation so characteristic of the early Christian
missionaries. His episcopal city lay on the south side of the Loire,
but had on the north or right bank a large suburb afterwards known
by the name of S. Symphorian; beyond this, farther to the eastward,
the bishop found for himself a “green retreat,” which has scarcely
yet lost its air of peaceful loneliness, and which, before the suburb
had spread to its present extent, must have been an ideal spot for
monastic retirement. A little wooden cell with its back against the
white limestone rock which shelters the northern side of the basin
of Tours--an expanse of green solitude in front, stretching down to
the broad calm river--such was the nest which S. Martin built him in
the wilderness; gathering round him a little band of men likeminded
with himself, he snatched every spare moment from his episcopal cares
to flee away thither and be at rest;[413] and the rock-hewn cells
of the brotherhood became the nucleus of a famous abbey, the “Great
Monastery,” as it was emphatically called--_Majus Monasterium_,
Marmoutier. Another minster, of almost greater fame, grew up over the
saint’s burial place outside the western wall of the city, on low-lying
ground which, before it was reclaimed by the energetic dyke-makers of
the ninth and tenth centuries, must have been not unfrequently under
water. It is within the episcopal city of S. Martin, in the writings
of Bishop Gregory of Tours, that West-Frankish history begins. An
English student feels a nearer interest in the abbey without the walls,
remembering that the abbot under whom it reached its highest glory and
became the very fount and source of all contemporary learning, human
and divine, was Alcuin of York.
[404] Ptolem., l. ii. c. 8.
[405] Cæsar, _De Bello Gallico_, l. ii. c. 35; l. vii. c. 75;
l. viii. c. 46.
[406] Article by M. E. Mabille on “Topographie de la Touraine,”
in _Bibl. de l’Ecole des Chartes_, series v. vol. iv. pp. 413,
414.
[407] _Notitia Provinciarum Galliæ_, _Rer. Gall. Scriptt._,
vol. i. p. 122.
[408] Greg. of Tours, _Hist. Franc._, l. i. c. 28.
[409] Chron. Archiep. Turon., Salmon, _Chron. de Touraine_, p.
201.
[410] Now Stein-am-Angern.
[411] Sulpitius Severus, _Vita B. Martini_, cc. 2–9. Greg.
Tours., _Hist. Franc._, l. i. cc. 34, 36, 43.
[412] Sulp. Severus, _Vita B. Martini_, c. 3.
[413] Sulp. Severus, _Vita B. Martini_, c. 10.
When the great English scholar and the great Emperor who had brought
him into Gaul were gone, Tours underwent her full share of suffering
in the invasions of the northmen. City and abbey became to the valley
of the Loire something like what Paris and S. Denis were to that of
the Seine, the chief bulwark against the fresh tide of heathen force
which threatened to sweep away the footsteps of saints and scholars.
Once, indeed, Tours had been in danger from heathens of another
sort, and a body of Saracens had been turned back from her gates and
destroyed by Charles Martel.[414] There was no Martel to save her
from the northmen; her only defence consisted in the valour of her
citizens, and the fortifications left to her by her Roman governors and
carefully strengthened by her Karolingian sovereigns.[415] Over and
over again the pirates were driven back from the walls of Cæsarodunum;
over and over again S. Martin’s Abbey was burnt to the ground. For
years the canons, who in Alcuin’s days had taken the place of the
original monks,[416] lived in constant fear of desecration befalling
their patron’s body, and carried it from place to place, like the
body of our own S. Cuthbert, sometimes depositing it within the city
walls, sometimes removing it farther inland--once even to the far-off
Burgundian duchy--bringing it home whenever they dared, or whenever
they had a church fit to contain it. Two of these “reversions”--one on
December 13, 885, the other on May 12, 919--were annually celebrated
at Tours, in addition to two other feasts of S. Martin, his ordination
on July 4 and his “deposition” on November 11.[417] In the first
reversion Ingelger, the founder of the Angevin house, was said to
have borne a prominent part. The story of the second was afterwards
superseded by a famous legend known as that of the “subvention of
S. Martin.” Once, it was said, when the citizens of Tours were sore
pressed by the besieging hosts of the northmen, they resolved to
intrust their cause to a heavenly champion, and brought out upon the
walls the corpse of the saint, which had been deposited for safety
within the city. The living heathen fled at once before the dead
saint; they were pursued by the triumphant citizens, still carrying
their patron in their midst, and utterly routed at a spot which thence
received the name of “S. Martin of the Battle.”[418] This story seems
to belong to the siege of 903, when Marmoutier was destroyed, and
the abbey of S. Martin burnt to the ground for the third time. When
the canons again rebuilt it, they took the precaution of encircling
it with a wall, and procured from Charles the Simple a charter which
resulted in the creation of a new fortified borough, exempt from the
jurisdiction of both bishop and count, and subject only to its own
abbot--in other words, to the duke of the French, who from the middle
of the eighth century always held _in commendam_ the abbey of S. Martin
at Tours, as he did that of S. Denis at Paris.[419] Thus, side by side
with the old city of the Turones, Cæsarodunum with its Roman walls,
its count, its cathedral and its archbishop, there arose the “Castrum
Novum,” Châteauneuf, “Castellum S. Martini,” Martinopolis as it is
sometimes called, with its own walled enclosure, its collegiate church
and its abbot-duke. The counts of Anjou, who followed so steadily in
the train of the ducal house, were not blind to the means of gaining
a footing in such tempting neighbourhood to the walls of Tours; from
an early period they took care to connect themselves with the abbey
of which their patron was the head. The first count of Anjou and his
father play an important part in the legendary history of the two great
“reversions”; Fulk the Good is almost more familiar to us as canon than
as count, and the stall next to that of the dean of S. Martin’s, which
he so loved to occupy, whence he wrote his famous letter, and where
he saw his vision of the saint, seems to have become hereditary among
his descendants like the abbotship among those of Hugh the Great. Good
Canon Fulk prized it as a spiritual privilege; his successors probably
looked upon it rather in the light of a political wedge whereby they
might some day force an entrance into the greedily-coveted city itself.
Tours was the point towards which Fulk the Black had worked steadily
all his life long; and when he left his son to complete his labours,
that point was almost reached. But, with her broad river and her Roman
walls, Tours was still hard to win. To block the river was impossible;
to break down the walls would need nothing less than a regular siege,
and one which could not fail to be long, tedious and costly. Geoffrey
seems to have delayed the task until by the king’s grant of the
investiture it became a point of honour as well as a matter of the most
pressing interest to make good the claim thus placed in his hands.
[414] Fredegar. Contin., l. ii. c. 108 (_Rer. Gall. Scriptt._,
vol. ii. p. 454); Chron. Fontanell. a. 732 (_ib._ p. 660), etc.
[415] See Ann. Bertin., _Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, vol. vii. p. 107.
[416] Chron. Petr. Fil. Bechin., in Salmon, _Chron. de
Touraine_, p. 40. Chron. Tur. Magn. a. 991 (_ib._ p. 93). See
_Gall. Christ._, vol. xiv. col. 154.
[417] For the whole history of the wanderings and the festivals
of S. Martin, and of the sieges of Tours by the northmen, see
an article by M. Mabille, “Les Invasions normandes dans la
Loire et les pérégrinations du corps de S. Martin,” in _Bibl.
de l’Ecole des Chartes_, series vi. vol. v. pp. 149–194.
[418] _Tract. de Revers. B. Martini_, in Salmon, _Supplément
aux Chron. de Touraine_, pp. 14–34; copied in _Gesta Cons._
(see note A to chapter ii. above). On the date, see Mabille,
“Inv. Norm.” (_Bibl. de l’Ecole des Chartes_, series vi. vol.
v. p. 190). This device of the citizens of Tours was several
times imitated elsewhere; _e.g._ by the monks of Saumur with
the body of S. Docelinus, when Fulk Nerra besieged the place
in 1025 (_Hist. S. Flor. Salm._, Marchegay, _Eglises_, p.
277); and by the monks of S. Peter at Sens, against the same
opponent, in 1032 (Chron. S. Petr. Senon. ad ann., _Rer. Gall.
Scriptt._, vol. xi. p. 196). The former failed, the latter
succeeded.
[419] Charter of Charles the Simple, a. 918, in _Rer. Gall.
Scriptt._, vol. ix. p. 540. For the history of the “Castellum
S. Martini,” and the topography of Tours and Châteauneuf, see
“Topographie de la Touraine,” by M. E. Mabille, in _Bibl. de
l’Ecole des Chartes_, series v. vol. v. pp. 321–366; and for
the topography and history of the whole district from the
earliest times see previous articles under the same title,
series v. vol. iii. pp. 309–332, vol. iv. pp. 388–428, and vol.
v. pp. 233–258.
He woke at once from his Aquitanian dreams, gathered his forces, and
led them out, probably not by the old Roman road from Juliomagus to
Cæsarodunum past the white steeps of his father’s Montboyau, but by
a safer though longer route, passing along the southern bank of the
Loire and across the valleys of the Vienne and the Indre, to lay siege
to Tours. With the royal sanction to his enterprise he had the great
advantage of being able to use Châteauneuf as a basis of operations.
The monastery of S. Julian, at the north-east corner of the town, close
against the city wall, was especially convenient for attacking the
latter; Geoffrey took possession of it and used it accordingly.[420]
The city, however, held out against him for a whole year, during
which its inhabitants seem to have been left by their count to defend
themselves as best they could. At last, in August 1044, Theobald
collected an army for its relief, in union with the forces of Champagne
under his brother Stephen.[421] Geoffrey, in expectation of this, had
detached from his main force a body of two hundred knights and fifteen
hundred foot, whom he posted at Amboise under Lisoy, to guard the road
against Theobald.[422] The services of Lisoy were a special legacy from
Fulk the Black to his son. Of all Fulk’s adherents, none had served
him so intelligently and so devotedly as this Cenomannian knight whom
he had chosen to be the colleague of the aged Sulpice in the defence of
Amboise and Loches. Fulk, when he felt his end approaching, had striven
hard to impress on his son the value of such a true and tried friend,
and at the same time to bind Lisoy yet more closely to him by arranging
his marriage with Hersendis, the niece and heiress of Sulpice, whereby
Lisoy came into possession of all Sulpice’s estates at Loches and
Amboise, including the famous tower of stone.[423] Lisoy proved as
true to the new count as to the old one. Theobald, not daring to come
within reach of Amboise, avoided the direct route from Blois to Tours
along the Loire,[424] and took the road by Pontlevoy to Montrichard.
The chief force of Montrichard, with its commander Roger, was no doubt
with Geoffrey before Tours, so the count of Blois pursued his way
unmolested, plundering as he went, down the valley of the Cher, till
he pitched his tents in the meadows of St.-Quentin opposite Bléré,
and there stayed a day and a night to rest.[425] All his movements
were known to the watchful lord of Amboise; and as soon as Lisoy had
fully ascertained the numbers and plans of the enemy, he hurried off
to seek his count in the army before Tours, and offer him some sound
military advice. He represented that it would be far better to raise
the siege, join the whole Angevin force with that which was already
at Amboise, and stake everything on a pitched battle. The enemy might
beat either Geoffrey or his lieutenant singly, but united they would be
irresistible; and whereas the siege must be long and tedious, and its
result uncertain, one victory in the field would lay all Touraine at
the victor’s feet. Only let the count be quick and not suffer his foe
to catch him at unawares.[426]
[420] See _Gall. Christ._, vol. xiv. col. 243.
[421] R. Glaber, l. v. c. 2 (_Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, vol. x. p.
60).
[422] _Gesta Cons._ (Marchegay, _Comtes_), p. 118.
[423] _Gesta Amb. Domin._ (Marchegay, _Comtes_), pp. 168, 169.
[424] _Ib._ p. 170.
[425] _Gesta Cons._ (_ibid._), p. 119.
[426] _Ib._ pp. 118, 119.
Geoffrey, as he listened to this bold counsel, must have been reminded
of his father’s warning, that a true friend like Lisoy was a surer
source of strength than either hosts or treasures.[427] He took the
advice, and while Lisoy returned to Amboise to bring up his little
force to the trysting-place agreed upon between them, his count, after
diligent prayers and vows to S. Martin, took the consecrated banner of
the abbey from its place above the shrine, affixed it to his own spear,
and rode forth with it at the head of all his troops to do battle with
Theobald.[428] On the same day when Theobald encamped opposite Bléré
Geoffrey reached Montlouis, a hill on the south bank of the Loire,
about half way between Tours and Amboise. Next morning the men of Blois
resumed their march; turning in a north-westerly direction they were
met at a place called Noit by the Angevins coming down from Montlouis.
The Hammer of Anjou, ever foremost in fight, headed the attack on the
enemy’s centre; his faithful Lisoy came up, as he had promised, at the
head of his contingent, and threw himself on their right wing.[429]
What followed scarcely deserved the name of a battle. The army of the
brother-counts seemed spell-bound, and made no resistance at all;
Stephen took to flight at once and escaped with a few knights;[430] the
rest of the troops of Blois and Champagne were utterly defeated and
taken prisoners almost in a body. The men of Amboise were hottest in
pursuit of the fugitives, and they won the great prize of the day. They
drove Theobald with some five or six hundred knights into a wood called
Braye, whence it was impossible for horsemen to extricate themselves;
and thus Lisoy had the honour of bringing the count of Blois a captive
to the feet of Geoffrey Martel.[431] No one at the time doubted that
the Angevins owed their easy victory to the saint whose standard they
were following. The few soldiers of Theobald who escaped declared that
they had seen Geoffrey’s troops all clad in shining white raiment,
and fled in horror, believing themselves to be fighting against the
hosts of Heaven.[432] The village near which the fight took place was
called “burgum S. Martini Belli”[433]--S. Martin of the Battle, a name
derived from the “subvention of S. Martin,” supposed to have occurred
at the same place two hundred years before. Most curiously, neither
the well-known legend of the saint’s triumph over the northmen nor the
fame of Geoffrey’s triumph over the count of Blois availed to fix in
popular memory the true meaning of the name. While the English “Place
of Battle” at Senlac has long forgotten its dedication to S. Martin,
its namesake in Touraine has forgotten both its battles and become
“St.-Martin-le-Beau.”
[427] _Gesta Amb. Domin._ (_ibid._), p. 168.
[428] R. Glaber, l. v. c. 2 (_Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, vol. x. p.
60); copied in _Gesta Cons._ (Marchegay, _Comtes_), p. 122.
[429] _Gesta Cons._ (as above), p. 120.
[430] R. Glaber, l. v. c. 2 (_Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, vol. x. p.
61); copied in _Gesta Cons._ (as above), p. 122.
[431] _Gesta Cons._ (as above), p. 121; _Gesta Amb. Domin._
(_ibid._), p. 170.
[432] R. Glaber, as above; _Gesta Cons._ (Marchegay, _Comtes_),
p. 123.
[433] _Gesta Cons._ (Marchegay, _Comtes_), p. 120.
With very little bloodshed, the Angevins had gained over a thousand
prisoners.[434] The most valuable of them all was put in ward at
Loches;[435] but he took care not to stay there long. Theobald took
warning by the fate of William of Aquitaine;[436] he had no mind to run
the risk of dying in prison, and held his person far dearer than his
property.[437] Three days after his capture, finding that no amount
of silver or gold would avail to purchase his release, he yielded the
only ransom which Geoffrey would accept: the city of Tours and the
whole county of Touraine.[438] A nominal overlordship over the ceded
territory was reserved to Theobald, and Geoffrey had to go through
the formality of doing homage for it to him.[439] When the substance
was securely his own, the count of Anjou could well afford to leave
to his vanquished rival the shadowy consolation of an empty ceremony.
Moreover, the circumstances of the whole transaction and the account
of King Henry’s grant to Geoffrey clearly imply that Theobald’s rights
over the most important point of all, the capital itself, were
considered as entirely forfeited by his rebellion, so that with regard
to the city of Tours Geoffrey stepped into the exact place of its
former counts, holding it directly of the king alone.
[434] Fulk Rechin (Marchegay, _Comtes_), p. 378; R. Glaber, l.
v. c. 2 (_Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, vol. x. p. 61). For the date
of the battle--August 21, 1044--see Chronn. Rain. Andeg., S.
Albin., S. Serg., Vindoc., S. Flor. Salm., and S. Maxent. ad
ann. (Marchegay, _Eglises_, pp. 11, 24, 136, 166, 188, 395).
The _Gesta Cons._ (Marchegay, _Comtes_), p. 121, and _Gesta
Amb. Domin._ (_ibid._), p. 170, make it 1042, but they cannot
possibly be right.
[435] _Gesta Amb. Domin._ as above.
[436] Will. Poitiers (Duchesne, _Hist. Norm. Scriptt._), p. 182.
[437] _Gesta Cons._, as above. See the comment of Will. Malm.
_Gesta Reg._, l. iii. c. 231 (Hardy, p. 396).
[438] Will. Jumièges, l. vii. c. 18 (Duchesne, _Hist. Norm.
Scriptt._, p. 276); _Gesta Cons._ (as above), pp. 121, 122; the
details of the treaty are in pp. 123, 124.
[439] _Gesta Amb. Domin._ as above.
The acquisition of Tours closes the second stage in the career of the
house of Anjou. Looked at from a strictly Angevin point of view, the
period just passed through, although in one sense only preliminary,
is the most important of all, for it is that on which depended all
the later growth, nay, almost the very existence of Anjou. Had the
counts of Blois proved too strong for her in these her early years,
she would have been swallowed up altogether; had they merely proved
themselves her equals, the two states so closely bound together would
have neutralized each other so that neither of them could have risen to
any commanding eminence; till one or the other should sweep its rival
out of its path, both must be impeded in their developement. At the
opening of the struggle, in Fulk Nerra’s youth, Blois was distinctly in
the ascendant, and the chances of independent existence for the little
Marchland hung solely on the courage and statesmanship of its count.
His dauntless genius, helped by Odo’s folly, saved Anjou and turned
the tide completely in its favour. The treaty sworn, four years after
Fulk’s death, in his great castle by the Indre, was the crowning of his
life’s work, and left his son absolutely without a rival till he chose
to seek one beyond the debateable ground of Maine. The long struggle
of Fulk and Odo, completed by Geoffrey and Theobald, had made a clear
field for the future struggles of Geoffrey and William, of Fulk V. and
Henry I., and at last--by a strange turn of fate--for a renewal of the
old feud with the house of Blois itself, in a new form and for a far
higher stake, in the struggle of Stephen and Henry Fitz-Empress for the
English crown.
NOTE A.
THE SIEGE OF MELUN.
The fullest account of this Melun affair is in Richer, l. iv. cc.
74–78. Briefly, it comes to this: Odo (described simply by his name,
without title of any kind) “rerum suarum augmentum querebat,” and
especially the castle of Melun, partly for the convenience of getting
troops across the Seine, and partly because it had formerly belonged
to his grandfather and was now in the hands, not of the king, but of
“another” (not named). He managed to corrupt the officer in command
and to obtain possession of the place. As soon as the kings (_reges_)
heard of it, they gathered their forces to besiege him there: “et quia
castrum circumfluente Sequanâ ambiebatur, ipsi in litore primo castra
disponunt; in ulteriore, accitas piratarum acies ordinant.” These
“pirates” furnished a fleet which blockaded the place, and finally
discovered a secret entrance whereby they got into the town, surprised
the castle, and compelled it to surrender to the king (_regi_).
2. William of Jumièges (l. v. c. 14, Duchesne, _Hist. Norm. Scriptt._,
p. 255) tells the story more briefly, but to exactly the same effect.
He mentions however only _one_ king: he supplies the name of the “other
man” who held Melun--viz. Burchard: he clearly implies that “Odo” is
Odo II. of Blois (of whose doings with Normandy he has just given an
account in c. 12, _ib._ p. 254); and, of course, he gives the “pirates”
their proper name of Normans, and puts them under their proper leader,
Duke Richard [the Good].
3. Hugh of Fleury tells the same tale very concisely, but with all the
names, and gives a date, a. 999 (_Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, vol. x. pp.
220, 221). (He is copied by the Chron. S. Petr. Senon., _ib._ p. 222.)
4. The _Abbreviato Gestorum Franciæ Regum_ tells the same, but gives no
date beyond “eo tempore,” coming just after Hugh Capet’s death (_Rer.
Gall. Scriptt._, vol. x. p. 227).
5. The _Vita Burchardi Comitis_ gives no dates, does not identify Odo,
and does not mention the Normans, but makes Burchard himself the chief
actor in the regaining of the place (_Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, vol. x. pp.
354, 355. In p. 350, note _a_, the editor makes Burchard a son of Fulk
the Good; but he gives no authority, and I can find none).
6. The Angevins have a version of their own. In the _Gesta Cons._
(Marchegay, _Comtes_, pp. 76, 77) the captor of Melun is “Herbert count
of Troyes”; in Hugh of Clères (_ib._ p. 388) he has the same title
but no name, and neither has the king, who in the _Gesta_ is called
Robert. The victim is not named at all; but the hero who plays a part
equivalent to that of the Normans in the other versions is Geoffrey
Greygown.
The main question is the date. One authority--Hugh of Fleury--gives
it distinctly as 999. Will. Jumièges clearly identifies the Odo in
question as Odo II. Now Odo II. was not count till 1004; but his father
died in 995, so William may have given him the title by anticipation
at any time after that date. The _Abbr. Gest. Franc. Reg._ would
seem to place it thereabouts, as its note of time is “eo tempore” in
reference to Hugh Capet’s death (which occurred in October 996). On the
other hand, Richer speaks of “the _kings_” in the plural; from which
Kalckstein, Waitz and Luchaire (_Hist. des Institutions monarchiques de
la France_, vol. ii. p. 7, note 1) conclude that it is Odo I. who is
concerned, and they date the affair 991. Why they fix upon this year,
in defiance of both William of Jumièges and Hugh of Fleury, I cannot
see. M. d’Arbois de Jubainville (_Comtes de Champagne_, vol. i. p. 196)
adopts Hugh’s date, 999. Is it not possible, however, from a comparison
of the other authorities, that the right year is 996, just before
Hugh’s death, or even that he died while the siege was in progress?
for it is to be noticed that Richer mentions only _one_ king at the
surrender. Richer has made such a confusion about these Odos and their
doings that it is hardly fair to set him up as an infallible authority
on the subject against such writers as Hugh of Fleury and William of
Jumièges. Anyhow, the Angevin story cannot stand against any of them.
NOTE B.
THE PARENTS OF QUEEN CONSTANCE.
The parentage of Constance requires some notice here, as she is usually
called either a niece or a cousin of Fulk Nerra. The one point on which
all authorities are agreed is that her father’s name was William. It
was long disputed whether he was William III. (Taillefer) count of
Toulouse or William I. count of Arles and Provence. M. Mabille, in a
note to the latest edition of Vic and Vaissète’s _Hist. du Languedoc_
(Toulouse, 1872), vol. iv. pp. 157–161, has made it clear that he was
William of Arles; this conclusion is adopted by M. Luchaire (_Hist. des
Instit. Monarch._, vol. ii. p. 211, note 1).
M. Mabille however does not attempt to decide who was Constance’s
mother, through whom her kindred with the Angevins is said to have
come; and this is the question which we now have to investigate. The
evidence at present known is as follows:--
1. An unprinted MS. of R. Glaber’s history, l. iii. c. 2 (quoted by
Mabille, note to Vic and Vaissète, as above, p. 158; Marchegay,
_Comtes d’Anjou_, Introd., p. lxxiii. note 2), describes Constance as
“neptem prædicti Fulconis ... natam de Blancâ sorore ejus.” This is the
version adopted in _Gesta Cons._ (Marchegay, _Comtes_, p. 110).
2. A letter of Bishop Ivo of Chartres (Ep. ccxi., Migne, _Patrologia_,
vol. 162, cols. 215, 216), written about A.D. 1110, makes Constance’s
mother sister, not of Fulk, but of his father Geoffrey Greygown. So
does an anonymous chronicle ending in 1109, printed in Duchesne’s
_Hist. Franc. Scriptt._, vol. iv. p. 96.
3. The Chron. S. Albin. (Marchegay, _Eglises_, p. 21) has under date
987: “Hlotharius rex obiit.... In isto reges Francorum defecerunt. Hic
accepit uxorem Blanchiam filiam Fulconis Boni comitis Andegavensium,
patris Gaufredi Grisegonellæ, et habuit ex eâ filiam, Constantiam
nomine, quæ fuit data cum regno Roberti regis filio, scilicet Hugonis
Magni.” Wildly confused as this passage is, I believe that it really
contains a clue to the identity of Constance’s mother. Whoever she was,
she certainly must, at the time of Constance’s birth, have been wife
not of Louis the Lazy (who is evidently meant, instead of Lothar), but
of Count William I. of Arles. Now it is plain (see Vic and Vaissète as
above, pp. 62, 63) that William was twice married; first to Arsindis,
who was living 968–979; and secondly, to Adelaide, who appears in 986,
was mother of his successor William II., and apparently still living
in 1026. Of Arsindis nothing further is known; but with Adelaide the
case is otherwise. King Louis the Lazy, at some time between 978 and
981, married a lady “ab Aquitanis partibus” (R. Glaber, l. i. c. 3,
_Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, vol. x. p. 5), whose name was Adelaide according
to Richer (l. iii. c. 92), but whom the Chron. S. Albin. (as we have
already seen) and the Chron. S. Maxent. (a. 986, Marchegay, _Eglises_,
p. 382) call _Blanche_. After two years of marriage with the young
king she divorced him, or was divorced by him, and married _William
of Arles_ (Richer, l. iii. cc. 94, 95). This is clearly the lady of
whom we are in search. The dates fit exactly; William’s first wife,
Arsindis, is dead; he marries the divorced queen, probably about
982–983, and they have a daughter who in 1000 will be, as Constance
evidently was at her marriage, in the prime of girlish beauty. The
probability is strengthened by the fact that Adelaide’s first husband
actually was what R. Glaber (l. iii. c. 2, _Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, vol.
x. p. 27) mistakenly calls Constance’s father, count of the “First
Aquitaine,” or Toulouse; for Richer (l. iii. c. 92) says she was widow
of Raymond “duke of the Goths,” _i.e._ of Septimania or Toulouse:--by
the name of “Candida,” the Latin equivalent for “Blanche,” given to
the wife of William of Arles by Peter of Maillezais (l. i. c. 6, _Rer.
Gall. Scriptt._, vol. x. p. 182; see above, p. 173, note 5{386});--and
even by the blundering Angevin chronicle which makes Constance a
daughter of “Blanche” and “Lothar,” meaning of course Blanche the wife
of Lothar’s son, and her third husband. This same Chron. S. Albin.,
however, adds that the said “Blanche” was a daughter of Fulk the Good.
Nobody else seems to have known her origin, and this very “perplexed
and perplexing” chronicler is a doubtful authority to build upon; but
as there is no intrinsic impossibility in this part of his statement,
and as there evidently was in the early twelfth century a tradition
that Constance was akin to the house of Anjou, he may be right. From
the dates, one would think she was more likely to have been Greygown’s
daughter than his sister. If she was his sister, it must surely have
been by the half-blood. She might be a daughter of Fulk the Good by his
second marriage with the widow of Alan Barbetorte.
NOTE C.
THE PILGRIMAGES OF FULK NERRA.
Of all the writers, ancient and modern, who have treated of Fulk Nerra,
scarcely any two are wholly agreed as to the number and dates of his
journeys to Holy Land. Some make out four journeys; some three; one,
his own grandson, makes only two (Fulk Rechin, Marchegay, _Comtes_,
p. 377). It is, however, abundantly evident that there were at least
three--one before the foundation of Beaulieu (_Gesta Cons._, _ib._ p.
117; _Hist. S. Flor. Salm._, Marchegay, _Eglises_, p. 273); one after
the foundation of Beaulieu, and before that of S. Nicolas (_Hist. S.
Flor. Salm._ as above, p. 275); and one in returning from which he
died (see above, p. 168). It is admitted on all hands that his death
took place at Metz on June 21st, 1040; the date of the last pilgrimage
is therefore undisputed. That of the first is now fixed by a charter
quoted by M. Mabille (Marchegay, _Comtes_, Introd. p. lxxix) to 1003.
The points still remaining to be decided therefore are (1) the date of
the second journey; (2) the reality of the third.
The only real clue which our original authorities give us to the date
of the second journey is the statement of _Hist. S. Flor._ that it
was after the foundation of Beaulieu and before that of S. Nicolas
(Marchegay, _Eglises_, p. 275). Now S. Nicolas was founded in 1020
(_ibid._). Beaulieu was consecrated in 1012, but all we know of its
foundation is that it cannot have been before Fulk’s return from his
first journey in 1004. Modern writers have proposed three different
dates for this second pilgrimage. The _Art de vérifier les dates_ (vol.
xiii. p. 50) places it in 1028; M. d’Arbois de Jubainville (_Hist. des
Comtes de Champagne_, vol. i. p. 245) in 1019–20; M. Mabille (Introd.
_Comtes_, pp. lxxviii, lxxx) and M. de Salies (_Foulques-Nerra_, pref.
pp. xxxii, xxxiii, 143) in 1010–11. The first date, founded on a too
literal reading of Ademar of Chabanais (_Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, vol.
x. p. 164), is disposed of at once by the History of S. Florence.
The theory of M. de Jubainville has a good deal of plausibility, but
there is no documentary evidence for it. M. Mabille quotes in support
of his date, 1010, a charter of S. Maur-sur-Loire, setting forth how
Fulk, Hildegard and Geoffrey visited that abbey on the eve of Fulk’s
departure for Holy Land. This charter is in Marchegay’s _Archives
d’Anjou_, vol. i. p. 356; it has no date of any sort; and it does not
specify whether Fulk’s intended journey was his second or third. The
presence of Geoffrey proves it was not the first, but nothing more.
M. Mabille pronounces for the second, and dates it “vers 1010”; but
the editor of the _Archives_, M. Marchegay, says in a note “vers l’an
1030.” This charter therefore does not help at all. M. de Salies
(_Foulques-Nerra_, p. 143, and pref. _ib._ p. xxxii) appeals in support
of the same date, 1010, to the Chronicle of Tours, whose chronology
throughout the century is so wild as to have no weight at all, except
in strictly local matters; to the Chron. S. Petr. Senon., where I can
find nothing about the question at issue;--and above all, to a charter
in Baluze’s collections which says: “In natali S. Barnabæ Apostoli,
qui est in Idibus Junii, Rainaldus ... Andecavensium Episcopus rebus
terrenis exemptus est ... Ad sepulchrum Domini Hierosolymam comitante
Fulcone vicecomite tendebat, progressusque usque Ebredunum” ... died
and was there buried “anno ab Incarnatione Domini nostri Jesu Christi
1010.”
In the first place, this charter is suspicious as to date, for the
Chronn. S. Albin. (Marchegay, _Eglises_, p. 22), Vindoc. (_ib._ p.
164), S. Flor. Salm. (_ib._ p. 187), all date Bishop Rainald’s death
1005, and so, according to _Gallia Christiana_, vol. xiv. col. 558,
does the Obituary of S. Maurice; and the Chron. S. Serg. (Marchegay,
_Eglises_, p. 134) dates the consecration of his successor Hubert
1007. In the next place, what ground has M. de Salies for assuming
that “Fulco _vice_comes” is Fulk Nerra count of Anjou? The authors of
_Gallia Christiana_ quote this same charter, and their comment on it is
this: “Fulco sedenim comes” [it is _vice_comes in the charter] “quocum
Rainaldus Hierosolymitanum iter aggressus supra memoratur, Andegavensis
rei curam annum circa 1010, teste non uno, suscepit.” And as they have
been describing various dealings of the bishop with Fulk the Black long
before 1010, it is quite clear they take this Fulk to be some one else;
though one would like to see their witnesses and know who he really was.
There is however another clue which may suggest a different date for
this second pilgrimage. There are only two ways of making sense of the
account given in the _Gesta Cons._ (Marchegay, _Comtes_, pp. 88–91)
of “the wicked Landry’s” attack on Anjou and the war of Châteaudun.
In that account the first misdoings of Landry and his aggressions
against Sulpice and Archambald of Amboise are put in the reign of
Count Maurice; then Maurice dies and his son Fulk succeeds him, and
the raid upon Châteaudun follows as the first exploit of “juvenis haud
modici pectoris.” Now we have seen that Maurice was not Fulk’s father
but his younger brother, and never was count of Anjou at all. We must
therefore either regard the introduction of Maurice as a complete myth
and delusion, or interpret the tale as a distorted account of a regency
undertaken by Maurice during his brother’s absence. It is hard to see
why the chroniclers should have gratuitously dragged in Maurice without
any reason. Moreover the charter which establishes the date of Fulk’s
first pilgrimage informs us that he left his brother as regent of Anjou
on that occasion (Mabille, Introd. _Comtes_, p. lxxvi); it is therefore
quite possible that he may have done the same thing a second time. On
this theory, to ascertain the date of the war with Landry would be
equivalent to ascertaining the date of Fulk’s second pilgrimage.
If we take the _Gesta’s_ account of Landry just as it stands, Landry’s
attack on Anjou must have been made at the close of 1014 or in 1015;
for he was resisted (say they) by Sulpice, treasurer of S. Martin’s,
and his brother Archambald. Now Sulpice could not be treasurer of S.
Martin’s before 1014, as his predecessor Hervey died in that year
(Chron. Tur. Magn. ad ann., Salmon, _Chron. de Touraine_, p. 119;
Chronol. S. Mar. Autiss. ad ann., _Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, vol. x. p.
275); and on the other hand, Archambald must have died in 1015 or very
early in 1016, for the Chron. Tur. Magn. (as above)--which is likely
to be right in its dating of local matters, though hopelessly confused
in its general chronology--places in 1016 the building of Sulpice’s
stone tower at Amboise, which the _Gesta Cons._ (Marchegay, _Comtes_,
pp. 88, 89) tell us took place after his brother’s death; and the whole
affair was certainly over some time before July 1016, the date of the
battle of Pontlevoy. According to the _Gesta_ (as above, pp. 89, 90),
Landry makes another attack on Sulpice, after his brother’s death, just
when Maurice has also died and Fulk succeeded him [_i.e._ Fulk has come
home and resumed the reins of government]; and the raid on Châteaudun
follows immediately. Here comes in a new difficulty; Odo of Blois is
now brought in with a minute list of his possessions in Champagne,
which he only acquired in 1019 at earliest, so that if this part of
the story is also to be taken literally, Landry’s war with Sulpice
and Fulk’s raid on Châteaudun must be separated by nearly four years.
Maurice cannot possibly have been regent all that time, so we must
either give him up entirely, or conclude that some of the details are
wrong. And the one most likely to be wrong is certainly the description
of Odo, whom almost all the old writers call “Campanensis” long before
he had any right to the epithet. This is the view of M. d’Arbois de
Jubainville, who dates the whole affair of Landry and Châteaudun in
1012–1014 (_Comtes de Champagne_, vol. i. pp. 227, 228), but ignores
Maurice and puts Fulk’s second journey in 1019, without giving any
reason. It seems to me that this strange Angevin hallucination about
Count Maurice, so utterly inexplicable in any other way, becomes
intelligible if we believe that he was regent of Anjou in 1014–1015
during a second journey of his brother to Holy Land; a theory which,
if it has no positive evidence to support it, seems at least to have
none to contradict it, and is not rendered improbable by the general
condition of Angevin affairs at the time.
2. As to the third journey. The _Gesta Cons._ state that Fulk, on
one of his pilgrimages, went in company with Robert the Devil. Now
as Robert died at Nikaia in July 1035 Fulk cannot have met him on
either of his first two journeys, nor on his last; therefore, if this
incident be true, we must insert another pilgrimage in 1034–1035.
The story appears only in the _Gesta Cons._ and is therefore open to
suspicion, as the whole account of Fulk’s travels there given is a
ludicrous tissue of anachronisms (Marchegay, _Comtes_, pp. 100–103).
Fulk first goes to Rome and promises to deliver Pope Sergius IV. (who
reigned 1009–1012) from Crescentius (who was killed in 997); then he
goes to Constantinople, and thence in company with Robert to Jerusalem;
Robert dies on the way home (1035) and Fulk on his return founds
Beaulieu Abbey (consecrated 1012.) The monk has confounded at least
two journeys, together with other things which had nothing to do with
either.
The idea of a journey intermediate between the second and the last is
however supported by the story of R. Diceto (Stubbs, vol. i. p. 164;
Marchegay, _Comtes_, p. 329) that Geoffrey Martel having been left
regent while his father was on pilgrimage kept him out on his return.
Now at the time of Fulk’s first pilgrimage Geoffrey was not born; at
the time of the second he was a mere child; and from the last Fulk
came home only in his coffin. Consequently this story implies another
journey; and we seem to get its date at last on no less authority than
that of Fulk’s own hand. The charter in _Epitome S. Nicolai_ (quoted
in Mabillon, _Ann. Bened._, vol. iv. p. 386), after relating Fulk’s
application to Abbot Walter of S. Aubin’s to find him an abbot for
S. Nicolas, and the consequent appointment of Hilduin in 1033, ends
thus: “Res autem præscriptas a domno Beringario atque domno Reginaldo
scribere jussi, et _priusquam ad Jerusalem ultimâ vice perrexissem_
manu meâ roboravi.” The Chron. S. Albin. says Walter was not abbot till
1036 (Marchegay, _Eglises_, p. 23; the extract in note 3, _ibid._,
makes it 1038), and if so the date of Hilduin’s consecration is wrong.
But the authors of _Gallia Christiana_ think it more likely that the
abbot’s name is wrong and the date right. Now by “ultimâ vice” Fulk
must have meant “the journey whence I last returned.” Before starting
for that of 1040 he might hope, but he could not know, that it would be
his last. So here we have, apparently, his own authority for a third
pilgrimage soon after Hilduin’s consecration--_i.e._ in 1034 or 1035.
The worst stumbling-block, however, in the way of our chronology
of Fulk’s last years is William of Malmesbury. He gives a much
fuller account than any one else of Geoffrey’s rebellion and Fulk’s
last pilgrimage, and his account, taken alone, is so thoroughly
self-consistent and reasonable, and withal so graphic, that it is hard
not to be carried away by it. But it utterly contradicts the date which
the sources above examined assign to the third journey, as well as that
which all other authorities agree in assigning to the last, and also
the universally-received account of Fulk’s death. William (l. iii. c.
235; Hardy, pp. 401, 402) says nothing about Geoffrey having rebelled
during his father’s absence. He tells us that Fulk in his last years
ceded his county to his son; that Geoffrey misconducted himself, and
was brought to submission (here comes in the story of the saddle); that
Fulk in the same year went out to Palestine (here follows the story of
the penance); that he came quietly home, and died a few years after.
This account of William’s is entitled to very much more respectful
handling than those of the _Gesta Consulum_ and Ralf de Diceto.
William’s statements about the counts of Anjou are of special value,
because they are thoroughly independent; where they come from is a
mystery, but they certainly come from some source perfectly distinct
from those known to us through the Angevin writers. Moreover William
shews a wonderfully accurate appreciation of the Angevins’ characters
and a strong liking for them--above all for Fulk Nerra, whom he seems
to have taken special pains to paint in the most striking colours. His
version therefore is not to be lightly treated; nevertheless it seems
clear that he is not altogether correct. His omitting all mention of
the pilgrimage which immediately preceded Geoffrey’s rebellion is no
proof of its non-reality. His account of the last journey of all is
a graver matter. According to him, it must have taken place about
1036–1037, and Fulk died, not at Metz, but at home. There is only one
other writer who countenances this version, and that is the chronicler
of S. Maxentius (a. 1040, Marchegay, _Eglises_, p. 393), who says that
Fulk died in his own abbey of S. Nicolas at Angers. But this very same
chronicle gives also an alternative statement--the usual one of the
death on pilgrimage which is given by the _Gesta_, R. Diceto and Fulk
Rechin. Against either of the two former witnesses singly William’s
solitary word might stand, but not against them with Fulk Rechin to
support them. The pilgrimages therefore stand thus: 1. in 1003; 2. in
1014–1015; 3. in 1034–1035; 4. in 1040.
NOTE D.
GEOFFREY MARTEL AND POITOU.
The whole story of Geoffrey Martel’s doings in Poitou--his wars and
his marriage--is involved in the greatest perplexity. There is no lack
of information, but it is a mass of contradictions. The only writer
who professes to account for the origin of the war is the author of
the _Gesta Cons._ (Marchegay, _Comtes_, p. 126), and his story, so
far as it can apply to anything at all, certainly applies to the
battle of Chef-Boutonne between Geoffrey the Bearded and William VII.
(Guy-Geoffrey) in 1062. All other authorities are agreed that the
battle was fought at S. Jouin-de-Marne, or Montcontour, on September
20, 1033, that William was captured and kept in prison three years,
and that he died immediately after his release. As to the marriage of
Geoffrey and Agnes, there is a question whether it took place before
William’s capture or immediately after his death.
1. The Chronn. S. Albin. and S. Serg., a. 1032 (Marchegay, _Eglises_,
pp. 23, 135) say positively that Geoffrey and Agnes were married on
January 1 in that year. The Chron. S. Michael. in Per. Maris ad ann.
also gives the date 1032 (_Rer. Gall. Scriptt._, vol. x. p. 176).
2. Will. Poitiers and Will. Malm. say they married after William’s
death. “Porro ipsius defuncti ... novercam ... thoro suo [Gaufridus]
sociavit.” Will. Poitiers (Duchesne, _Hist. Norm. Scriptt._), p.
182. “Tunc Martellus, ne quid deesset impudentiæ, novercam defuncti
matrimonio sibi copulavit.” Will. Malm. _Gesta Reg._, l. iii. c. 231
(Hardy, p. 395).
These five are the only writers who directly mention the marriage,
except the Chron. S. Maxent. (Marchegay, _Eglises_, p. 392), which
says under date 1037: “Per hæc tempora Gaufredus Martellus duxerat
uxorem supradictam,” etc. “Per hæc tempora” with the chronicler of S.
Maxentius is a phrase so frequent and so elastic that this passage
cannot be used to support either of the above dates. There are
therefore three witnesses for 1032, and two for 1036. The chroniclers
of S. Aubin and S. Sergius are both Angevin witnesses, and both nearly
contemporary; but the S. Sergian writer’s authority is damaged by his
having confused the whole story, for he dates the capture of the duke
of Aquitaine in 1028, thus evidently mistaking Agnes’s step-son for her
husband. William of Poitiers is in some sense a Poitevin witness, and
is also nearly contemporary. William of Malmesbury is further from the
source, and in this passage seems to have been chiefly following his
Poitevin namesake, but his whole treatment of the Angevin counts shews
such clear signs of special study and understanding that he is entitled
to be regarded as in some degree an independent authority.
That the marriage was not later than 1036 is certain from several
charters of that year, in which Agnes appears as Geoffrey’s wife
(Marchegay, _Archives d’Anjou_, vol. i. pp. 377, 402). But the _Gesta
Cons._ (Marchegay, _Comtes_, pp. 131, 132) tell a story of Geoffrey
having founded his abbey at Vendôme in consequence of a shower of stars
which he saw when standing at his palace window with “his wife, Agnes
by name.” As the first abbot of Holy Trinity at Vendôme was appointed
in 1033 (Mabillon, _Ann. Bened._, vol. iv. p. 379), if this story is
true, Agnes must have been married to Geoffrey in 1032. But unluckily,
the foundation-charter of the abbey is missing. The only documentary
evidence connected with the question consists of two charters. One of
these is printed in Besly, _Comtes de Poitou, preuves_, p. 304. It has
no date, and simply conveys some lands for the site of the abbey to
Count Geoffrey and Agnes his wife. Of course if this is the deed of
sale for the land on which the original buildings were begun in 1032,
it settles the question as to the previous marriage; but as the abbey
was not consecrated till 1040, it is quite possible that its building
was a slow process, and more ground was required as it proceeded. The
endowment-charter (dated 1040, Mabillon, _Ann. Bened._, vol. iv. p.
732) says: “Ego Goffredus comes et uxor mea Agnes ... monasterium ...
_a novo_ fundaremus.” Does the solution lie in those words, “a novo”?
Did Geoffrey found his abbey alone in 1032; stop work for a while on
account of the Poitevin war and his quarrel with his father; and then,
having married Agnes and acquired means by her step-son’s ransom, set
to work in earnest conjointly with her and found the abbey anew? It
is hard to throw over the distinct statements of two such writers as
William of Poitiers and William of Malmesbury for the sake of three
not very accurate chronicles and a late twelfth century romancer,
doubtfully supported by a very vague charter.
As to the crime of the marriage, it is only the Angevin chroniclers who
are so shocked at it. The S. Sergian writer’s mistake between Agnes’s
first husband and her step-son might account for his horror, but not
for the word he uses; and the _Hist. S. Flor. Salm._ (Marchegay,
_Eglises_, p. 282) which uses the same, says distinctly that her
husband was dead. The two Williams seem to see nothing worse in it than
some “impudence” in the count of Vendôme daring to take a wife of such
high birth and position. The Chron. S. Maxent. makes no remark on
the subject; the chronicler of S. Sergius seems to have thought that
Geoffrey’s kinship was not with Agnes herself, but with her former
husband, for he says that Geoffrey married her “quæ fuerat consobrini
sui Willelmi ... uxor.” The canon law forbade marriages within the
seventh degree of kindred; and as the pedigrees of none of the three
persons concerned in this case can be traced back with certainty in all
their branches up to the seventh generation, it is quite impossible to
say what consanguinity there may or may not have been among them. The
strong language of the Angevin chroniclers, however, seems to indicate
no obscure and remote connexion, but a close and obvious one. There are
two possibilities which present themselves at once. 1. We do not know
at all who Geoffrey’s mother Hildegard was. 2. We are not perfectly
sure who his grandmother Adela was. Hildegard may have been a daughter
of Poitou, in which case her son would be akin to William; or a
daughter of Burgundy, and then he would be akin to Agnes. Or again, if
Adela of Chalon really was daughter to Robert of Troyes, and if she was
also really Geoffrey’s grandmother, then William, Agnes and Geoffrey
would be all cousins to each other--Agnes and William in the fifth
degree, Geoffrey and William in the fourth, Geoffrey and Agnes in the
third. The pedigree stands as follows:--
_Herbert of Vermandois._
|
+------------------+------------------+
| |
Liutgard = Theobald the Trickster Robert of Troyes
| |
+----------+ +--------+
| (1) | (2)
Emma = William Fierabras Lambert = _Adela_ = Geoffrey Greygown
| of Autun | |
| +----+ +--------+
| | |
_William the Great_, Gerberga = Adalbert of Fulk Nerra
3d from Herbert. | Lombardy |
+-------+ |
| |
Otto William. _Geoffrey Martel_,
| 4th from Herbert,
_Agnes_, 2d from Adela.
5th from Herbert,
3d from Adela.
Strictly speaking, this would make both Agnes’s marriages wrong;
but the kindred in the case of the second would be much closer, and
aggravated by that between Geoffrey and William; and a dispensation
might very probably have been obtained for the first marriage, while
for the second it is plain that none was even sought.
It is just possible that there was also a spiritual affinity. Agnes’s
younger son bore the two names of Guy and Geoffrey; it is not clear
which was his baptismal name; but the idea suggests itself that it may
have been Geoffrey, and that he may have been godson to the Hammer of
Anjou. The case would then be something like that of Robert and Bertha.