Transcriber’s Note: As a result of editorial shortcomings in the
original, some reference letters in the text don’t have matching entries
in the reference-lists, and vice versa.
THE HISTORIANS’ HISTORY OF THE WORLD
[Illustration: MARTIN]
THE HISTORIANS’
HISTORY
OF THE WORLD
A comprehensive narrative of the rise and development of nations
as recorded by over two thousand of the great writers of all ages:
edited, with the assistance of a distinguished board of advisers
and contributors, by
HENRY SMITH WILLIAMS, LL.D.
[Illustration]
IN TWENTY-FIVE VOLUMES
VOLUME XI--FRANCE, 843-1715
The Outlook Company
New York
The History Association
London
1905
COPYRIGHT, 1904,
BY HENRY SMITH WILLIAMS.
_All rights reserved._
Press of J. J. Little & Co.
New York, U. S. A.
Contributors, and Editorial Revisers.
Prof. Adolf Erman, University of Berlin.
Prof. Joseph Halévy, College of France.
Prof. Thomas K. Cheyne, Oxford University.
Prof. Andrew C. McLaughlin, University of Michigan.
Prof. David H. Müller, University of Vienna.
Prof. Alfred Rambaud, University of Paris.
Capt. F. Brinkley, Tokio.
Prof. Eduard Meyer, University of Berlin.
Dr. James T. Shotwell, Columbia University.
Prof. Theodor Nöldeke, University of Strasburg.
Prof. Albert B. Hart, Harvard University.
Dr. Paul Brönnle, Royal Asiatic Society.
Dr. James Gairdner, C.B., London.
Prof. Ulrich von Wilamowitz Möllendorff, University of Berlin.
Prof. H. Marczali, University of Budapest.
Dr. G. W. Botsford, Columbia University.
Prof. Julius Wellhausen, University of Göttingen.
Prof. Franz R. von Krones, University of Graz.
Prof. Wilhelm Soltau, Zabern University.
Prof. R. W. Rogers, Drew Theological Seminary.
Prof. A. Vambéry, University of Budapest.
Prof. Otto Hirschfeld, University of Berlin.
Dr. Frederick Robertson Jones, Bryn Mawr College.
Baron Bernardo di San Severino Quaranta, London.
Dr. John P. Peters, New York.
Prof. Adolph Harnack, University of Berlin.
Dr. S. Rappoport, School of Oriental Languages, Paris.
Prof. Hermann Diels, University of Berlin.
Prof. C. W. C. Oman, Oxford University.
Prof. W. L. Fleming, University of West Virginia.
Prof. I. Goldziher, University of Vienna.
Prof. R. Koser, University of Berlin.
CONTENTS
VOLUME XI
FRANCE
PAGE
CHAPTER I
THE LATER CARLOVINGIANS (843-987 A.D.) 1
Charles the Bald, 1. The Northmen, 2. Edict of Mersen, 3. The
Northmen’s allies, 4. Beginning of the great fiefs, 5. Edicts
of Pistes and Quierzy, 6. Louis II to Carloman, 7. Charles the
Fat, king and emperor, 8. The feudal régime, 10. The church,
13. Capetians and Carlovingians, 14. The last Carlovingians, 17.
CHAPTER II
THE FOUNDATION OF THE CAPETIAN DYNASTY (987-1180 A.D.) 22
Henry I, 24. Deeds of the great barons, 26. Philip I, 27. Louis
the Fat and Louis the Young, 30. Battle of Brenneville, 31. The
abbot Suger, 34. Emancipatory movements after the Crusades,
38. The communes, 38. Philosophy and thought; Abelard and St.
Bernard, 40. Abelard and the university, 44. The position of
woman, 45.
CHAPTER III
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ABSOLUTE MONARCHY (1180-1270 A.D.) 47
Prince Arthur of Brittany, 49. The Albigensian Crusade, 51.
League against Philip Augustus, 54. The battle of Bouvines,
54. Last years and influence of Philip Augustus, 56. Louis
VIII, 56. Louis IX, called St. Louis, 58. First Crusade of St.
Louis, 60. Last years and death of St. Louis, 61. Hallam’s
estimate of St. Louis, 63. Piety and christianity of St. Louis,
64. Progress of the monarchy under St. Louis, 67. Aspects of
thirteenth-century civilisation, 71.
CHAPTER IV
PHILIP III TO THE HOUSE OF VALOIS (1270-1328 A.D.) 74
Philip (III) the Bold, 74. Philip (IV) the Fair, 75. New war
with Flanders, 76. The quarrel between Philip and Boniface
VIII, 77. Sentence of the Templars, 83. Philip’s fiscal policy,
84. Execution of Jacques de Molay, 85. Political progress in
Philip’s reign, 87. Louis (X) the Quarrelsome, 89. Philip
(V) the Tall, 91. Charles (IV) the Fair, 92. Aspects of
civilisation, 93. The great fairs, 95.
CHAPTER V
THE OPENING OF THE HUNDRED YEARS’ WAR (1328-1350 A.D.) 98
Edward III claims the throne of France, 103. The battle
of Sluys or L’Écluse, 104. The war in Brittany, 107. Joan
de Montfort defends Hennebon, 108. Philip’s financial
difficulties, 110. Renewal of the war with England, 111. Edward
returns to France, 112. Froissart’s description of Crécy, 114.
Michelet on the results of Crécy, 118. The siege of Calais,
119. Suspension of the war, 121. Territorial acquisition, 122.
CHAPTER VI
JOHN THE GOOD AND CHARLES THE WISE (1350-1380 A.D.) 124
Trouble with Charles of Navarre, 126. The states-general of
1355, 128. The battle of Poitiers, 130. The states-general of
1356-1357, 132. The dauphin repudiates the _Grande Ordonnance_,
134. The Jacquerie, 135. Death of Marcel, 137. Peace
negotiations; Edward in France, 138. The story of Le Grand
Ferré, 139. The Treaty of Bretigny, 141. The last years of King
John, 142. Charles the Wise, 143. Early exploits of Bertrand du
Guesclin, 144. End of the Breton War; battle of Auray, 146. Du
Guesclin leads the free companies into Castile, 147. The Peace
of Bretigny is broken, 149. The English invasion, 150. Last
years of Charles V and of Du Guesclin, 152.
CHAPTER VII
THE BETRAYAL OF THE KINGDOM (1380-1422 A.D.) 155
War in Flanders; battle of Roosebeke, 156. Insurrections in
Paris and Rouen, 157. The King assumes the rule, 159. Hatred
of the nobles for the ministry, 162. The king goes mad: the
princes return to power, 163. Domestic troubles and scandals,
165. Civil war, 167. Henry V invades France; a French view,
169. Michelet’s account of the battle of Agincourt, 170.
Massacre of the Armagnacs in Paris, 174. The duke of Burgundy
master of Paris, 175. Siege of Rouen, 176. Henry and John the
Fearless, 177. The Treaty of Troyes, 178. Henry’s struggle with
the dauphin, 180. Woes of the people; the _Danse Macabre_, 182.
The University of Paris and the council of Constance, 184.
CHAPTER VIII
THE RESCUE OF THE REALM (1422-1431 A.D.) 187
Monstrelet describes the siege of Montargis, 189. The siege
of Orleans, 190. The “battle of the Herrings,” 191. The Maid
of Orleans (La Pucelle), 194. Joan at the court, 196. The
deliverance of Orleans, 198. Joan of Arc leads the king to
Rheims, 200. Joan defeated at Paris, 203. Capture of Joan of
Arc, 204. Trial of Joan of Arc, 206. The Twelve Articles,
207. The findings of the faculty, 211. The sentence and its
execution, 213. The rehabilitation of Joan of Arc, 218. The
British estimate of Joan’s services, 219.
CHAPTER IX
“THE CONVALESCENCE OF FRANCE” (1431-1461 A.D.) 220
The Treaty of Arras, 222. The French return to Paris, 224. The
Pragmatic Sanction, 225. The atrocious crimes of the barons,
226. Gilles de Retz, 226. Charles begins the work of reform,
228. Agnes Sorel; the Praguerie, 230. Effective progress
against England, 233. Expedition to Switzerland and Lorraine,
235. The battle of Sankt Jakob, 236. Military and financial
reforms, 236. The close of the Hundred Years’ War, 238. The
battle of Castillon, 239. The last years of Charles VII, 242.
Quarrels with Burgundy and with the dauphin, 242. Death of
Charles VII; the influence of his reign, 244.
CHAPTER X
THE REIGN OF LOUIS XI: THE TRIUMPH OF THE CROWN (1461-1483 A.D.) 247
Relations with the Church, 249. The war of the Public Weal,
250. The battle of Montlhéry and the Treaty of Conflans, 250.
Political intrigues, 253. The struggle with Charles the Bold,
254. Comines describes the visit to Péronne, 255. The storming
of Liège, 259. The return of Louis to France, 262. Edward IV
of England aids Charles the Bold, 263. Gold and diplomacy make
Louis the victor, 265. Last deeds of Charles the Bold, 266.
Mary of Burgundy, 268. War with Maximilian, 270. Last years
and death of Louis, 272. Martin’s estimate of Louis XI, 274.
Louis’ influence on civilisation, 275. Establishment of posts
in France, 275.
CHAPTER XI
CHARLES VIII AND LOUIS XII--THE INVASION OF ITALY (1483-1515 A.D.) 278
Charles VIII, 278. The rule of Anne de Beaujeu, 279. The
struggle with the duke of Orleans, 284. Charles VIII in Italy,
288. Death of Charles VIII, 293. Louis XII, “the father of his
people,” 293. Marriage with Anne of Brittany, 295. Foreign
affairs, 297. Internal affairs, 302. Last years of Louis XII,
304.
CHAPTER XII
IMPERIAL STRUGGLES OF FRANCIS I AND HENRY II (1515-1559 A.D.) 306
Critical survey of Francis I and his period, 306. A brilliant
campaign in Italy, 308. The Concordat, 309. Strife between
Francis I and Charles V, 310. Meeting of Henry VIII and
Francis I on the Field of the Cloth of Gold, 311. Francis I
and Charles V at war, 313. Defection of the duke de Bourbon,
314. A disastrous campaign in Italy; the battle of Pavia, 316.
Francis captive in Spain; the Treaty of Madrid, 320. Further
dissensions and the “Ladies’ Peace,” 322. Internal affairs,
325. The French Renaissance, 328. War again between Francis I
and Charles V, 332. Last years and death of Francis I, 335.
Gaillard’s estimate of Francis I, 336. Character and policy of
Henry II, 337. Court favourites, 338. Religious persecutions
and royal marriages, 339. War with Charles V and his successor,
342. The siege of Metz, 343. Minor engagements; the abdication
of Charles V, 346. Battle and defence of St. Quentin, 347. The
retaking of Calais, 347. The Treaty of Câteau-Cambrésis, 348.
The last days of Henry II, 349.
CHAPTER XIII
CATHERINE DE MEDICI AND THE RELIGIOUS WARS (1559-1589 A.D.) 351
Francis II, 352. Religious parties, 353. Death of Francis II,
355. The accession of Charles IX, 356. Civil war, 357. The
Edict of Amboise and its results, 359. The Second Religious
War, 361. The Third Religious War, 362. Admiral Coligny; the
Peace of St. Germain, 364. A troubled peace; the marriage of
Henry of Navarre, 365. The attack on Coligny, 368. Preparing
for the massacre, 370. The Massacre of St. Bartholomew, 374.
Effects of the massacre, 376. Last years, death, and character
of Charles IX, 378. The accession of Henry III, 380. Political
conditions, 381. The Holy League, 383. The war of the Three
Henrys, 384. The battle of Coutras, 386. The Day of the
Barricades and the Treaty of Union, 388. The meeting of the
states-general, 388. The assassination of Henry, duke of Guise,
390. Death of Catherine de Medici, 392. The siege of Paris and
the death of Henry III, 392.
CHAPTER XIV
HENRY OF NAVARRE, FIRST OF THE BOURBONS (1589-1610 A.D.) 395
Henry’s struggle for the crown, 395. The battle of Ivry, 397.
The duke of Parma and the Spaniards, 400. Henry IV and the
league, 401. Opposition of the pope and Philip II, 404. The
Edict of Nantes, 405. Reorganisation of France with the aid
of Sully, 407. Amours and second marriage of Henry IV, 409.
Intrigues of De Biron, 412. The last years of Henry’s reign,
414. Grand design of Henry IV; his death, 415. Character and
policy of Henry IV, 417. Martin’s estimate of Henry IV, 418.
Stephen’s characterisation of Henry IV and his times, 419.
CHAPTER XV
THE LITERARY PROGRESS OF FRANCE IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY 422
Calvin, 426. Montaigne, 427.
CHAPTER XVI
THE EARLY YEARS OF LOUIS XIII AND THE RISE OF RICHELIEU
(1610-1628 A.D.) 432
The regency of Marie de Medici, 432. Disgrace of Sully,
434. First revolt of the lords, 434. Last assembly of the
states-general, 436. Majority of Louis XIII; marriage with
Anne of Austria, 438. Richelieu appears, 438. Assassination of
Marshal d’Ancre, 441. The ministry of Luynes, 443. The Huguenot
uprising; the siege of Montauban, 445. Death of Luynes,
448. Richelieu’s return to the ministry, 449. Conspiracy of
the court against Richelieu, 450. The siege of La Rochelle
described by Seignobos, 452.
CHAPTER XVII
THE DICTATORSHIP OF RICHELIEU (1629-1643 A.D.) 457
Richelieu and the king, 458. Richelieu enters the European
arena, 460. Enmity of Marie de’ Medici against Richelieu, 462.
The Day of Dupes, 462. Exile of Marie de’ Medici, 464. The
revolt of Gaston and the execution of Montmorency, 465. Foreign
affairs, 466. Wars with Austria, 468. Attempt to assassinate
the cardinal, 469. Character of Louis, 470. Revolt of the count
de Soissons, 472. Caillet’s estimate of the administration
of Richelieu, 472. The church and the state under Richelieu,
475. The conspiracy of Cinq-Mars, 478. Recovery and triumph
of Richelieu, 480. The last days of Richelieu, 482. Stephen’s
estimate of Louis XIII and of Richelieu, 484.
CHAPTER XVIII
THE SUPREMACY OF MAZARIN (1643-1661 A.D.) 487
Battle of Rocroi, 489. The _importants_, 491. The education of
the young king, 493. Military glory, 494. Treaty of Westphalia,
496. Mazarin’s domestic policy, 497. First insurrection of the
Fronde, 499. The Day of the Barricades, 500. Second act of the
Fronde; arrest of Condé, 505. Resistance of Bordeaux, 506.
Disgrace and exile of Mazarin, 507. Condé in power, 508. Return
of Mazarin, 509. The last phase of the Fronde, 511. Battle of
St. Antoine, 513. Second exile of Mazarin, 513. Mazarin again
in power, 515. War with Spain continues, 516. Alliance with
Cromwell; war in Flanders, 517. The Treaty of the Pyrenees,
520. Last years and death of Mazarin, 522.
CHAPTER XIX
“_L’ÉTAT, C’EST MOI_” (1661-1715 A.D.) 525
The ministers, 528. The man with the Iron Mask, 531. The
ministry of Colbert, 531. Reorganisation of the finances, 532.
Michelet’s estimate of Colbert, 535. Louvois, 538. Vauban,
539. Séguier, legislative works, 540. Lionne, foreign affairs
and diplomacy, 541. Triumph of the absolute monarchy, 541.
Submission of Parliament, 542. Submission of the nobility,
543. The third estate, 543. Louis XIV and the church, 544.
The Protestants, 545. Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, 546.
The Jansenists, 548. The police, 549. The court of the grand
monarch, 550. Mademoiselle de la Vallière, 551. Madame de
Montespan, 555. Poisoning: the Brinvilliers case, 556. The
retirement of Montespan, 558. Madame de Maintenon, 559. Effect
of Louis XIV’s policy on the nation, 561.
CHAPTER XX
LOUIS XIV, SPAIN, AND HOLLAND (1661-1679 A.D.) 563
The war of the Queen’s Rights, 566. The Triple Alliance, 569.
Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle, 570. Projects against Holland, 571.
The Treaty of Dover; death of Madame, 572. Treaties with other
powers, 573. The war with Holland begins, 574. The passage of
the Rhine, 575. The French in Holland and Germany, 576. The
new coalition against France, 577. Defection of England and
the imperial allies, 581. Operations in Franche-Comté; Turenne
in Alsace, 581. Condé in the Netherlands, 584. Last campaigns
of Turenne and Condé, 584. Events of 1676; affairs in Sicily,
585. Campaign of 1677; negotiations for peace, 587. Louis XIV
settles with the coalition, 589.
CHAPTER XXI
THE HEIGHT AND DECLINE OF THE BOURBON MONARCHY (1679-1715 A.D.) 592
Acquisition of frontier places, 593. Preparations for a second
coalition, 596. Relations with Turks and Berbers, 598. Second
coalition; the league of Augsburg, 599. The Revolution in
England, 600. War of the league of Augsburg, 601. Attempts to
restore James II, 601. Devastation of the Palatinate, 603. The
war in Savoy and Piedmont, 604. The war in the Netherlands,
604. Steenkerke and Neerwinden, 605. Last years of the war;
treaty with Savoy, 606. The Treaty of Ryswick, 608. Louis
XIV and the Polish throne, 609. The question of the Spanish
succession, 610. Accession of the Bourbons in Spain, 612.
The Grand Alliance or third coalition against France, 613.
War of the Spanish Succession; the French victories, 615.
The _camisards_, 617. War of the Spanish Succession; French
reverses, 617. The battle of Blenheim, 618. The battle of
Ramillies, 620. The battle of Malplaquet, 624. The battle of
Denain, 626. Treaties of Utrecht and Rastatt, 627. Death of
Louis XIV, 629.
CHAPTER XXII
THE AGE OF LOUIS XIV: ASPECTS OF ITS CIVILISATION (1610-1715 A.D.) 632
Foundation of the French Academy, 632. The patronage system,
633. Literary characteristics, 635. Science, 637. Poetry:
Boileau, 640. Oratory: Bossuet, 641. The third period, 642.
The drama; tragedy, 643. Corneille, 643. Racine, 644. Comedy,
645. Architecture, 647. Sculpture and painting, 648. Music and
the opera, 650. Rapid decline of the age of Louis XIV, 651. A
French view of the effect of the age, 651.
BRIEF REFERENCE-LIST OF AUTHORITIES BY CHAPTERS 653
PART XVI
THE HISTORY OF FRANCE
BASED CHIEFLY UPON THE FOLLOWING AUTHORITIES
A. ALISON, ALEXIS BELLOC, L. P. E. BIGNON, LOUIS BLANC, JULES CAILLET,
J. B. R. CAPEFIGUE, THOMAS CARLYLE, FRANÇOIS R. CHÂTEAUBRIAND,
ADOLPHE CHÉRUEL, JOHN WILSON CROKER, E. E. CROWE, C. DARESTE
DE LA CHAVANNE, BRUGIÈRE DE BARANTE, A. GRANIER DE CASSAGNAC,
PHILIP DE COMMINES, JURIEN DE LA GRAVIÈRE, LE COMTE DE
TOCQUEVILLE, JEHAN DE VAURIN, VICTOR DURUY, GABRIEL
HENRI GAILLARD, FRANÇOIS GUIZOT, C. P. M.
HAAS, ERNEST HAMEL, LUDWIG HÄUSSER, KARL HILLEBRAND, G. W. KITCHIN,
LACRETELLE, A. LAMARTINE, T. LAVALLÉE, P. E. LEVASSEUR, J.
MALLET-DUPAN, HENRI MARTIN, JULES MICHELET, F. A. MIGNET,
MONSTRELET, C. PELLETAN, VICTOR PIERRE, JULES QUICHERAT,
ALFRED RAMBAUD, J. E. ROBINET, DUC DE SAINT-SIMON,
J. R. SEELEY, C. SEIGNOBOS, J. C. S. DE SISMONDI,
ALBERT SOREL, H. M. STEPHENS, H. VON SYBEL,
H. TAINE, M. TERNAUX, A. THIERS,
F. AROUET DE VOLTAIRE
TOGETHER WITH AN ESSAY IN FOUR PARTS
THE POLITICAL AND SOCIAL EVOLUTION OF FRANCE
BY
ALFRED RAMBAUD
WITH ADDITIONAL CITATIONS FROM
J. AMBERT, MARQUIS D’ARGENSON, A. ARNETH AND M. A. GEFFROY, JULES BARNI,
E. BERTIN, PAUL BONDOIS, A. BOUGÉART, M. N. BOUILLET, E. BOUTARIC,
H. T. BUCKLE, T. BURETTE. F. CANONGE, HIPPOLYTE CASTILLE, H.
CARNOT, SYMPHORIEN CHAMPIER, CHRONIQUE DE ST. DENIS,
CONTINUATOR OF GUILLAUME DE NANGIS, OLIVIER
D’ORMESSON, C. A. DAUBAN, A. DE BEAUCHAMP,
G. AND M. DU BELLAY, MAXIMILIAN DE
BÉTHUNE, DUC DE SULLY, ÉMILE DE
BONNECHOSE, MARQUIS DE CHAMBRAY, MARQUIS DE FERRIÈRES, PIERRE DE
L’ESTOILE, CHARLES MERCIER DE LACOMBE, BERNARD DE LACOMBE,
FRANÇOIS DE LANOUE, LA BARONNE DE STAËL, DU FRESNE
DE BEAUCOURT, H. FORNERON, C. A. FYFFE, BERNARD
GERMAIN, ABBÉ GIRARD, HENRI GIRARD, SAINT-MARC
GIRARDIN, HENRY HALLAM, HERMANN HETTNER,
VICTOR HUGO, W. H. JERVIS, J. B. F.
KOCH, H. LEBER, U. LEGEAY, G. H.
LEWES, L. DE LOMÉNIE,
O. DE LA MARCHE, SIR THOMAS ERSKINE MAY, MARQUIS OF NORMANBY, E. DE
MÉZERAY, COUNT VON MOLTKE, WILHELM MÜLLER, DAVID MÜLLER, W. F. B.
NAPIER, J. B. PAQUIER, JULIA PARDOE, A. RASTOUL, P. ROBIQUET,
C. ROUSSET, ROSSEEUW ST. HILAIRE, D. SAUVAGE, MAURICE DE
SAXE, EDMOND SCHÉRER, F. C. SCHLOSSER, SIR WALTER
SCOTT, A. SORBIN, J. L. SOULAVIE, SAINT
RENE-TAILLANDIER, EUGÈNE TÉNOT, J. E.
TYLER, MAURICE WAHL, JAMES WHITE,
E. F. WIMPFFEN, HENRY SMITH
WILLIAMS, R. T. WILSON
COPYRIGHT, 1904,
BY HENRY SMITH WILLIAMS.
_All rights reserved._
[Illustration]
CHAPTER I. THE LATER CARLOVINGIANS
CHARLES THE BALD (843-877 A.D.)
[Sidenote: [843-877 A.D.]]
Up to the present we have told the history of the Gauls, the
Gallo-Romans, and the Franks; with the Treaty of Verdun we begin the
history of the French people. There now existed in France, except
the Northmen, who already were beginning to appear on its coast and
who established themselves there only in small numbers, all the
races of which her people are formed, and all the elements, Celtic,
Roman, Christian, and Germanic, whose combination goes to make up her
civilisation. The medley is even already too sufficiently advanced
for one to distinguish any longer the Gallo-Roman from the Frank, the
civilised man from the barbarian. All have the same customs and almost
all the same tongue. The French idiom showed itself officially in the
Treaty of Verdun. Law ceases to be personal and becomes local; national
custom replaces the Roman or barbaric codes; there are scarcely any
slaves; there are but few free men--we shall soon see nothing but serfs
and lords.
But this France has no longer the extent of Gaul; the Treaty of Verdun
has confined it to the Schelde and the Maas, the Saône and the Rhone, and
the population within these narrow limits finds them still too broad;
they wish to live apart, for themselves alone, and not to sustain a vast
dominion which is crushing them and which they do not understand.
The son of Judith and Louis le Débonnaire, Charles the Bald, king of
France since 840, was nothing but an ambitious man of the people.
Length of days was generously bestowed upon him, as it had been with
Charlemagne, for he reigned thirty-seven years--but he knew how to do
nothing with his life. Difficulties, it is true, were great. The same
year when the destinies of the empire were moulded at Fontenailles,
Asnar, count of Jaca, helped himself to the sovereignty of Navarre, and
the Northmen burned Rouen--in 843 they pillaged Nantes, Saintes, and
Bordeaux. At the same time the Aquitanians rose up for a national king.
The Bretons had found theirs in Noménoë, whom Charles had excommunicated
by the bishops, but who defeated his lieutenants; and Septimania had its
chief in Bernhard. The Saracens and the Greek pirates ravaged the south
while the Northmen devastated the north and the west. And as if to fill
the cup of misfortune of which this age was the bearer, the Hungarians,
successors of the Huns and Avars, were putting in an appearance in the
east.
THE NORTHMEN
[Sidenote: [843 A.D.]]
These dreaded pirates, the Northmen, were the men whom hunger, thirst for
pillage, and love of adventure drove each year from the sterile regions
of Norway, Sweden, and Denmark. In three days an east wind brought their
two-masted ships to the mouth of the Seine. The fleet obeyed a _kuning_
or king. “But,” says Augustin Thierry, “he was king only at sea and in
battle; for when the banquet hour arrived the whole troop sat at the
same table, and the beer-filled horns passed from hand to hand without
there being a first or a last. The sea-king was followed everywhere with
fidelity and obeyed with zeal, for always he was reputed the bravest of
the brave, like him who had never drained a cup at a protected fireside.
“He knew how to handle ships as a good knight his horse, and to
the ascendency of courage and skill there was added the power that
superstition gave him. He was initiated in the sciences of the Runes. He
knew the mysterious characters which, graven on swords, would procure
victory, and those which inscribed on the stern or on the oars would
prevent shipwreck. All equal under such a chief, supporting lightly their
voluntary submission and the weight of mailed armour which they promised
themselves to exchange for an equal weight of gold, the Danish pirates
gaily travelled the ‘path of the swans,’ as their ancient national poetry
called it. Now they hugged the shores and watched their enemy in the
narrow straits, bays, and little anchorage grounds, from which they got
their name of vikings,--children of the bays and creeks,--now they hurled
themselves forth in pursuit of him across the ocean. The violent storms
of the North Sea scattered and crushed their frail ships. There were
always some missing when from the chief’s ship came the signal to gather
together, but those who survived their shipwrecked companions had no less
confidence and no more concern. They laughed at the winds and the waves
which could not destroy them. ‘The might of the storm,’ they sang, ‘aids
the arms of our oarsmen--the tempest is at our service; it throws us
where we would go.’”
Some of them often, in the midst of the clash of arms and the sight of
blood, became possessed with a sort of mad fury which redoubled their
strength and made them insensible to wounds--as if they saw revealed to
their eyes the palace of their god Odin and the shining hall of Valhalla.
Others showed an irresistible courage under torture, and sang their
death-song in the agonies of torment. Thus the famous Lodbrog, when
thrown into a ditch filled with vipers, flung proudly back these words to
his enemies:
“We have fought with the sword. I was still young when in the East, under
the stars of Eirar, we dug a river of blood for the wolves and invited
the yellow-legged bird to a great banquet of corpses: the sea was red
like a fresh-opened wound and the ravens swam in blood.
“We have fought with the sword. I have seen near Aienlane (England)
numberless bodies filling the decks of the ships; we continued the fight
for six whole days and the enemy did not give in; the seventh, at
sunrise, we celebrated the mass of swords. Valthiof was forced to bend
under our arms.
“We have fought with the sword. Torrents of blood rained from our swords
at Partohyrth (Pesth). The vulture could find no more in the bodies; the
bow thrummed and arrows buried themselves in coats of mail; sweat ran
over the sword blades. They poured poison into the wounds and harvested
the warriors like Odin’s hammer.
“We have fought with the sword. Death seizes me. The bite of the vipers
has been deep. I feel their teeth at my heart. Soon, I hope the sword
will avenge me in the blood of Ælla. My sons will rage at news of my
death--anger will redden their visages; besides, brave warriors will take
no rest until they have avenged me.
“I must cease--behold the Dysir whom Odin sends to lead me to his joyful
palace. I go thither with the Ases, to quaff hydromel at the seat of
honour. The hours of my life have run out and my smile braves death.”
[Sidenote: [837-847 A.D.]]
Religious and warlike fanaticism are here joined together--these pirates
loved to shed the blood of priests and stable their horses in the
churches. When they had ravaged a Christian land: “We have sung them,”
they said, “the mass of spears; it began at early morn and lasted till
the night.” Charlemagne felt these terrible invaders from afar; under
Louis le Débonnaire they grew bolder. Some of them set up abodes, in 837,
on the island of Walcheren, and made tributary the river lands of the
Maas and the Waal. After 843 they came every year. From the mouth of the
Schelde, the Somme, the Seine, the Loire, and the Gironde, they ascended
into the interior of the country. A number of towns, even the more
important, as Orleans and Paris, were taken and pillaged by them without
Charles being able to make any defence. From the Rhine to the Adour, from
the ocean to the Cévennes and the Vosges, all was devastated. They even
acquired the habit of not returning home during the winter and settled
down on the island of Oissel--above Rouen, at Noirmoutiers at the mouth
of the Loire and on the island of Bière, near St. Florent. It was thither
they carried their booty and thence they set out on new expeditions.
EDICT OF MERSEN (847 A.D.)
Chroniclers not understanding that apathy of the Frankish nation once so
brave, who now let themselves be pillaged by a handful of adventurers,
could only explain these things on the supposition that there had been a
tremendous massacre at Fontenailles (Fontenay).
_La peri de France la flor_
_Et des baronz tuit li meillor_
_Ansi troverènt Haenz terre_
_Vinde de gent, bonne a conquerre._
[There perished the flower of France
And the best of all the barons died
And thus was the land of Haenz
Void of the brave--easy to conquer.]
There is some truth in these words. Charlemagne’s fifty-three expeditions
had used up the Frankish race, and his conquests, where always some
of his warriors were left behind to rule, had spread it over three
kingdoms. The dissensions of Louis le Débonnaire’s sons completed this
dissemination. Now there were no longer free men to be found, because of
the terrible results of so many wars, because in the midst of growing
anarchy almost all the free men had renounced an independence which left
them in isolation and consequently in danger, to become the vassals of
men able to protect them. The Edict of Mersen (847) says, “Every freeman
may choose a lord, either the king or one of his vassals, and no vassal
of the king will be obliged to follow him in war unless against a foreign
enemy.” With the subjects thus disposing of their obedience, the king in
civil war remained unarmed and powerless, and as he was as incapable of
making the great obey him as he was of protecting the small, the latter
gathered around the former. The king’s vassals diminished; those of the
great lords increased. On all sides national interest was forgotten in
solicitude for that of the individual. Rouen troubled itself little
about the misfortunes of Bordeaux, Saintes, and Paris, and that is why
in this age, as in the last days of the Roman Empire, and for the same
reason, namely the absence of that common and spirited sentiment known
as patriotism, a few small bands could ravage a great country. Charles
tried to send them back by giving them gold; but this was the surest
means to attract them. The Roman Empire had done the same thing with the
barbarians, and we know with what result.
THE NORTHMEN’S ALLIES
[Sidenote: [843-850 A.D.]]
The number of true Northmen must have been comparatively few, since they
came from afar and over the sea. “But,” as a chronicler of the time
remarks, “many inhabitants of the country, forgetting their regeneration
in the holy waters of baptism, plunged into the dark errors of the
pagans: they ate with these pagans the flesh of horses sacrificed to Thor
and Odin, and took part in their atrocious crimes.” And these renegades
were the most to be feared. They acted as guides to the invaders, they
knew how to foil the ruses their countrymen adopted to cheat the greed of
the barbarians, and showed even less respect and mercy than the latter
for the religion and the people they had abandoned. Sometimes even some
of the powerful nobles were paid by the Northmen, with money raised by
the pillage of France, so as not to be disturbed in their expeditions.
The most dreadful of these pirates was Hastings, who ravaged the banks of
the Loire from 843 to 850, sacked Bordeaux and Saintes, threatened Tours,
which still celebrates to-day, on the 21st of May, a victory won from
him, circumnavigated Spain and, robbing and burning the while, reached
the shores of Italy. He had been drawn by the great name and wealth of
the capital of Christendom; but he mistook Luna for Rome. Hastings sent
word to the count and the bishop that his companions, conquerors of
France, wished no harm to the people of Italy and only wished to repair
his storm-battered ships, and that he himself, wearied of his roving
life, wished to seek repose in the bosom of the church. The bishop and
the count refused him nothing; Hastings even received baptism; but the
gates of the town remained shut. Some time after the camp was filled
with lamentations; Hastings was dangerously ill. Messengers came with
the news and declared at the same time that the dying man intended to
leave all his booty to the church provided his body might be interred
in consecrated ground. The Northmen’s cries of grief soon announced the
death of their chief. They were permitted to bring his body into the
town, and the funeral ceremony was prepared in the cathedral itself. But
when they had set down the corpse in the middle of the choir, Hastings
suddenly rose up and struck the bishop down, while his companions,
drawing their concealed arms, massacred both priests and soldiers.
Master of Luna, Hastings perceived his mistake. He was made to understand
that Rome was a long way off, and could not be so easily captured, so he
set sail with his booty and at the end of several months reappeared at
the mouth of the Loire.
[Illustration: ANCIENT FRENCH DOORWAY]
[Sidenote: [850-882 A.D.]]
Charles the Bald had reunited one part of the country, between the
Seine and the Loire, under command of Robert the Strong, ancestor of
the Capetians, in order to oppose a more efficacious resistance to the
Northmen and the Bretons, a great number of whom had joined the pirates.
Robert gained two victories over the Bretons and defeated a body of
Northmen loaded with the booty of Brie and of the town of Meaux. This was
the valiant leader whom Hastings encountered on his return from Italy.
He had just sacked Le Mans when Robert and the duke of Aquitaine caught
up with him at Brissarthe (Pont-sur-Sarthe) near Angers. The barbarians
numbered but four hundred, half Northmen, half Bretons; and at Robert’s
approach they betook themselves to a church and barricaded it. It was
evening, and the French put off the attack until the next day. Robert
had already taken off his helmet and coat of mail, when the Northmen,
suddenly opening the doors, threw themselves upon the dispersed troops.
Robert rallied his men, drove the enemy back to the church, and tried
to follow them in. But he fought with bared head and breast and on the
threshold was mortally wounded. Duke Rainulf of Aquitaine fell by his
side (866). Hastings, delivered of his dread adversary, ascended the
Loire and made his way as far as Clermont-Ferrand. No other means could
be found of ridding France than by giving him, in 882, the county of
Chartres. But he even abandoned this at the age of nearly seventy, to
resume his life of adventure.
BEGINNING OF THE GREAT FIEFS
[Sidenote: [848-877 A.D.]]
The Northmen were the greatest but not the only one of Charles’ troubles;
the Breton Noménoë repelled all his attacks, crowned himself king,
and left the title to his son Hérispoë. The Aquitanians elected as
leader the son of their late king, Pepin II, whom Charles the Bald had
deposed. Driven out on account of his vices, Pepin allied himself with
the Northmen and Saracens to pillage his former subjects, but he was
captured and shut up in a cloister. Charles recovered, for the time,
Aquitaine, lost it, recovered it again and gave it to one of his sons.
But the true masters of the country were Raymond, count of Toulouse,
who also ruled over Rouergue and Quercy; Walgrin, count of Angoulême;
Sancho Mitara, duke of Gascony, whose capital was Bordeaux; Bernhard,
marquis of Septimania; Rainulf, duke of Aquitaine and count of Poitiers;
Bernard Plantevelue, count of Auvergne; all of whom founded hereditary
houses. To the north of the Loire, Charles had been constrained in the
same way to constitute, for Robert the Strong, the grand duchy of France,
from which sprang the third line of kings. North of the Somme it had
been the same thing with the county of Flanders, given to the king’s
son-in-law, Baldwin Bras de Fer (Iron Arm), and between the Loire and
Saône, the powerful duchy of Burgundy for Richard the Judge. Thus under
Charlemagne’s grandson not only was the empire divided into kingdoms, but
the kingdoms themselves were dismembered into fiefs.[1]
EDICTS OF PISTES AND QUIERZY
Charles made, however, more and more the effort to retain in his service
and that of the state the class of freedmen. In 863, the Edict of Pistes
ordered a census of the men bound to military duty. The most severe
penalties were pronounced against those who deprived these men of their
horses and their arms, and also against the artful ones who sought to
avoid military duty by giving themselves to the church.
This prince, so weak at home, wished nevertheless to aggrandise himself
abroad. The king who could not wear his own crown undertook to acquire
others. At the death of the emperor Lothair, in 855, the inheritance
was shared between his three sons. The eldest took Italy, the second
Lorraine, and the third Provence. The last only lived until 863, and the
king of Lorraine until 869, and neither had any children. Charles the
Bald tried, on their death, to lay hands on their dominions. His plans
miscarried in 863, but succeeded in 870, when he shared Lorraine with his
brother, Louis the German. In spite of the weakness and dishonour of his
reign, Charles the Bald brought together again, at least on one side, the
France which the Treaty of Verdun had broken up.
Instead of continuing this policy Charles sought for the imperial crown,
left once more without a wearer in 875. He sought it in Rome from the
hands of the pope, took on his return to Milan that of the Lombard
kingdom, and as his brother, Louis the German, had died, he attempted to
annex the latter’s dominions to his own--that is, Germany to France. At
this moment the Northmen took Rouen from him. He was beaten on the Rhine;
Italy likewise escaped him.[b]
Unity existed only in the ambitious fancy of the feeble Charles. In
spite of his titles and his crowns, his power in Italy, Lorraine, and
Provence was as much a cipher as it was in Gaul; the dismemberment of the
kingdoms into duchies and counties, and of the latter into viscounties,
_sireries_, and _seigneuries_, still continued; and, at the very moment
when he was dreaming of his grandfather’s empire, he was finally
completing his own destruction by changing the feudal system from a
custom into a law.
Before going to Italy in 877, he assembled a diet at Quierzy to formulate
rules for the government of Gaul by his son, and there was delivered that
famous capitulary from which we may date the feudal revolution: “If one
of our trusty subjects,” runs this capitulary, “inspired by the love of
God, desire to renounce the world, and if he have a son or some other
relative capable of serving the state, he is free to transmit to him his
privileges and honours at pleasure. If a count of this kingdom dies, we
desire that the nearest relatives of the deceased, the other officers of
the county, and the bishops of the diocese provide for its administration
until such time as we shall be able to intrust his son with the honours
with which he was invested.”
This capitulary effected no change in the existing state of things, it
only confirmed accomplished facts and legalised a revolution which had
its origin in the customs of the Germans even before their entry into
Gaul, that is to say the transformation of fiefs into freeholds and the
acquisition of hereditary rights in duchies and counties. From this time
the distinction between _allods_ and _feods_ had no longer either reality
or importance; as the son of the count inherited not only the domains but
also the offices of his father, the distinction between the magistrate
sent from the king and the lord of the manor was done away; and the
titles of duke and count no longer expressed merely an office, an honour,
or a dignity, but sovereign rights. The feudal system was thus inscribed
in the law.[c]
[Sidenote: [877-879 A.D.]]
Such was the condition in which Charles the Bald left France when, in
877, he went to Italy, to fulfil the obligations he had contracted on
receiving the imperial crown. Pope John VIII had begged him to drive the
Saracens from the peninsula, and repress the aggressions of his nephew
Carloman, king of Bavaria, a pretender to the empire. It is astonishing,
the persistence with which Charlemagne’s descendants, in taking arms
against each other, not only hastened the disorganisation of their own
states, but accomplished the rapid ruin of their house in Italy, Germany,
and even France, where it lasted three or four generations longer than
anywhere else. The campaign of 877 bore no result. Charles’ only idea
after he got to Italy seems to have been to pillage the imperial domains.
Abandoned for the most part by his vassals, he was obliged to return to
France, fell ill during the return, and died the 6th of October, a few
days after he had crossed the Mont Cenis.
LOUIS II TO CARLOMAN (877-884 A.D.)
Louis the Stammerer, given a share in the throne during his father’s
lifetime, was crowned by Hincmar at Compiègne in presence of most of the
great vassals. By the advice of Hincmar the new king pledged himself
to disturb no man in the possession of his benefices or offices and
to respect the liberty of the churches. He was also obliged to make
a distribution of lands, abbeys, and counties “to whoever,” says one
chronicle, “demanded them first.”
Charles the Bald had worn four crowns, those of France, the empire,
Italy, and Lorraine. His son inherited the first only. The imperial crown
and the crown of Italy passed to the head of a Carlovingian prince of
the Germanic branch. Ludwig of Saxony contended with Louis the Stammerer
for that of Lorraine and the two claimants came to terms by dividing the
kingdom on the bases of the treaty of 870. This treaty was renewed in 878
at Fouron on the Maas. The south was troubled by the revolt of Bernhard,
marquis of Gothia, who took arms and formed a league of malcontents. But
Bernhard, count of Auvergne, and Boson, duke of Provence, took from him
successively Gothia and several counties which he possessed in Burgundy.
[Illustration: LOUIS III AND CARLOMAN
(From an old print)]
[Sidenote: [879-885 A.D.]]
Louis the Stammerer, having fallen into a decline, died in 879 at
Compiègne leaving two sons, Louis and Carloman, of whom the eldest was
sixteen years old. The seigneurs were divided; some wished to proclaim
the young French princes, others to give the crown to the German prince,
Ludwig of Saxony. But the party of French princes was the most numerous
and the abbot Hugo, who was its leader, hastened to crown the two
brothers.[d] Two victories over the Northmen, notably that of Saucourt
in Vimeu, gave a little glory to these princes. But these advantages did
not prevent the recommencement of brigandage. In 885 the famous Hastings
gave up the county of Chartres, and Carloman paid the others of his race
to take themselves off. “They promised peace,” says the chronicler sadly,
“for as many years as we could count them one thousand pounds’ weight of
silver.” The two kings died by accident, Louis in 882, Carloman in 884.
One had governed the north of France, the other Burgundy and Aquitaine.
CHARLES THE FAT, KING AND EMPEROR (884-887 A.D.)
These two had a brother, Charles the Simple, but the nobles preferred a
grandson of Louis le Débonnaire, Charles the Fat, then emperor and king
of Germany. The whole heritage of Charlemagne was now reunited in Charles
the Fat’s hands. But times had changed. This man weighted down with so
many crowns could not even inspire terror in the Northmen.
[Sidenote: [885-887 A.D.]]
Charles had already ceded Friesland to one of their chiefs. Another, the
famous Rollo, a kind of giant who, as legend tells us, always went about
on foot because no horse could be found for his mount, had recently taken
Rouen and Pontoise and killed the duke of Le Mans. At the approach of
his countrymen, the new count of Chartres, the former pirate Hastings,
hastened to meet them and all marched upon Paris, which had already three
times submitted to the sack. But Paris had recently been fortified.
Great towers covered the bridges (Petit-Pont and Pont-au-Change) which
connected the island of the city of Paris with the two shores. The Seine
was then barricaded with seven hundred huge barges in which the Northmen
intended to voyage into Burgundy, a region they had not yet visited. The
inhabitants, encouraged by their bishop Gozlin and by Count Eudes, son
of Robert the Strong, held out for one year. The attack began November
26th, 885. The tower of the Grand-Pont, on the right bank, not being
finished, the Northmen assailed it. For two days they fought there with
great fury and Bishop Gozlin was wounded by a javelin. The Northmen were
driven back and intrenched themselves in a camp around the church of St.
Germain l’Auxerrois, where deserters soon taught them all the knowledge
of Roman military science that had survived the ages. The invaders first
built a three-storied rolling tower, but when they tried to bring it up
to the walls, the Parisians killed with arrows those who were moving
it. Then they advanced with battering-rams, some under portable screens
covered with raw leather for protection from fire, and some under
shields in the form of the Roman testudo. When they came to the edge of
the moat they began to fill it up with earth, fascines, whole trees, and
even the bodies of captives whom they put to death before the very eyes
of the besieged. While those farthest away drove off the defenders of
the battlements with a hail-storm of arrows and leaden ball, those close
to the tower hammered it with the rams; but all in vain. The Parisians
poured streams of boiling oil, wax, and molten pitch upon the enemy;
their catapults hurled huge rocks which crushed the assailants’ screens
and shields, and let down iron hooks which tore away the coverings and
made the enemy a target for their arrows. Three blazing ships floated
down to the bridge, were stopped by the abutting stone piles, and could
not set it on fire.
This hopeless resistance had lasted for more than two months when a
sudden rise of the river carried away, on the night of February 6th, 886,
a portion of the “Petit-Pont.” The Northmen immediately rushed upon the
tower on the left bank, now cut off from the city. Only twelve men were
stationed there, but they held out for a whole day and then retired,
still fighting, to the wreckage of the bridge. Finally they surrendered
on the promise that their lives would be saved, but as soon as the
barbarians got hold of these brave men they put them to death. One of
them, of gigantic frame, appeared to be a chief, and the Northmen decided
to spare him; but he begged to share the fate of his companions. “You
will never get ransom for my head,” he told them, and so forced them to
kill him.
Meanwhile reports of the Parisians’ courage had spread over the land and
others were emboldened to emulate their example. Several pirate bands
which had left the siege were beaten; the counsellor of the emperor
Charles, Duke Henry, succeeded even in getting relief into the besieged
town, but the pagans still maintained the blockade. Misery became extreme
in the city and many people died. Bishop Gozlin and the count of Anjou
“passed to the Lord.” The brave count Eudes managed to make his way out
and went to hasten the emperor’s arrival, and when he saw the latter
started, went back to his besieged people. The promised relief finally
appeared, Duke Henry at its head. Wishing to reconnoitre the situation
himself the duke advanced too near, and his horse fell into one of the
Northmen’s pits. Here he was killed and those who had come with him
were disbanded. Paris was once more left to its fate. The Northmen now
believed that despair reigned there, and that they could have the people
at little cost. They began a general attack, but the walls covered with
valiant defenders proved insurmountable. They then tried to fire the door
of the great tower, by heaping up against it a great wooden pile, but the
Parisians made a sudden sortie and drove back the assailants and the fire
at the same time.
At the end of long months, Charles finally arrived with his army on the
heights of Montmartre. The Parisians, filled with ardour, awaited the
signal of combat, when the news came to them that the emperor had bought
with money the withdrawal of their half vanquished enemy and given the
barbarians permission to “winter” in Burgundy, that is to say, to ravage
that province. They at least refused to be a party to this shameful
agreement, and when the Northmen’s ships presented themselves at the
bridges they refused to let them pass. The pirates had to drag their
boats upon the shore and made a wide detour in order to avoid the heroic
city (November, 886). The brave people of Sens imitated the courage of
the Parisians and resisted the Northmen for six months.
In that year Paris gloriously won its title of capital of France; and its
chief, the brave count Eudes, laid the foundation of the first national
dynasty. The contrast between the courage of the little city and the
cowardice of the emperor turned everyone against the unworthy prince.[b]
On all sides he was accused of indolence and incapacity. A great weakness
of body and spirit had come over him. The vassals wanted an able and
active king.
Those of Germany and Lorraine, assembled at Tribur, near Mainz, in
887, pronounced Charles’ deposition “because he was lacking,” says the
_Annals_ of St. Waast, “in the necessary strength to govern the empire.”
The feeble and unfortunate emperor suffered the fate of the “do-nothing”
Merovingian kings. He was shut up in the monastery of Reichenau,
on Lake Constance, and died in about two months.[d] The empire of
Charlemagne was irrevocably dismembered; its pieces served to form seven
kingdoms--France, Navarre, Cisjurane Burgundy, Transjurane Burgundy,
Lorraine, Italy, and Germany.
THE FEUDAL RÉGIME
[Sidenote: [843-887 A.D.]]
But it was not only the empire that was dismembered; it was also the
realm and royalty itself. At the close of Charlemagne’s reign, feudalism
was not yet founded, but it was almost completely established at the
death of Charles the Bald a half century afterwards. And this was because
the progress of feudal institutions was singularly hastened by the
historical events we have just been studying.
Royal authority at the end of Charles the Bald’s reign was ruined, as it
had been under the later Merovingians, for the same reasons and in the
same fashion. The king had no more money and he had no more land to give
away. He tried to take from the church, but the church resisted. The
bishops assembled in council at Meaux and at Paris in 846, in the early
years of the reign, advised Charles the Bald to send _missi dominici_ to
make a thorough investigation of the lands of the royal fisc, which had
been usurped. “You must not,” they told him, “let a state of poverty,
which does not accord with your dignity, push your magnificence to do
things you would not wish to do. You cannot have attendants to serve
you in your house, unless you have the means to pay them.” Here we see
royalty reduced to indigence. The king himself recognised it. “We wish,”
he said, one day, “to determine, with the advice of our faithful, how we
may live in our court honourably and without poverty, as our predecessor
did.”
Since the reign of Charles the Bald, public authority had disappeared.
The kingdom, ravaged by the Northmen, the Bretons, and the Aquitanians,
was in the throes of brigandage. Brigandage had sunk so deeply into
the customs of the country that oaths were exacted from freemen not to
attack houses or to conceal robbers. In his twenty-third capitulary
(857) the king, after speaking of the infinite evils caused not only by
the incursions of the pagans, but also by the vagabondage of some of
his own royal subjects, orders the bishops, counts, and _missi_ to call
together general meetings which everyone without exception must attend.
The bishop was to read to the gathering the precepts of the Gospels,
the fathers, and the prophets against brigandage. The capitulary itself
furnished quotations from Christ, the prophet Isaiah, St. Augustine and
St. Gregory. If these were not sufficient the bishop was to add all those
he might find himself. He was also to threaten all hardened sinners with
anathema, and to explain to them what a terrible punishment it was. On
their own side the counts and missi were to read the laws of Charles and
of Louis against brigandage.
If these readings had no effect the guilty man was threatened with the
sentence of the bishops and the prosecution of the judges. If he showed
contempt for the one or the other he could be summoned to the king’s
presence. If he refused to come he would be excluded from the holy
church, on earth as well as in heaven. He would be pursued until driven
from the realm. But to this there must be a public force, and such
existed no longer; and this is why the king was compelled to replace it
with sermons and threats of hell.
[Illustration: RUINS OF A NORMAN CHURCH, FRANCE]
In no age of history did the weak have more need of protection than
in the tenth and eleventh centuries, and this is why the last freemen
disappeared throughout a large portion of Gaul, especially north of the
Loire.
After having fled for a long time at the approach of the pagans to the
forest, among the wild beasts, some stout-hearted had turned their heads
and refused to abandon all they had without some attempt at defence. Here
and there in mountain gorges, at river fords, or on the hill overlooking
the plain, walled strongholds were raised up where the brave and the
strong held their own. An edict of 862 directed the counts and the
king’s vassals to repair their old castles and to build new ones. The
country was soon covered with these strongholds against which invaders
often flung themselves in vain. A few defeats taught these bold people
prudence, and they dared not venture so far amid these fortresses which
had sprung out of the ground on all sides, and the new invasion, now
made hazardous and difficult, came to an end in the following century.
The masters of these castles became later the terror of the country side
they had helped to save. Feudalism so oppressive in its age of decadence
had its legitimate term. All power is raised up by its good services and
falls by its abuses. These hedged and walled-in castles were places of
refuge from the Northmen, but often also they became nests of brigands.
However, little by little, out of the chaos came a new order of things.
We have seen how the king and his nobles assured themselves of the
services of a greater or less number of men by giving them benefices
or rather taking these men under their protection by making them their
vassals. One might be a beneficiary without being a vassal or a vassal
without being a beneficiary; in the days of Charles the Bald there
were vassals who held no land. These were the _vagi homines_, so often
mentioned in the prince’s edicts--brigands in search of fortune and who
transferred their loyalty from one noble to another at their pleasure.
It was to remedy these disorders and to organise these unruly members of
society that Charles the Bald ordered every freeman to choose a lord and
remain faithful to him.
Doubtless it happened more often than otherwise that the man who received
a piece of land made himself a vassal of the man who gave it to him, but
the two states finally became much confused. One might be at the same
time both beneficiary and vassal, and take upon himself the very narrow
obligations of one and the other condition. Indeed after a property had
been held for several generations by men who inherited their obligations
together with the land, it seemed as if the fief carried its rights and
duties with it and communicated them to those that held it. In the end
the property, which always remained, was considered rather than the men,
who came and went. It was no longer the weak man who bound himself to
the strong one but the little acreage to the great domain, and certain
formalities symbolised this new relation. The land became his in a manner
to replace itself in the hands of the great landlord, in the shape of a
clod of sod or the branch of a tree, which the petty proprietor brought
himself. This land, so burdened with obligations, was the fief.
When France became covered with fiefs each property had its own
organisation; it had its lord, great or small, and there was no land
without its lord. Whoever had no land had no condition, for there was
no lord without his land. Certain relations were established between
the different fiefs--there were some which were dominant and others
which were dominated. The dominant fiefs were those of the dukes and the
counts, who assumed all the power which royalty had delegated them and
who ruled as petty kings over their duchies and counties. Their vassals
and the latters’ sub-vassals depended upon them before depending upon the
king. As for the dukes and counts, they were the vassals of the king,
but as the feudal hierarchy developed, the obligation of the vassal
became, as a matter of fact, less strict. The duke of Burgundy’s vassals
obeyed him; of course the duke of Burgundy would not make the mistake of
disobeying the king.
Such was the great revolution accomplished at the end of the ninth and
in the tenth century. After the deposition of Charles the Fat appeared
the great fiefs whose names we find over and over again throughout the
whole of French history. The duke of Gascony owned all the country south
of the Garonne, and the counts of Toulouse, Auvergne, Périgord, Poitou,
and Berri, the district between the Garonne and the Loire. To the east
and north of the latter river everything belonged to the count of Forez,
the duke of Burgundy, the duke of France, and to the counts of Flanders
and Brittany who exercised their royal rights over the land. To the kings
remained only a few towns which he had not yet been constrained to give
away in fiefs.
THE CHURCH
In the ninth century royalty fell and feudalism arose; the former had
lost its strength, the latter had not yet acquired that which it was soon
to have. The church alone had all the power. She wanted nothing--the
authority in knowledge and morality, the ardent faith of the people,
rich domains--in fact, while everything was breaking up and civil and
political society going to pieces, the ecclesiastical body showed its
unity and its healthy condition in the fifty-six councils which were
held in the reign of Charles the Bald alone. The bishops, reasoning on
the right of the church to interfere in the conduct of every man guilty
of sin in order to correct and punish him, arrived logically at the
pretension that they could depose kings and dispose of their crowns. They
were not only the ministers of religion, but participated at the time
in the administration of public affairs. Since Charlemagne, who brought
them into the government of his empire, they may be found taking part in
all affairs and speaking everywhere with authority. These were they who
degraded and re-established Louis le Débonnaire, who told at Fontenailles
on which side justice lay. In 859 Charles the Bald, threatened with
deposition by some of the bishops because he violated his own laws, could
find nothing further to reply to this assumption of authority than that
“having been consecrated and anointed with the holy chrism, he could
not be overthrown on his throne, nor supplanted by anyone without being
heard and judged by the bishops who had crowned him king.” This right
Archbishop Hincmar, of Rheims, the most illustrious personage of his day,
had haughtily claimed.
This power of the church was a fortunate thing in these days, when might
made right, for she alone found herself in a position to keep alive the
idea that justice was above strength; and to oppose the aristocratic
principle of the feudal organisation, she put forward that of the
brotherhood of man. In place of hereditary primogeniture which prevailed
in civil society, she practised election for herself and proclaimed the
rights of the intellect. If the prerogative of deposing kings which she
claimed was a usurpation of temporal authority it must be recognised that
the latter had no antidote but the sacerdotal power, and the weak and
oppressed no other security than the protection of the churches. When
Lothair II, king of Lorraine, put away without reason Queen Thietberga
in order to marry Waldrada, Pope Nicholas I took up the poor, betrayed,
outraged woman’s cause, and at the risk of persecution established her
rights. While law was impotent and opinion without strength, it is well
that somewhere there existed an avenger of outraged morality.[b]
CAPETIANS AND CARLOVINGIANS (887-936 A.D.)
[Sidenote: [887-911 A.D.]]
Eight kings shared in the division of the empire through the deposition
of Charles the Fat. In France it was Eudes, count of Paris, who had just
defended that town against the Normans and whose glory was heightened by
contrast with the ignominious conduct of Charles the Fat.
The accession of Count Eudes was an important fact, although
overestimated perhaps, if one wishes to regard it as a bridge between
Gaul and France and between the Franks and the French. It was not the
beginning of a revolution of which he was the consummation; nor yet
a point of departure, for it was Frenchmen rather than Angevins who
fought with Robert the Strong at Brissarthe. However, apart from the
fact itself, the reign of the first French king was certainly important.
The Normans, turned loose upon Burgundy by Charles the Fat, had gone
still further; they threw themselves upon Champagne which they were
proceeding to ruin with fire and sword when the new king attacked them
in the defiles of the Argonne, near Montfaucon. A brilliant victory
made a worthy beginning to his reign, but that was all. Wearied by the
fruitless struggle, occupied elsewhere by the anxieties which Aquitaine
gave him where through race jealousy his “usurpation,” as the monks of
that time and the seventeenth century historians called it, had not
been recognised, and at a time when they placed at the head of acts,
_Christi regante: rege nullo_ (“in the reign of Christ and absence of
the king”). Eudes finally adopted the Carlovingian policy and drove the
Normans back with his purse. What brought about his ruin was that he
broke too abruptly with the feudalism that made him king. His cousin
Vaucher rebelled against royal authority. Eudes could not understand that
this authority was no longer anything but a phantom, even in his hands,
and he had his cousin’s head cut off after obtaining his submission. The
people deplored the light-hearted nonentity of a Carlovingian king, but a
faction which formed in favour of young Charles the Simple, youngest son
of Louis the Stammerer, waxed in strength until the former count of Paris
was obliged to capitulate. He admitted his rival to a sort of partnership
and at his death the kingdom of France returned to Germanic dominion, if
we can admit, that it is still possible to recall the Austrasian origin
of Charles the Simple (898).
Under this reign the people were finally delivered from the long Norman
invasion, which stopped of its own accord, and by act of the invaders
rather than resistance of the invaded. Since the time the Norman vassals
collected at the mouth of the Seine, the country round about had been
nothing but a desert, towns abandoned, villages in ashes; one could
travel whole leagues without even hearing a dog bark. Since there was
nothing more to be got they ran the risk of dying by hunger. The Normans
finally perceived with their positive spirit that it was better to take
possession of the land than to pillage its ruined inhabitants, and that
it was worth more to make these rich territories valuable than to get
sustenance from their ruins. Thenceforth everything was changed. The
fleets from the north brought colonists instead of pirates, and the
peasants found in their midst a protection which they could not have
gotten anywhere else.
[Sidenote: [911-923 A.D.]]
The new plan had been in operation for some time when a great emigration
was determined upon in the north, owing to the subjection of all the
chiefs under one head. The movement set out in the direction of Neustria
under the leadership of Rollo, the famous sea-king--one of those who had
assisted at the siege of Paris in the days of Charles the Fat, and had
established a fixed home in that country. For some years the new-comers
kept up their old practises. They burned St. Martin of Tours, and went
to Bourges and killed the bishop. Rollo reappeared before the towers
of the châtelet. Finally he came to an understanding with Charles the
Simple, who gave him his daughter Gisela in marriage and raised him to
the rank of the feudal barons, by legalising his seizure of Neustria.
Rollo became duke of Normandy, and the king of France’s vassal, not
without making the latter often feel that he troubled himself little
about the nominal suzerainty. When the time for doing homage came and
they wished him to do it in the Carlovingian manner, by kissing the
sovereign’s foot, “No, by God,” exclaimed the proud sea-king, and he
signed to one of his soldiers to kiss the royal foot for him. But the
soldier, not less proud, seized Charles’ foot and put it to his lips
without kissing it. The king fell back and his people remained dumb and
motionless amid the laughter of Rollo and his companions[2] (912). The
barbaric traits of the Normans did not prevent their quickly assimilating
the semi-civilisation they found in their new country. Normandy was
soon the most prosperous and best policed province in the kingdom. As
Ordericus Vitalis[i] says, a child could have crossed it in safety, a
purse full of gold in his hand. There runs a tale that one day while
hunting Rollo hung his gold bracelets on a tree and they remained there
two years without anyone’s daring to touch them.
Charles the Simple lost no time in indemnifying himself for the cession
of Neustria by the acquisition of Lorraine which became his on the death
of Louis the Child, son of the emperor Arnulf; but he did not profit long
by this addition to his realm. He had made a favourite of a person of low
degree, a man named Haganon. Haganon, more solicitous than his master
to uphold the royal dignity, soon displayed the desire of raising it,
to his own profit, from the state of subjection in which it was kept by
the powerful nobles. Two of the latter presented themselves four days in
succession to speak with the king and waited in vain at the door of his
bed-chamber. They finally went away thoroughly angry, saying that Haganon
would soon be king with Charles, or Charles a man of low condition with
Haganon. Of these two noblemen, one was Henry the Fowler, or the Saxon,
king of Germany, and the other Robert, duke of France, brother of the
late king Eudes.
In 920, at a court held at Soissons, the nobles assembled together, all
broke the blades of straw and threw them on the ground at the feet of
Charles the Simple, declaring that they disowned him as their king. Each
took his departure at once, and Charles remained alone on the spot where
the assemblage had met. There followed two years of hesitation, at the
end of which Robert, duke of France, caused himself to be proclaimed king
in the cathedral of Rheims by his vassals and those of his son-in-law,
Rudolf of Burgundy. Charles having retired to Lorraine, the new king
prepared to seek him as far as the foot of the Ardennes. He did not
anticipate any resistance, but Haganon purchased the services of a
band of Normans, living along the Maas, which Charles led in person
into Robert’s domains. A battle took place on the plain of St. Médard
(Soissons) near the Aisne (923). Robert, throwing his long white beard
over his coat of arms, seized his banner and flung himself into the
mêlée. He fell upon Fulbert, his rival’s standard-bearer, when Charles
cried out, “Take care, Fulbert.” The standard-bearer, turning, dodged
the blow which Robert was aiming, and cleft the duke’s head with his
sword. Charles the Simple gained nothing by this. Robert’s son, Hugh,
hastened up with his brother-in-law, Héribert de Vermandois, and remained
to the end master of the battle-field, strewn with eighteen thousand dead.
[Sidenote: [923-927 A.D.]]
Of the two men who had claimed the title of king that morning, one lay
cold in death, the other was dethroned by defeat. Robert’s son sent to
consult his sister Emma, wife of Rudolf of Burgundy, to know what he
should do with the crown on his hands. Emma replied that she would prefer
to kiss the knees of her husband rather than those of her brother, and
Rudolf was made king (July 13th, 923).
The aged Rollo was now minded of the homage which he had formerly held so
cheaply, and as faithful vassal loudly declared himself the protector of
the vanquished king. Doubtless he preferred such a sovereign as Charles
the Simple to a connection with that powerful house of the dukes of
France, who moved everything at their pleasure. Unfortunately he did not
have the king in his hands. Charles had taken refuge at Bonn with the
king of Germany, the same Henry the Fowler whom he had once kept waiting
at his own door. He wished now to make use of the services of Héribert of
Vermandois, who swore to replace him on the throne. The king sought Count
Héribert at the gates of St. Quentin, where the latter knelt and kissed
the king’s knee. The count’s son refused to do the same and Héribert took
him by the neck and forced him to kneel. Then he conducted the king into
St. Quentin and entertained him with great magnificence. But the next day
he had him seized in the night and conducted to Château Thierry, whence
they carried him to the tower of Péronne. Héribert then marched with
Rudolf against the Normans, who were with great difficulty driven back
from the Île-de-France and Beauvoisis. Rudolf believed himself mortally
wounded during an encounter in Artois and the inhabitants of Laon saw him
carried into their city on a barrow. Rollo died a short time afterwards,
leaving as successor his son, William Longsword.
[Illustration: RUDOLF, KING OF FRANCE]
[Sidenote: [927-942 A.D.]]
The count of Vermandois had not undertaken this piece of treachery
for nothing, and had already obtained the archbishopric of Rheims for
his son, a child of five years. They placed the boy on a table in the
presence of the bishops, and after stammering a few words of catechism,
he was consecrated with the approbation of the onlookers. But even
this did not satisfy the father’s ambition, who demanded the county of
Laon for himself. Rudolf, who was finding his restless and dangerous
auxiliary too powerful, feared perhaps the fate of Charles the Simple,
and met the demand with a refusal. Thereupon Héribert dragged Charles
from prison, clothed him in rich raiment, and took him to the court
of William Longsword, who saluted him as king. This was all that was
needed to decide Rudolf, who ceded the county of Laon, and Charles was
put back in Péronne. But when Héribert tried to commence the same game
again, Rudolf this time took up arms and pressed him so hotly that he
was obliged to flee to Germany. There now remained to him nothing but
Péronne, but Henry the Fowler, the count of Flanders, and the duke of
Lorraine interfered; Rudolf gave him back his possessions and died soon
after without a male heir (936). Charles the Simple had preceded him by
a few years to the tomb (929). The vacant throne was for a second time
at the disposition of the duke of France, who did not want it, since
he found it much pleasanter to remain peacefully in real possession,
pre-eminent as he was among the feudal lords, than to plunge himself
into interminable controversies by placing on his head a crown which
had become the target for so much contention. Rudolf’s enemies, of whom
we have mentioned but a small part, had much reason to support the duke
in this resolution. Hugh now remembered that at the time of the fall of
Charles the Simple the latter’s wife Odgiwe had taken to England their
son Louis, then a child, but now, after thirteen years of exile, entering
upon his sixteenth year. Hugh congratulated himself on his great mind and
went after him.
THE LAST CARLOVINGIANS (936-987 A.D.)
Louis IV, surnamed Louis d’Outre-Mer on account of his long sojourn on
the other side of the Channel, occupied the throne eighteen years, but
his reign was one long humiliation. Hugh exploited his generosity to the
king, as Héribert had done about his treachery, and scarcely got him
to the shores of France than he dragged him to the duchy of Burgundy
and made Louis invest him with it; and moreover Louis had the chagrin
of seeing that his act was useless. Hugh the Black, Rudolf’s brother,
bravely defended his heritage. The royal signature served nothing to
the duke of France who, armed as he was, could only snatch a few shreds
from the duchy of Burgundy. Thwarted in his ambition he turned to other
things and demanded the county of Laon. Following Rudolf’s example, Louis
refused this demand, but for a still more powerful reason. The county
of Laon was the sole domain left the crown through the usurpations of
feudalism. Louis, who would have been nothing more than a stranger in
his kingdom if this were taken from him, preferred a one-sided struggle.
Fortunately for him, the emperor Otto came to his rescue, but not before
he was besieged in his own city, and deserted by his most faithful
partisans. The presence of the imperial army saved him from disaster, but
Otto when he went home did not leave him any the stronger. Incapable of
holding his own so close to the duke of France, Louis appeared before the
people of Aquitaine, always favourably disposed towards the Carlovingian
kings, since they had nothing to fear from them and had shown no more
preference for the kingship of Duke Rudolf than they had for that of
Count Eudes. Well received everywhere, Louis nevertheless encountered but
a sterile compassion, and must have thought himself fortunate in that
the duke of France, become more formidable than ever since the death of
Héribert de Vermandois, was willing to await an occasion of revolt or
rather of war.
[Illustration: LOUIS IV
(From an old print)]
[Sidenote: [942-948 A.D.]]
Meanwhile William Longsword had met a tragic end, assassinated by Arnulf,
count of Flanders, after an interview on one of the islands of the Somme,
in December, 942. He left one son named Richard, only ten years old.
The moment was now favourable for Louis to assert the royal authority,
inactive in his hands. He appeared at once in Rouen, received the homage
of the young Richard, and made himself the child’s guardian. The people
nearly besieged the house in which he lodged when they learned that he
intended to take the boy back to Laon, but a few tactful words calmed
everything. But once he had the young duke in his palace he used no
more caution. The child, separated from all his Norman attendants, even
from his tutor, found himself in truth a captive. The people who looked
after him were severely reprimanded on one occasion for having taken him
outside the city on a hunt for birds. Evidently the king’s intention was
to strengthen the royal crown by putting it under the protection of the
ducal crown of Normandy. Osmond, Richard’s tutor, cut this dream short by
a bold stratagem. Disguised as a groom he managed to get near his pupil,
enveloped him in a bale of hay, and carried him thus on his shoulders to
the outskirts of Laon, where horses were waiting. Touched to the quick
Louis d’Outre-Mer appealed to the ambition of Hugh of France and proposed
to share Normandy with him if he would help get it back. Hugh agreed, but
scarcely was Louis established in Normandy than he forgot his promises
and sent the duke back to Paris. But the king paid dearly for this breach
of faith. At news of the subjection with which their Neustrian brothers
were threatened, the Northmen sent a large fleet under the command of
Harold, the Dane. A battle took place on the banks of the Dive, not far
from Rouen, in which the French were completely routed (945). Louis,
wandering swordless through the country at the will of his horse, whose
bridle had been cut by sword-blows, met a soldier from Rouen who, anxious
for the king’s safety, concealed him on an island in the Seine, where
however he was discovered. The king’s liberty was negotiated with great
show by Hugh of France, who finally got him out of the Normans’ hands.
Great was the surprise when the end of this fine devotion became known.
From his Norman prison Louis entered another which Hugh was determined
he should not leave until he gave up the city and county of Laon. After
this last misfortune Louis seemed less a king than a ruined lord. He
filled the German court with his plaints, wrote to the pope, and summoned
councils. Councils, pope, and emperor all failed before Hugh’s will.
Finally tired of the fight, and knowing well that Louis would be none the
more formidable with it, Hugh gave the county back to the king, who did
not enjoy it for long. Four years later, while pursuing a wolf on the
road from Rheims to Laon, Louis’ horse threw him and he died from the
fall (954).
[Sidenote: [948-980 A.D.]]
Hugh had obtained a part of Burgundy on the return of Louis d’Outre-Mer;
he now made use of the accession of Louis’ son Lothair, to have Aquitaine
given him. But this time again, the royal sanction was powerless.
William, duke of Aquitaine, received the invader in arms, and the war
lasted for two years, when the duke of France died. He had named two
kings and permitted a third to reign. Hugh Capet, his eldest son,
inherited the duchy of France, and at the same time his father’s great
influence, which he used in more moderate fashion.
He never came into hostility with Lothair throughout the latter’s whole
reign. He looked on quietly while the king was active in the east, west,
and north, trying to get his hands on Normandy, seizing some territory
from the count of Flanders, which he had to give back, and making
military excursions into Lorraine as far as the borders of Germany. This
fruitless activity, this restless desire to attempt hopeless conquests,
was in singular contrast with Hugh Capet’s power of repose. One would
have said that the latter divined the future and that he disdained to
forestall fortune by a single step in the belief of what would come to
him.
In all this empty reign there is but one event that offers anything
of interest. During an expedition in Lorraine (978), the principal
object of his covetousness, Lothair came unexpectedly upon Aachen
(Aix-la-Chapelle), where Otto II was then staying. The emperor was about
to sit down to table when the arrival of the king of France forced him
to flee, and Lothair ate the dinner prepared for Otto. Otto swore to
sing to him beneath the walls of Paris such a Halleluiah as the king had
never heard; and what seemed like an angry piece of bravado was really
carried out. The emperor appeared with sixty thousand men upon the
heights of Montmartre after having ravaged the country around Rheims,
Laon, and Soissons, and caused to be intoned by a number of clerks the
Halleluiah with which he had threatened Parisian ears, and in the chorus
of which this whole army joined.[3] Paris was avenged for this din; for
in crossing the Aisne, swollen by storms, on his return, Otto lost his
booty, baggage, and all his rearguard (980). It is true that he carried
away with him the remembrance of the most formidable psalmody of which
history makes mention, and the honour of having planted his lance in
one of the gates of Paris; but these were rather frivolous achievements
for the son of Otto the Great, and his Halleluiah would certainly have
produced much more effect had he taken his sixty thousand men to sing it
at Rome.[f]
The campaign, however, was successful in having raised mutual disgust
between Lothair and Hugh Capet, the latter finding himself exposed to
incursions and ravage from the idle ambition and provocation of Lothair,
who was unable to support him by any force; while Lothair, on his side,
saw that Hugh merely protected his own territories, without caring for
Laon or Lorraine. Lothair, therefore, became reconciled to Otto, held
a meeting with him on the Maas, and, as the price of the emperor’s
friendship, waived his pretensions to Lorraine, at which his followers’
hearts _corda Francorum_, says the Chronicle of St. Denis,[j] were much
saddened. If the descendant of Charlemagne gave up his claims upon
Lorraine to Otto, it was idle for Hugh Capet to remain in hostility with
the German emperor. The latter, after his pacification with Lothair,
had gone to Italy; thither Hugh Capet sent, proffering friendship and
alliance with Otto. The reply was an invitation to the duke to visit the
emperor in Italy: a request with which Hugh Capet complied, to the great
anxiety and suspicion of Lothair, who, according to Richer,[k] used every
effort to have Hugh’s return intercepted. The latter felt it necessary to
pass the Alps in the disguise of a groom, and thus returned to his duchy.
[Sidenote: [980-987 A.D.]]
Otto II expired in 982. Henry of Bavaria claimed the throne, setting
aside the right of the future Otto III, a boy of but five years of age;
and Lothair, alive to every opportunity of gaining Lorraine, leagued
with Henry, and undertook an expedition to the Rhine. The people of
the country were, however, hostile to him, and he retreated with some
difficulty. In the following year he was more fortunate; aided by
Héribert of Troyes, he succeeded in winning possession of the strong
town of Verdun, from the walls of which he repelled all the efforts of
the Lorraine chiefs to expel him. A gleam of prosperity thus shone upon
Lothair, when death carried him off in 986. His eldest son, who had been
crowned by anticipation several years previous, succeeded to the hopeful
position of his father. Even Hugh Capet seemed inclined to restore his
friendship and protection, as the first act of the young king was, in
concert with the duke, to march to the reduction of the archiepiscopal
town of Rheims.
It is considered by M. Thierry, who has been in general followed by
modern French historians, that the principal cause which about this
time led to the enthronement of Hugh Capet as king of France or of the
French, in place of the Carlovingian princes, was the antipathy of race,
and especially that of French against Germans, which prompted the chiefs
and the population of the central provinces to throw off the yoke of
the Germans, which the Lorraine or Belgian princes were to a certain
degree. A study of the records and chronicles of the time does not lead
to this conclusion. On the contrary, they prove beyond a question that
the personages and the party which were most influential in awarding the
crown definitively to Hugh Capet were precisely Belgian or Lorraine, and
attached moreover to German interests.
Hitherto the Carlovingian princes had maintained their hold and
influence in their own circumscribed territories by the support of the
archiepiscopal church of Rheims, which maintained its jealousy both of
the duke of Paris and of the German emperor, labouring at the same time
to save and to recover its church property, as best it might, from the
counts ever ready to despoil it.
Adalbero, son of Godfrey, count of the Ardennes, had been promoted
to that see, and had laboured to reform and restore it. The prelate
Adalbero was not what his predecessor had been, a devoted partisan of
the Carlovingian princes. He saw that they were too weak to protect the
church, especially that of Rheims, which, situated between the frontiers
of two great nations, was continually the spoil of both. Adalbero,
connected with all the German noblesse and princely families of Lorraine,
was for preserving that province for the young emperor Otto; and his
letters of exhortation written by Gerbert, addressed to all the prelates
and counts of the border region, entreat them to resist all the efforts
of Lothair and Louis, whilst recommending that they make a friend of
Hugh, duke of France.
Policy so hostile to them on the part of the prelate of Rheims excited
the inveterate enmity of the Carlovingian princes; and, at length, Louis
marched to reduce Rheims with an army that Adalbero could not for the
moment resist, for he gave hostages to answer for his conduct before
an assembly that was to be convened. The prelate did this, apparently,
in connivance with Hugh Capet, between whom and Adalbero there was in
all probability an early agreement to aim at the setting aside of the
Carlovingians, and the division between the German emperor and Hugh
Capet of the countries between France and Lorraine. The great obstacle to
the completion of such a scheme, young king Louis, was at this very time
carried off.[g] As the result of a fall from a horse “he was seized with
a great pain in his liver and a burning fever; much blood flowed from
his nose and throat”; he died May 21st, 987. Such is the simple account
of the contemporary, Richer.[k] But if Adhémar de Chabannes[l] and other
more recent chroniclers are to be believed Louis died “the same death as
his father, of a poisoned draught given by his wife.” This more dramatic
tradition has prevailed with the greatest number. The multitude were not
willing to believe that so famous a dynasty could have come to an end by
a burning fever or a commonplace accident. Both father and son died most
opportunely for Hugh Capet, and what we know of the moral tone of that
century allows us to suspect anything: but the testimony of Richer lends
all the more weight to Hugh’s justification, since the monk of Rheims is
a partisan of the ancient dynasty and not of the Capets.[h]
The meeting of chiefs and prelates already summoned at Compiègne to
hear Louis’ accusation of Adalbero took place. But no accuser appeared.
Charles the uncle of Louis held aloof. By his conduct as lord of Cambray,
which dignity he had accepted under the suzerainty of the emperor, he had
alienated the clergy, the French or Franci, both of Laon and of the duchy
of France, as well as public opinion in general. He had made a lowly
marriage, lived a dissipated life, and had, in fine, but few friends.
Hugh Capet took upon himself to absolve Adalbero of the crime laid to his
charge, that crime being treason to the Carlovingian family, which was
then in the thoughts and purposes of all. It was, however, judged right
to defer the final decision, and to appoint another meeting at Senlis,
where, after due reflection and deliberation, a solemn resolve might be
made. In the interval between the assemblies, Charles came to remonstrate
with Adalbero. The prelate repelled him as one given to the worst vices
and the worst associates. When the second meeting took place at Senlis,
Adalbero represented Charles as unworthy of the crown, which he declared
had never been hereditary. And no doubt Adalbero, as archbishop of
Rheims, had in view the example of Hatto, archbishop of Mainz, who, on
the extinction of the German Carlovingians, had rendered the crown of the
empire elective, and attributed to the church and its metropolitan the
chief influence in the election. Hugh Capet was therefore unanimously
declared king in the midsummer of 987, and was solemnly crowned soon
after at Noyon.[g]
[Illustration]
FOOTNOTES
[1] [The gradual re-absorption of these fiefs or provinces into the royal
domain is the story of the development of the French monarchy. They were
annexed at different periods by conquest, purchase, voluntary or forced
cession, confiscation, forfeiture, inheritance, marriage, or treaty. The
reader is referred to the chronological table for the dates and manner of
these annexations.]
[2] [“In this unseemly manner,” says White,[e] “the pirate of the Baltic,
and worshipper of the almost forgotten Odin, took his place among the
Christian chivalry of Europe as duke of Normandy and one of the twelve
peers of France.” On his conversion Rollo took the name of Robert.]
[3] [It must be stated that this incident, though related by many
historians, is based solely upon tradition.]
[Illustration]