Louis IX

ON ST. LOUIS IX, KING OF FRANCE,

NEAR TUNIS IN AFRICA.

In the year MCCLXX.

PRELIMINARY COMMENTARY.

Louis, king of the Franks, near Tunis in Africa (St.)

BHL Number: 0978, 4204, 5034, 5038, 5040

BY THE AUTHOR J. S.

§ I. Knowledge of the first three authors of the Life.

Being about to illustrate the illustriously accomplished deeds of St. Louis, a King truly Most Christian and likewise most great, Geoffrey his confessor first composed the Life of St. Louis, and about to publish in Latin speech the writings concerning them, partly already published, partly wholly unpublished, or made public only in the ancient Gallic tongue, I have judged that the reader must be forewarned about the writers of the Acts, so that he may understand at the very threshold of the work how much credit each deserves. The first to undertake to write the Life of St. Louis was brother Geoffrey de Beaulieu, than whom no one could perform it — certainly as regards the things which he recorded — either more faithfully or more rightly: for, being for about twenty years the director of his conscience, privy to all his secrets, the companion of both journeys overseas, and his helper in his last agony, he could be ignorant of nothing which pertained to the holy King's excellent virtues and holy works. He was likewise a man of holy life, as William of Chartres testifies in du Chesne, tome 5 of the Writers of French History, page 466, who also partly confirms the preceding things, known from Geoffrey himself, in these words: But although, to the honor and glory of the Creator, to the commendation of that glorious King himself, and to the testimony of his sanctity, there seems to suffice the odor of his most holy fame diffused everywhere throughout the world; and those things which our father of holy memory, the mirror of all religion, brother Geoffrey de Beaulieu, of the Order of Preachers, his confessor and privy to his secrets, toward the end of his life, at the command of the lord Pope Gregory, as was manifest, subscribed with his own hand, and left in writing to be sent to the lord Pontiff himself &c. James Echard in the Writers of the Order of Preachers, tome 1, page 70: Certainly, he says, the judgment of the holy King Louis IX proves him a man of great parts, who willed him to be the arbiter and moderator of his conscience.

[2] It is therefore not to be feared that Geoffrey wished to obtrude fables upon us: Gregory X commanding that he do this without exaggeration, but that he did not even wish to exaggerate St. Louis's illustrious deeds is dug out from the letters of Gregory X, the supreme Pontiff, committing to him the province of writing. These letters Odoricus Raynaldus recites at the year of Christ MCCLXXII, number 59, in this manner: Gregory, bishop elect, servant of the servants of God, to his beloved son brother Geoffrey de Beaulieu, greeting &c. Of Louis of bright memory

king of the Franks, recalling the exalted merits, we perceive still a so much greater odor of sweetness from the blessedness of his life, which afforded to other orthodox princes an example of living blessedly, as we retain with fresher memory him whom, while living, we loved with a pure mind, now called back to his fatherland. But although we have had in part knowledge concerning the manner of life which he kept in pursuing the good pleasures of his Redeemer, yet, desiring that a manner of this kind become more fully known to us, especially in those things which were done more secretly, we ask thy devotion, and attentively exhort thee, commanding thee by Apostolic writings, that, satisfying our wishes with devout solicitude, thou do not put off writing to us in order, and secretly under thy seal, as soon as thou canst, by a sure messenger, the aforesaid manner of living in all and each of his acts and observances, nothing being added beyond what was, but the substance of pure truth being kept. But we will that the word remain with thee, to be related to no one. Given at Viterbo, on the IV of the Nones of March, in the 1st year of the office of the Apostolate undertaken by us. The pious man satisfied the Pontiff's command by writing the Life, nor can we doubt that he also obeyed his will, recounting each thing, nothing being added beyond what was, but the substance of pure truth being kept. These things abundantly suffice for demonstrating the authority of this Life: he who desires to know more of Geoffrey, let him go to Echard in the place assigned above. We meanwhile, let us see when he wrote, and to the writing of what things this biographer chiefly attended.

[3] recounting his virtues and pious works. Certain of these things omitted The Pontiff's epistle recited was, as we have seen, written in the month of March, in the first year of his Pontificate, that is, in the year of Christ 1272; nor does it seem doubtful that Geoffrey presently set his hand to the work. In that same year 1272, therefore, the Life seems to have been begun, and perhaps completed in the following, which it is nothing to the purpose to pursue at greater length. But concerning the matter treated by this author, William of Nangis, of whom we shall presently treat, in du Chesne, tome 5, page 326, in the proem to the deeds of St. Louis, thus runs: Brother Geoffrey de Beaulieu of the Order of Preachers took care prudently and religiously to write those things which pertained to manners, the most holy Life of that King himself, without the deeds of battles and of secular affairs. This is plain to one reading the Life through; for although he sometimes touches briefly on some of those things, yet he does not cling to them, nor indeed does he run over more than very few. But not even the illustrious exercises of his virtues did he review so exactly as to leave nothing over for others. This William of Chartres, cited at number 1, testifies, who, after the words there related, subjoins these: Yet because concerning certain other things worthy of memory which he did in his life, both in the prosperity of his rule and in the adversity of prison, and in the straits of his death, some are either wholly left aside or omitted; and concerning the miracles which are known to have happened about his sepulchre and elsewhere for the declaration of the divine praise and of that King's merits — of these I have striven to gather a few, and have presumed to add them in brief style.

[4] These words of their own accord lead me on to the second biographer of St. Louis, William of Chartres, the King's chaplain, supplied, and him the next, as it seems, after Geoffrey, at least of those whose writings have come down to us. For I judge that he wrote not long after Geoffrey's death; but that Geoffrey died before Pope Gregory is plain from William's words cited at number 1, where he speaks of Geoffrey as of one dead, but of the Pontiff as still then living: from which I further deduce that he undertook to write before the death of Gregory, who died at the beginning of the year 1276, according to Raynaldus in the same place, or at least before he had learned of his death; but enough of the time. Concerning William let us now hear Echard in the Work mentioned, page 381: Brother, he says, William of Chartres, a Frenchman, sprung from Chartres, a most illustrious episcopal city, spent the earlier years of his life in attendance on the royal court of France, and was to Louis IX, that holy King, his priest and, as they say, chaplain. Whence in that same King's former sacred expedition he was in prison itself his inseparable companion, and with one of ours skilled in Arabic he discharged the divine offices before him, or even with him. Having returned from the Holy Land with the King, he obtained from him a rather rich treasurership in a certain church, which the King, granting it to him, as it were in jest, said: This lord William will now play with this treasurership of his for five or six years, and afterwards will enter religion. But the jest was a true prophecy. For, having enjoyed that benefice for five years and a half, although the King's saying was not then turning in his mind, sending word of renunciation to the world, he embraced the Order of Preachers, nor did he remember the King's words until after several years from the vows pronounced to God. William himself narrates these things at number 14. For the rest, not even thus did he leave the holy King: for, being taken as companion to our Geoffrey de Beaulieu, he always followed that same King. In the Tunisian expedition he stood inseparably by him as he died, and ministered to him, and at his sacred bones, from Tunis through Italy and France on the whole journey as far as Saint-Denis, until they were given to burial, he watched, praying untiringly with brother Geoffrey. From these things, which are drawn from William's own Little Work, you may easily understand that William could know not a few things about the holy King which either were hidden from Geoffrey or had slipped from his memory: and thus that the things consigned to letters by this author deserve the highest credit. Echard is nevertheless mistaken when he says that William watched at the sacred bones with Geoffrey on the journey through Italy and France: for it is established that both were sent into France by king Philip before the king himself departed from Africa with his father's bones. See number 1122.

[5] The Little Work of both the said authors the most distinguished man Claude Menard first sent forth into the public light in Parisian types in the year 1615, together with other writings pertaining to St. Louis: whose Little Works will be published with an appendix of miracles. both du Chesne thereafter inserted into tome 5 of the Writers of French History from page 444: from whose edition we shall exhibit both again, and, divided into chapters and numbers, shall illustrate them with annotations. But since William of Chartres did not undertake to write the Saint's Life, but only to recount those things which he knew had been passed over by Geoffrey, or not sufficiently set forth, we shall give his little lucubration to the press not as a second Life but as an appendix to the first Life. Further, the praised Menard and du Chesne, after these Little Works, published an account of certain miracles under this title: Miracles done in the house of the friars Preachers of Evreux by the protection of Blessed Louis the confessor: which was the first church in the kingdom of France dedicated in the name of the holy King, in the year of the Lord MCCXCIX. But concerning this Echard thus speaks in tome 1 of the said Work, page 381: Whether that appendix .. be a lucubration of William is hidden from me, and I shall scarcely believe that he lived to that year: whence it seems rather to be ascribed to the diligence of our men of Evreux. This conjecture of Echard appears probable to me: especially because William of Chartres is not reviewed among the witnesses questioned for the canonization of St. Louis, whom the Life to be published in the second place reviews from number 17: from which I have a suspicion that he died before the year 1282, in which the inquiry for the canonization was made. There is indeed found a certain William of Chartres among the ministers of the chapel of Philip IV, who by error is written III in Martène, tome 1 of the Anecdota, column [ ]: but since that name was common enough, this may be another than ours. Whatever it be, I shall publish those miracles, under the name of an uncertain author, as a second appendix to the first Life.

[6] William of Nangis, likewise a contemporary author, Not long after the aforesaid authors, William de Nangiaco, or de Nangis, as he calls himself in the proem — we shall call him Nangis — wrote more fully of the illustrious deeds of St. Louis. He was a Benedictine monk of the most celebrated abbey of Saint-Denis in France, likewise contemporary with St. Louis, yet younger than he in age, unless he reached an altogether decrepit old age. This is established from the time of his death: for Michael Félibien in the French History of the abbey of Saint-Denis, page 260, judges that he died about the beginning of the year 1301, a conjecture being drawn from this, that he ended his Chronicle in the year 1300: which conjecture indeed is less certain; but from this a certain argument is drawn that he did not die before the aforesaid year, which is enough to confirm what we have said: for from Louis's birth-year to 1301 there are reckoned 86 or 87 years, and thus either Nangis completed those years, or was younger than Louis, even if it were certain that he died in the year 1301. The year in which the said author began to write St. Louis's deeds we cannot exactly determine: certainly he completed the work before Louis was inscribed in the catalogue of the Saints in the year 1297, since he abstains from the title of Saint, which he uses in the Chronicle completed after this History. Nay, he seems to have completed it already before the year 1282, in which the examination concerning St. Louis's virtues and miracles began to be instituted, as he himself in that same year records in the Chronicle, tome XI of d'Achery's Spicilegium, page 571, in these words: A solemn inquiry is made concerning the life and miracles of holy Louis king of France: for indeed he would not have kept silent about that inquiry in the History if it had already been made. It may therefore be judged that about the year of Christ 1280 St. Louis's deeds were consigned to letters by Nangis, or perhaps even earlier.

[7] Now let us hear from the author himself for what cause, wrote more fully the deeds of St. Louis, and with what aids, he wrote his History. In du Chesne, tome 5, page 326, he prefaces in this manner: The deeds most worthy of remembrance of kings and princes who reigned in ancient times, lest they should seem to fall away from human memory, and lest it should befall them to be blotted out by devouring age, the labor and diligence of the historiographers strove to hand down for an example in the traditions of letters. For when such things are recited to the ears of modern kings and princes, what else is done but a certain brief and silent exhortation, that they themselves may by like acts be made great-souled, and may conform themselves in those same manners and life? Therefore I, brother William de Nangis, unworthy monk of the church of Saint-Denis in France, desiring to follow the footsteps of the aforesaid historiographers, yet because I was not a scholar, nay a poor man and small in the knowledge of letters, after the likeness of that Ruth to be remembered, ran to the fields of the scriptures, gathering thence the ears of the reaping doctors, which they of set purpose left for us behind their back. Having therefore gathered together what I collected, it pleased me to make a single sheaf of one little book concerning the deeds of the glorious Louis king of France, of holy remembrance and good memory, whose renowned life stands in the Church of good works

as a form of good works, prepared as an example for myself and for those to come.

[8] For lord Gilo of Reims, our fellow monk, beginning the first parts of his deeds, because he was overtaken by death, could not finish them. from monuments diligently sought out, and with the best faith, But brother Geoffrey de Beaulieu of the Order of Preachers took care prudently and religiously to write those things which pertained to manners, the most holy Life of that King himself, without the deeds of battles and of secular affairs. And because some have written certain other things about the aforesaid King which have not come to the knowledge of many, I have striven to gather into one the fragments of all, and of the aforesaid, which I could, lest they perish. But the authors whom this author chiefly used were Geoffrey already praised, and Vincent of Beauvais, likewise a familiar of St. Louis, as we shall say: for whatever they wrote about the holy King, Nangis for the most part wove into his History in the same words. Besides, he seems to have had not a few epistles composed concerning the Saint's deeds in the overseas expeditions: for with those letters which the diligence of the French has preserved for us his History is everywhere found sufficiently consonant, so that it appears to have been composed from them. From these things the reader will gather that Nangis did not lack suitable instruments for rightly writing the History of St. Louis. That he was also sincere and faithful in relating deeds is made manifest from the agreement of his History with the authentic instruments which survive.

[9] Moreover this historian wished to consign most of the deeds to their own times: but his chronology less exact: whose Work we shall use in the commentary. but in rightly ordering the chronology he was not so happy as in truly recounting the deeds: for it will be plain from the course of this commentary that he frequently strayed by a year or two from the right chronology. Hence it has come about that not a few historians have been led by his authority into chronological errors. Nangis's History was first published at Frankfurt in the year 1595 from the library of Peter Pithou: then by du Chesne among the Writers of the History of the Franks, tome 5, from page 326. Wherefore I shall abstain from reprinting it entire: nevertheless I shall use this History very much, both for relating the things which are lacking in the authors being published, and for confirming or elucidating those which need confirmation or elucidation. The same author wrote a Chronicle of the things done throughout the world, which we shall also adduce from time to time. For the rest, the said History of Nangis is had also expressed in the ancient tongue of the French, and it is preserved in manuscript in the royal Library of Paris. Of this matter we were informed by that man known to the literary world, the Reverend Father Stephen Souciet, who compared it with Nangis's History, and would have had it copied if it had been other than this. Let these things concerning Nangis's writings suffice: let us proceed to others.

§ II. Knowledge of the manuscript Life, to be published in the second place: likewise of the History written by Joinville, which will be subjoined to it as a third Life.

Another Life, written by the confessor of queen Margaret I have marveled greatly that, although the diligence of the French in unearthing ancient monuments is great, there has hitherto not been made public that Life of St. Louis which is established to have been written by the confessor of queen Margaret. Various historians have long used it, as I think, because they relate certain deeds which seem to be drawn from it. Yet before the rest, the lord de la Chaize used this Life for composing his History of St. Louis. James le Long in the Historical Library of France, page 358, number 7138, assigns a manuscript Life in the Colbertine library, which today is joined to the royal one, which he suspects to be this very one; rightly, I think: for that it is preserved in the royal library the Father Souciet praised above taught us, who had already had the same copied for us from another source. The author of this Life is indeed unknown by name: but he becomes known from elsewhere in such wise that his good faith in writing cannot be doubtful. That he was of the Order of Minors various things altogether persuade: for at the front of the manuscript Little Work, from which our apograph will be said below to have been taken, he is depicted in a Franciscan habit, and in the preface he narrates that he deposited the monuments which he used for composing the Life with the Minors of Paris. He was confessor to queen Margaret for eighteen years: and thereafter to Blanche, daughter of Louis and Margaret, who together with her mother queen Margaret had chosen a dwelling for herself among the Poor Clares in the suburb of Saint-Marcel.

[11] shortly after the canonization of St. Louis And so he seems to have been chosen to hear the confessions of the widowed queen about the year 1277, nearly seven years after St. Louis's death, and, Margaret having died in the year 1295, to have held the same office with Blanche, by whom he was impelled to compose this Life; as he relates in the preface. Hence the time in which he wrote is somehow dug out: for the Acts of the canonization, from which he composed his Little Work, he could have received in the year 1297, or the following: nor does it seem doubtful that Blanche, the Acts being transmitted from Rome, at once urged her confessor to write the Life from them. We can therefore conjecture that it was begun about the year 1298. But it matters little to know the year more exactly, since the authority of this Life must be sought chiefly from the monuments and from the manner in which the writer used them.

[12] from the very Acts of the canonization, But what instruments he used for recounting the Life, and how certain they were, the author himself abundantly declares. For he narrates at number 4 that all the Acts of the examination instituted concerning the Saint's virtues and miracles, examined and approved rather often by many in the Roman curia, and even by Boniface VIII himself, he partly received at Paris, partly had transmitted from Rome. Nay, he brings forward at number 7 the names of the sworn witnesses, among whom are two kings, many bishops and abbots, and others most worthy of credit, and once the King's household men and familiars, whom the reader will be able to see in the place cited. From which you may easily perceive that by human industry there cannot be had more certain monuments than those were from which this Life of St. Louis was composed: inasmuch as they were forged from the sworn testimonies of most excellent men and of eyewitnesses. It remains for us to see whether the writer rightly used monuments so authentic.

[13] What rule he followed in writing he himself sets forth at number 5 in these words: which the author faithfully followed. But in the description of the things which our almighty Lord deigned to work through the venerable holy Louis, it has not seemed to me that there is need for me to endeavor to use an elaborated and polished method of writing; nay rather (as I desire to be understood) to add or to subtract anything: but that I write faithfully those things which I have found, just as they were inquired into, described, proved, and examined by the Roman curia, and approved; whereby they may obtain a surer credit with all upright men. That he followed this method of writing shines out from the writings themselves, most of all where the miracles are described, in whose relation you may everywhere recognize the questionings of the inquisitors, the testimonies of those who were examined, the proofs brought forward, the objections that could be made resolved: nay, even those things which seemed to lessen the evidence of the miracle: so that I judge that what had been composed in Latin by the notaries in the examination of the miracles was by the author only rendered into the French tongue, in the same order in which they had been examined; for he teaches that he followed the order in writing the miracles, in the prologue to the miracles at number 166, in these words: The order of which miracles is faithfully described and subjoined here; no other order indeed than that of the examination, as will be manifest to one reading the miracles through. And so I judge that the very Acts of the canonization, the very sworn testimonies of those who were questioned, were faithfully expressed by the author in this Life, and that he added nothing of his own outside the prefaces, save some order or other in recounting the virtues. From these things the highest authority of this Life seems to me abundantly proved.

[14] Whence we received the copy of this Life, he teaches who transmitted it in the year 1737, The copy of this Life received, the Reverend Father Stephen Souciet, notes in the French tongue being added, which I here partly render into Latin: This Life of St. Louis King of France has been transcribed from a most beautiful manuscript which belongs to D. de Senicourt, advocate in the supreme senate of Paris. He very kindly lent it to Father Stephen Souciet of the Society of Jesus, and left it with him as long as he wished, to examine it and to have it copied. This manuscript is in quarto, on parchment membrane, most brightly written in Gothic characters, which seem to be of the author's own time. At the front of the work a garden emblem is skillfully painted; exceedingly elegant capitals, distinguished with colors and gold, adorn the beginnings of the chapters, so that I scarcely doubt that it is that very copy which was presented to the princess at whose command this Life was composed. In the emblem painted at the front the author is drawn in a Franciscan habit, kneeling, offering his book to a Pontiff, who sits on a throne with the tiara set upon his head. Thus far the praised Souciet, a man most conversant in these matters, by whose kindness and industry we have been much helped.

[15] from the ancient tongue of the French Further, the author wrote this Life in the ancient tongue of the French, and one in use in his own time. His diction does not much depart from the phrase in which we have the History written by Joinville, with Menard and Du Cange as editors: but the orthography is far more corrupt. I have also compared the language of this Life with the History of Villehardouin published by Du Cange, and written toward the beginning of the XIII century, from whose barbarity it departs much both in phrase and in orthography. From which I gather that the tongue of the French had already in that century been no less changed than we behold it changed in these last centuries: nor will it be useless to have observed this for the discussion of Joinville's style, which we shall presently undertake. But the style of this Life is most simple, so that the author truly said that he labored more to express all that he found in the Acts, and to add nothing of his own, than to express each thing in elegant speech: whence it has come about that his lucubration has less charm, but deserves more credit.

[16] rendered into Latin, we shall publish it. Being therefore about to render this Life into Latin, I presently perceived that it could not be done without there being mingled in certain things which would sometimes offend Latin ears, unless I were willing to depart from the author's simple account, and frequently to change his phrase. This I thought unlawful for me, especially because we are not publishing the author's French lucubration, lest the reader should frequently doubt whether the author's sense is faithfully expressed in Latin. And so I have preferred now and then to offend too delicate ears, and to make a loss of elegance, rather than of simplicity and fidelity; thinking that this will not offend prudent men, nor that the illustrious deeds of St. Louis will have less splendor if they be uttered in a simple style, such as the French author used, than if in a more polished or more elegant one. Of this same thing concerning the Latin version of Joinville, of whom I shall presently treat, I here forewarn the reader. For the rest, this Life, which I shall call the second Life of St. Louis, because it is to be published in the second place, contains chiefly the Saint's virtues and miracles; but

it does not recount his illustrious deeds in order, although it reviews not a few historical matters here and there.

[17] [The History of St. Louis composed with the highest fidelity by John of Joinville:] About the same time, namely toward the beginning of the XIV century, John lord of Joinville composed a History of the deeds of St. Louis, being, while the King lived, exceedingly familiar with him, and the companion of the first overseas expedition. It does not please me here to recount that excellent man's deeds, because that pertains less to the Life of St. Louis: if anyone desire to know his genealogy and deeds, let him go to Du Cange, who sets them before his observations on the History of St. Louis written by Joinville. Yet those things which show how much credit is to be given his History I have not judged should be passed over. The second Life, of which we have just now treated, brings forward Joinville among the witnesses examined concerning the Life of St. Louis; and Joinville himself at number 265 narrates that he was called by the inquisitors to Saint-Denis, and there questioned for two days about the holy King's Life: from which we understand that it was not hidden from the inquisitors that many things about St. Louis were known to Joinville. The said second Life at number 140, being about to recite Joinville's testimony, thus speaks of his familiarity with the King: Who was with the blessed King for thirty-four years and more quite familiarly, and enrolled in his household: which will become manifest from Joinville's whole history. But now, with how great caution he wrote he himself often suggests. At number 258: Of the way, he says, which he took when about to set out for Tunis I shall write nothing; because I was not present at it: nor do I wish to set down or to write in this book anything of which I am not sure. Not that he wished to write nothing except what he had seen when present: for the contrary is frequently plain: but that he did not wish to write anything except what he himself had either seen or had received from the account of others which he thought true. Hence he warns his readers toward the end of the Work in these words: And I make known to all readers of this slight little book that those things which I say I saw, and learned from him (Louis), are true, and firmly to be believed. And other things, to which I bear witness only from hearsay, receive in a good sense, if it please you.* Thus that candid man, of whose good faith in writing we cannot doubt: although in the Saint's first deeds he is less accurate, which he himself had not seen, and recounted as an old man.

[18] But there are not lacking those who doubt whether we have today Joinville's History as it had been composed by him. whose style some, with Du Cange, think changed; For they judge that it now exists in a more elegant style than befits his age. Since by this opinion the authority of Joinville's History is not a little shaken, it seems worth the labor that the matter be discussed with accurate examination. The first to publish this History was Peter Antony de Rieux, who in an epistle to Francis I king of France, cited in the aforementioned James le Long, page 358, confesses that he changed the order of the History, and the style. Menard in the year 1617 published the same History from a manuscript, and indeed in that style, as he judged, in which it had been composed by Joinville. Du Cange in the year 1668 put Menard's edition again to the Parisian press, and illustrated it with fuller observations than Menard had made, and with dissertations too: but in the preface to the reader he warns that he cannot bring himself to believe that this History was written by Joinville in a tongue so polished for the time in which the author lived, and that on account of the reasons which he had assigned in the eulogy of Joinville, part 2 of the Work, pages 19 and 20. Either Du Cange's authority or his reasons led the author of the Journal of the Learned to pronounce, at the XXIII of January of the year 1668, treating of this edition of Du Cange, that it is certain that the said History was not composed by Joinville in that state in which we have it today. With these Baillet agrees, tome 2 in the critical table of Authors at the XXV of August, and James le Long in the place assigned, and many others. But truly, Du Cange's reasons being weighed, to which I have found nothing added, I cannot acquiesce in their opinion.

[19] First Du Cange says that this can be inferred from the fact but the first reason proves nothing: that the lord de la Croix du Maine in the Library of French writers asserts that he has this History written in the ancient tongue. But that argument establishes nothing at all against Menard's edition. For indeed that Library of the lord de la Croix du Maine was printed at Paris in the year 1584, that is, 33 years before Menard's edition, made in the year 1617. Why therefore could he not say, having seen the Poitiers edition in which the style was changed, that he had Joinville's History written in the old tongue, even if he had had Menard's very manuscript? Certainly Menard says in the very title of the book that he hands down that History according to the ancient original of the author, suivant l'original ancien de l'Autheur. Why therefore could not the same be the judgment of Francis Grudé about a similar manuscript of his own?

[20] Du Cange presently subjoins another argument, by which he judges the matter is plainly established, the aforementioned author of the Journal of the Learned assenting. the other reason, which The force of the argument is this. Joinville wrote in the year 1215 an epistle to Louis Hutin king of France, which he brings forward: and yet that epistle is written in another style, and in a more ancient tongue, than the History of St. Louis: this therefore was not composed by Joinville in a style and tongue as polished as it now stands. I confess that this reasoning is not to be despised. Let us nevertheless try whether the knot is altogether insoluble. I take the matter up somewhat higher. Claude Fleury in the discourse before tome XVII of the Ecclesiastical History, page IV, treating of grammatical study in the XII and XIII centuries, teaches that grammatical study was at that time so neglected as regards the vernacular speech that words were written now in this way, now in another, even by the same author; as may be seen in Villehardouin's History of the capture of Constantinople. The same I have observed in the Life of St. Louis written by the queen's confessor: this too the reader will be able to perceive with me from various instruments cited in Menard's notes on the Life of St. Louis. It pleases me to adduce one example. At page 356 he brings forward instructions given by St. Louis to his daughter. Let us consider in how different ways the most obvious word, God, is written in French. First Diu, then Dieu, again Dieu, at last Diex. The same word in Joinville's epistle brought forward by Du Cange is written Dex, as also frequently elsewhere. This difference of writing it is easy to observe in many other words. Nor was that usual at that time only: but even now, especially in letters written both in the Belgic and in the French tongue, you may frequently detect great variety in the writing of certain words, either from ignorance or neglect of orthography, or because certain words are wont to be expressed with a different conjunction of letters. This first had to be noted beforehand.

[21] is to be utterly washed away Another thing which I would have observed the same lord Fleury affirms in the place assigned: namely that so great was the ignorance of letters in those times among secular men, even noble ones, that for the greater part they knew neither how to read nor how to write: and for that cause, when some letter had to be written, they did it through some ecclesiastical man who wrote in their name. He proves this from the epistles of Peter of Blois, in which not a few occur written in the name of princely men and women. From which it does not seem doubtful to me that those who knew somewhat more of letters, and yet were not sufficiently skilled in orthography, when they wished to write anything which had to come under the eyes of the learned, made use of some ecclesiastic, or of another, if there were any, more skilled than the rest in orthography, for correcting the orthographical defects as rightly as they could: which even today is done by learned men also, no one, I think, will deny.

[22] various things are observed Thirdly I note that Villehardouin's History, to which some seem to wish Joinville's History to be like, was written about a whole century before this, and that in that time a great change had come about in the writing of the French tongue. If anyone should wish to compare Villehardouin's phrase with the phrase of the author who rendered William of Tyre into French, and continued him to the year MCCLXXV, he will see how great a difference there is between the two authors. This anonymous author's Work Edmond Martène published in tome 5 of the Collection of Old Writers from column 583. Further, this anonymous author, whom Martène proves to have completed his Work between the year 1275 and 1295, as he is far distant from Villehardouin's barbarity, so he uses an older orthography than Joinville. Midway both in the time in which he wrote and in the orthography which he uses is the queen's confessor in the Life of St. Louis mentioned before. He who desires somehow briefly to learn these changes of the French tongue, let him inspect Leibniz's Codex diplomaticus, published at Hanover in the year 1693: he will learn from the instruments there collected, besides the change of the tongue, a great variety of style in letters and diplomas written at almost the same time; nay, he will detect that not a few things are found there written about the same time in which Joinville completed his Work, which perhaps seem to approach the present-day manner of writing and speaking more than Joinville's History does.

[23] Receive by way of a specimen a part of instrument XXXVII, concerning style which he first brings forward, of the year 1215, in which Joinville offered his History to the king. At page 69 a covenant of three peoples begins thus: In the name of God, Amen. Whereas the memory of man is weak and transitory, so that men easily forget things which ought long to endure, it being useful and necessary that what is for the peace and tranquility, and for the honor and profit, of peoples be set down in writing; for this cause We, the Countrymen of Uri, of Schwyz, and of Unterwalden, make known to all who shall read or hear these presents, that, considering and foreseeing the occurrences of the time, and the better to remain in peace and union, also the better to secure and defend our persons and our goods: we have perpetually and inviolably, by our good faith and oath, joined and pledged ourselves together, and have promised and sworn to assist, favor, and aid one another with body and goods at our own expense, within and without our lands, against all who use force or would wish to use it against the persons and goods of us or of ours; and if any harm should befall any of us in his body or in his goods, we will assist him so far as we can, that it be recompensed to him amicably or by justice. The things which follow are of the same style and of the same orthography. Yet I am much mistaken unless these, equally,

or even more, approach the manner of writing in use among the French today than Joinville's writings, such as they now stand.

[24] It pleases me to append a specimen from things published by Du Cange himself. in use in his age, He gave, after the History and other things pertaining to St. Louis, from page 169, the Life of Elizabeth, St. Louis's sister, written by Agnes of Harcourt, and that, as I think, before Joinville composed his History, as can be inferred from the words to be adduced by at least a probable conjecture. Let us hear, then, whether that abbess's tongue be more barbarous than Joinville's. She begins in this manner: We have proposed to write the life of our holy and blessed lady and mother, my lady Isabel of France, at the request of the lord king of Sicily her full brother, according as God shall give us his grace, to the honor of our lord Jesus Christ and of this blessed saint, and to the edification of holy church. First we shall tell who she was, and of what people descended. Our holy mother and lady, my lady Isabel, was descended of royal lineage, and was the daughter of the most noble King Louis of France, who was son of king Philip, and was the daughter of the most noble queen of France, my lady queen Blanche, who was daughter of the king of Spain. Her father and mother had no more daughters, and marvelously loved and cherished her, and men held her for the noblest lady that was on earth. Let us now compare with the phrase of these authors the beginning of the History about whose style we are disputing, and we shall thereafter not with difficulty resolve Du Cange's argument.

[25] from which his phrase does not differ; In these words he prefaces his History in Menard: In the name of the most holy and most sovereign Trinity, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Amen. I, John of Joinville, great seneschal of Champagne, cause to be written and set down in memory the life and most holy deeds and sayings of my lord saint Louis king of France, of most worthy and most holy memory — what I saw and heard of it in the time and space of six whole years, being in his company on the holy voyage and pilgrimage overseas, and afterwards, when we had returned. Which little book is divided into two parts. The first part speaks and shows how the said lord King saint Louis ruled and governed himself according to God, and our mother holy Church, and to the profit and advantage of his kingdom. The second part speaks of his great feats of knighthood and deeds of arms, so that they may be found one after another, and to enlighten and lift up the understanding of those who shall read and hear them. By which things one shall be able to see and clearly know that never did any man living in his time, from the beginning of his reign even to the end, live so holily and justly as he did. Let the reader now consult his eyes and ears, whether the phrase of the preceding authors be harder, the orthography worse, the tongue in fine more savoring of antiquity, than what we have adduced from Joinville: this certainly does not appear to me. Whence it seems to follow that there were not lacking in Joinville's age certain men who knew how to write a history with no harder a phrase, no more corrupt an orthography, no more barbarous a tongue. These things being set forth, the answer to Du Cange's reason is easy.

[26] and Du Cange's reason is answered, The style of the epistle brought forward does not differ from the style of the history save in orthography alone; for you may find in both the same words, the same modes of expressing oneself, so that we ought not to desire a greater likeness of the epistolary style with the historical. But the orthography differs, and it is worse in the epistle than in the History. What therefore shall we conclude from this? This one thing, in my judgment: that Joinville, being less skilled in orthography, took no care that the orthographical faults should be corrected in the epistle, in which he says he answered the king, his letters being received, presently on the same day; but that he applied diligent care that the orthography of his History, which had to come under the eyes of many, should be as exact as could be, and that he used for that purpose the labor of some corrector: for that there were not lacking at that time men who could do it we have already shown. This answer suffices, if anyone judge that the said History was written by Joinville with his own hand. But it seems to me far more probable that it was written by some other man at his dictation, which I shall now briefly show.

[27] which by a second answer falls plainly to the ground, Joinville in the epistle to king Louis X, prefixed to the History in Menard, page 2, says that he was asked by the queen to take care to have a little book composed and written concerning the most worthy and most holy deeds and sayings of St. Louis: Which, he says, I most humbly promised that I would do and would fulfill according to my strength. Then in the preface to the History he asserts that he does this, in these words: I, John lord of Joinville, great seneschal of Champagne, take care that there be written and commended to memory the Life and the most holy deeds and sayings of the lord St. Louis. Dost thou see, reader, that Joinville wrote by another's hand? We ought not therefore to wonder that he likewise used another's orthography in writing his History. And so, whether he wrote that epistle to the king for honor's sake with his own hand, or certainly used another notary, and one less skilled than the one whom he used for writing the History, Du Cange's argument now plainly falls to the ground. Besides, that it is not even probable that Joinville's style was changed I shall show by a brief reasoning.

[28] Joinville's whole lucubration, such as it is now had, it is further proved that Joinville's style does not seem to have been changed. is written in the same style, with the same orthography: if therefore anyone changed the style, or even only emended the orthography, it must needs be that this was done with great zeal and great industry by a man not unskilled. But now this would have been done either in the same XIV century in which Joinville wrote, or in the XV century, or later. But none of these becomes probable or credible to me. For in the XIV century they did not have ears so delicate that some learned man would have taken so great a labor of correcting a book written not long before. If anyone should suspect that the same was done in the XV century, or later, neither will this be credible. For if it had been done at that time by some learned man, so many faults of orthography would not have been left, such as in the XV century you would not easily find in the Works of the learned. For the rest, it can indeed be objected that in Joinville's History certain particles used at that time are not found; and that certain ancient words which occur in the instruments of that time are banished from it. But I answer that in certain other monuments of the same time too they are not found: and thus this must be ascribed to variety of orthography or of dialects. Since therefore it is not proved that in Menard's edition Joinville's style was changed, and since this does not even appear probable, his History published by his labor must be held as the true and genuine lucubration of Joinville, such as Menard judged it, who published it from a manuscript, that he might set it against the interpolated and corrupted Poitiers edition. Yet that some faults crept in here and there into this edition also we shall prove in their places. Now let us examine the time when this History was written.

[29] Du Cange in the said eulogy of Joinville, page 21, shows The time of the writing of this History, to be published in the third place. that the History of St. Louis was written by him under the reign of Philip the Fair, from his own words at number 12: After these things the good King (St. Louis) called .. Philip (III), father of the king now reigning (namely Philip IV, surnamed the Fair). Further the praised Du Cange proves that the History was certainly completed after the year 1305, because he mentioned the death of Guy of Dampierre, who died in that same year 1305. These things are certain enough. But the year in which he completed the History we cannot determine with the same certainty, yet we shall assign it probably. In Menard a dedicatory epistle is prefixed to the History, inscribed to Louis king of France and Navarre, whom he calls the son of St. Louis. This cannot be another than Louis Hutin, or the tenth, provided the inscription be true: but that it seems true we shall prove in the notes on the epistle, to be given below with Joinville's History, where we shall also dissolve the objections. Since therefore Louis Hutin obtained the kingdom toward the end of the year 1314, Joinville could have offered his History to the new king about the beginning of the year 1315, that from it he might learn to imitate the deeds rather of his great-great-grandfather than of his father. These things briefly: for it will make little toward winning credit for the History whether it was written some years earlier or later. For the rest, we shall subjoin Joinville's History, as the third Life of St. Louis, to the two preceding, rendered into Latin in such wise that the reader will easily notice that we had greater care of expressing all Joinville's sayings than of polishing the style.

* concerning the years see what is noted in the same place in the Life.

§ III. Certain other Lives written later: other authors who handed down the deeds of the same Saint to memory.

Lives of St. Louis written later, Besides the Lives just assigned, another has been published in du Chesne, tome 5, from page 395. Its author is an anonymous monk of Saint-Denis: the time in which this Life was written is unknown; but I conjecture that it was written not long after the canonization: the author certainly seems to be little distant from St. Louis, if you consult his manner of writing. For the rest, it comprises few of the Saint's deeds, part of which we shall insert into the Commentary: for the author is worthy of credit, but has scarcely anything which is not read set forth in the second Life. We have also another manuscript Life by an anonymous author, transmitted to us by the care of the Reverend Father Stephen Souciet, concerning which James le Long in the Library already mentioned several times, page 359, number 7147, thus runs: The holy Life and illustrious deeds of the lord St. Louis, king of France. This is the title of the Life which he teaches was printed at Paris in octavo in the year 1666. He then notes that in this Life many circumstances are found which are not found elsewhere: its ancient tongue, he says, was preserved. This author does not note about what time this Life was written; nor can I determine it. Nevertheless from the tongue it is sufficiently gathered that this author was not coeval with St. Louis, for both the style and the orthography approach much more nearly to the present-day manner of writing than the style and orthography of Joinville, so that he can seem later by a whole century. Further, as it contains certain singular things which are not found in others, so also certain things not sufficiently certain, nay contrary to more approved authors. Wherefore I shall use this Life only in the commentary, or in the annotations,

where it shall seem expedient; but since I cannot have it in print, I shall cite it from the manuscript under the name of the manuscript Life by an anonymous author. The praised le Long at page 359 reviews also various biographers of St. Louis who in the XVI and XVII centuries composed his Life, among whom I shall now and then adduce one, Louis Lassere, who joined a Life of St. Louis written in French with a Life of St. Jerome, which were printed together at Paris in the year 1541, and again in the year 1588, which edition I shall cite. The rest the curious reader will find in the same place, for I do not think I must have recourse to them where coeval authors are not lacking.

[32] In the preceding century, finally, the History or Life of St. Louis was composed more diligently than by all the rest, the last two biographers. and polished with French elegance, by D. Filleau de la Chaize and D. Francis Timoléon de Choisy, whose lucubrations are well enough known in France. The former used the monuments most diligently sought out by Tillemont, from which he diligently wrote the History of king Louis IX, with not a few things mingled in which happened in various parts of the world about the same times: but the Saint's virtues, which pertain to his private Life, he left to be recounted by others. He published this History at Paris in the year 1688 in two volumes in quarto, but did not prefix his name. The other in the year 1690 likewise sent forth into public a Life of St. Louis in Parisian types. This is briefer than the preceding, and less exact in relating the Saint's deeds: for this author wished chiefly to describe the virtues, even of the private life, and for that cause he warns in the preface that he applied his mind to writing this Life, because la Chaize himself confessed that this part of the history had been passed over. Their works I shall use in this commentary, most of all the former's: but I shall not follow their opinion blindly. So much for the biographers. Now we shall also briefly examine what authority certain coeval historians ought to have, whose writings we shall rather frequently adduce in the course of the work.

[33] Godfrey William Leibniz at Hanover (not at Leipzig, as le Long wrongly notes) in the year 1698 published a Chronicle, Other coeval writers: the author of the Chronicle under the name of Alberic, under the name of Alberic, monk of Trois-Fontaines, carried down from Adam to the year of Christ 1241. That the author of this Chronicle was not a monk of the Cistercian Order in the monastery of Trois-Fontaines the said le Long contends from page 355, and strives by various reasons to prove that he was a canon regular of Huy on the Meuse in the diocese of Liège, which reasons indeed can hardly be resisted. Nearly the same had already been the judgment of the editor Leibniz, who in the preface prefixed to the Chronicle thus discourses: His Work in the codex of the Augustan library is inscribed: The Chronicle of Alberic, monk of Trois-Fontaines of the diocese of Liège; from conjecture, I suppose, of a learned man. But the codex of Clermont at Paris has: Of the diocese of Châlons, perhaps from the Cistercian Library of Charles de Visch. Yet I judge that he lived in the diocese of Liège, and I believe that whoever shall read the book will judge with me: so many and so minute things has he concerning matters of Liège, of Huy, and neighboring ones. Whatever be the case as to the place in which this author wrote, he certainly seems to have been coeval with St. Louis. This is somehow gathered from the fact that he makes an end of writing in the year 1241. But because he could have died over the Work, this is more certainly proved from the fact that from the year 1223 he cites no further author, whereas before he had cited various ones, and had compiled almost all other Chronicles, as the said le Long asserts. For if he had lived later, there would not have been lacking authors whom he would have cited after the said year 1223. Whence I conclude that in matters pertaining to St. Louis that credit is owed him which is owed to a coeval author; although in earlier matters all do not attribute to him the same authority. For the rest, I shall cite that Chronicle under the now common name of Alberic.

[34] Not to be passed over in this place is Vincent of Beauvais, Vincent of Beauvais, familiar with St. Louis; a historian of the sacred family of Preachers, likewise contemporary with St. Louis, and moreover familiar and dear to him, as is sufficiently dug out from the epistle which he gave to the King, consolatory concerning the death of his son Louis, and from the fact that the King himself busied himself to promote his studies, as will be said in its places. That he died in the year 1264 Echard conjectures in tome 1 On the Writers of the Order of Preachers, page 214, which it is not our concern to investigate more exactly. Although therefore Beauvais has not great authority among the learned in matters long preceding his own age, in matters pertaining to St. Louis he ought to obtain that credit which we are wont to give to a contemporary, pious, and sincere author: which it was needful to have noted, because we have already said that Nangis drew much from him. He who desires more concerning him, let him go to Echard as cited.

[35] Matthew Paris, whose History There flourished likewise in St. Louis's time Matthew Paris, an Englishman, a Benedictine monk, and he inserted not a few things about the holy King's deeds into his History. But it is useful here to note this man's marvelous variety in writing, and to observe in a few words his inconstancy, lest his evil-speaking deceive the incautious reader. He frequently praises St. Louis, both for justice and for piety and for excellent sanctity: yet the same man, if his History has come down to us uncorrupted, now and then inveighs against him in the bitterest words. Let us hear him at page 383: And at the same time, he says, the King of the Franks, using the counsel of those who hate the kingdom of England, gave the county of Poitou to Alphonse his brother … which is recognized rightly to pertain to the king of England, or to his brother by his gift … making little account of — nay rather despising — the right or claim of count Richard, who faithfully warred for God in the Holy Land, and freed the Franks who were captives. Whence many could not sufficiently marvel at the nobility of the Franks permitting and counseling this, who rendered evil for good so ungratefully and shamelessly. These things, and things like them, Paris says of the King, whom he often adorns with deserved praises, and whose illustrious deeds and sayings he frequently records. Those things will be refuted in their places, nor are French authors lacking who have already confuted them, judging Paris's authority in these matters of no great weight; and deservedly indeed, inasmuch as he recounts such different things of the same King that, if you read only his writings, you would now think him unjust, now most just.

[36] is too evil-speaking, and perhaps corrupted: As Paris is now and then not sufficiently fair toward that most holy King, so also he frequently unloads his bile upon the supreme Pontiffs and their ministers; and not seldom for this cause he is beaten in Baronius and other Catholic writers. But it is not sufficiently established whether all these things are to be imputed to Paris himself, or whether they were afterwards inserted into his History by some malevolent person. Certainly John Pits, On the Illustrious writers of England, at the year 1259, in which he places his death, page 338, thus declares his doubt on this matter: Yet whether these things and the like were so written by him, or falsely ascribed to him by others, I would dare affirm nothing for certain, especially since it is the opinion of some that many of his writings, published more recently, came to light uncorrected, nay corrupted, and somewhat depraved. But now, lest anyone judge that Paris is accused of the license of evil-speaking calumny only by writers who love the Roman Pontiffs, it pleases me to hear speaking of this vice of his a heterodox man, whom no one can hold suspect of excessive indulgence toward the Roman Church. Casimir Oudin in tome 3 On Ecclesiastical Writers, column 209, thus runs concerning him: For he cuts all, he pricks all, as if he had most rigidly proposed to himself to spare or to pardon absolutely none of mortals: not bishops, forsooth, not magnates, not kings, not emperors, nay not the Pope himself, nor his own abbot. But like some madman at a crossroads, from whatever region a traveler shall have come up, whether Trojan or Rutulian, whether guest or enemy: if he has not pleased him, he assails the poor wretch with whips, and, having ill beaten him with thongs, keeps him off and drives him away. Further, he says after a few words, William Watts, an English presbyter, strives to excuse the man, and to whiten one whom they think an Ethiopian. Whose words being brought forward, he answers among other things thus: One thing I shall say, in which he can scarcely ever be excused by anyone, that Matthew Paris was a most ungrateful and proud monk.* Which he then proves from the infamous plagiarism by which he had copied Roger of Wendover's Chronicle as his own. These things he says, and more of the kind. Hence the reader will gather that not all things are to be held for certain which are found written in Paris's History about St. Louis, especially where controversies between the French and the English are treated, or the manner of dealing with the supreme Pontiff.

[37] For the rest, the things which he inserted into his History about the holy King free of bile and of partisan zeal — although they are not written with that simplicity of words which we shall therefore use cautiously: with which almost all the other authors whom we have enumerated hitherto relate St. Louis's deeds — do not nevertheless seem altogether to be rejected, since the author is coeval, nor can we suspect that they were afterwards added by anyone. Nevertheless we shall not bring forward even all these without some selection, since he sometimes relates long conversations of persons with such confidence as if he himself had been present at the deed, and had, being present, consigned all the words to letters; although in them he now and then strays not only from truth but also from probability. Great caution therefore is needed that we may rightly use Paris's History, lest we obtrude his insipid meditations upon the incautious reader as true histories. This being premised, we shall use the Paris edition of the Work of the year 1644; to which are subjoined the same author's Additamenta, or instruments, which too we shall use now and then.

[38] Among the authors contemporary with St. Louis who commended his illustrious virtues Philip Mouskes, William Guiart, French poets: and heroic deeds to the memory of posterity, there must also be numbered two French poets, Philip Mouskes and William Guiart, who inserted not a few things about St. Louis into their History bound in meter. Philip Mouskes's history is extant in the royal library, as le Long has it from Labbe, page 356; it begins from the rape of Helen, and is drawn down to the year 1242: a part of it Du Cange published after Villehardouin's History of the capture of Constantinople, in whom the reader will find more about this author in the preface, page 211. The Du Cange just praised likewise published, after the History of St. Louis written by Joinville, that whole part of William Guiart's History which pertains to St. Louis. This History too, therefore, will be able to be of use to us; for although it is bound in meter, it pursues historically the holy King's virtues and illustriously accomplished deeds from the beginning of his reign to his death. The said Du Cange teaches in the preface to the reader at the beginning of the tome that the author set an end to his Work at the year 1307, in which, he says, he was living: namely 37 years after the death

of St. Louis, so that he must be reckoned to have lived with that same Saint for at least some years. But if William was perchance not of such an age that he himself could have beheld the Saint's deeds, there certainly survived at that time not a few who had seen them, from whom he could learn them: although he also seems to have had before his eyes the Life written from the Acts of the canonization, with which, in relating the holy King's virtues, he agrees before the rest. This metrical Life, therefore, or History, we judge altogether worthy of credit.

[39] and many others, to whom are added the instruments. Besides the authors mentioned hitherto, there are still not lacking others coeval with St. Louis, or nearly so: there are moreover very many instruments, and those most authentic; such as the bull of canonization comprising a compendium of the Life, and many letters written in those times, both by Louis himself and by others: but I forbear to enumerate all these here, because I shall indicate each in its place. From these, therefore, we shall supply in this commentary, in chronological order, those deeds of the Saint which are less accurately set forth in the Lives to be published, or altogether passed over: from these we shall treat the controversies occurring here and there; and finally we shall elucidate the Acts of St. Louis so far as we can, which we now undertake.

fuat*

§ IV. St. Louis's parents, brothers, and sisters: whether he was obtained by the prayers of St. Dominic and by the recitation of the rosary?

The most glorious St. Louis, once King of France, St. Louis's father Louis VIII, a pious king; says the second Life at number 10, had a father most excellent in the Christian religion, and king of France, by name Louis — namely the eighth commonly of that name, although he is wrongly called the seventh in the manuscript Life of the anonymous author; and although Spondanus proves at the year of Christ 1223, number 6, that he was really the eleventh, in this manner: But he (the Louis of whom we treat) was commonly called the eighth king of his name; the beginning of the number being taken from Louis the pious, king and emperor, son of Charlemagne: whereas nevertheless he ought really to be called the eleventh, because the three Clovises who reigned in the first Merovingian stock of the kings are the same as Louis, or HLudovicus, or HLudoveus, or even Luduinus, as they are named by ancient authors. Geoffrey at number 4 calls him Most Christian and most holy. An uncertain author in du Chesne, tome 5, page 288, praises his conjugal continence in these words: A man indeed catholic, and of wondrous sanctity, in all the days of his life he did not stain himself, save with his one wife alone, joined to him in lawful matrimony. The same Beauvais hands down, book 30, chapter 129. Let these things suffice for commending the piety of Louis VIII, which appeared most of all in the later years of his life in the expeditions undertaken against the Albigensians. He who desires more about St. Louis's father will find it in the French authors; we shall relate his death in a few words in its place.

[41] his mother Blanche, a most excellent woman; For a mother, as the second Life has at number 10, the blessed King obtained queen Blanche, honored daughter of the king of Spain, namely of Alphonso X king of Castile. She had already been married to Louis from the year 1200, as Alberic's Chronicle hands down at that same year, page 418, in these words: In the year MCC… Louis son of the king of France married Blanche, daughter of Alphonso king of Castile, niece by their sister of the kings of England Richard and John. With wondrous praises authors commonly adorn this queen. Who, says Geoffrey at number 5, was truly beloved of the Lord, and lovable to God, and useful and acceptable to men. Nangis in du Chesne, tome 5, page 329, commends her prudence in these words: She was the most prudent of all the women of her time, and all good things came to the kingdom of France together with her. More about this most excellent mother of St. Louis I do not here add, for discourse about her will frequently recur, and at the year of her most pious death we shall not let her go altogether unpraised. Of these parents was St. Louis born.

[42] Let us likewise briefly investigate his brothers and sisters. A Fragment of the Life of Louis VIII, brothers published from an old manuscript codex by du Chesne, tome 5, page 289, enumerates the following in this manner: This Louis's wife was named Blanche, daughter of the king of Castile, from whom he begot several sons, namely Philip the firstborn, who died in boyhood, then holy Louis, Robert count of Artois, Alphonse count of Poitiers, and John who died a boy, and Charles count of Provence, afterwards king of Sicily, and a daughter Elizabeth. The author of this fragment wrote at least after the canonization of St. Louis, for he calls him holy: and so we ought not to wonder if he passed over some who died in boyhood. The said author's footsteps Gerard du Bois follows in the History of the Church of Paris, tome 2, page 309, thus writing: He received several children from queen Blanche: Philip, who died in boyhood; Louis, who afterwards reigned…; Robert, who was count of Artois; Alphonse, who was count of Poitiers; John, who died a boy; Charles, who first obtained the county of Provence (rather of Anjou, then also of Provence) and afterwards the kingdom of Sicily; and a daughter Elizabeth. Certainly one is passed over in this enumeration, whom Alberic calls Dagobert, and who elsewhere is named Philip Dagobert.

[43] Hear then Alberic in his chronicle at the year 1226, page 522, enumerating in their order St. Louis's brothers he is said to have had who were living when he was marked with the royal crown: Of his brothers, he says, these were the names: Robert, John, Alphonse, Dagobert, Charles, and his sister Isabel. Philip, the eldest of all by birth, of whom the same man makes mention at the year 1214, page 485, had already died before his father, and had been buried in the church of blessed Mary of Paris, as is plain from the letters of Louis VIII recited by the said lord du Bois in the place cited, in which Louis himself thus speaks: Let all present and to come know that we, for the salvation of our soul, and of Blanche the queen our wife, and of Philip our firstborn, have established one chaplaincy in the church of blessed Mary of Paris, in which is buried the body of that same son of ours Philip. Two others an untimely death took away in the year 1232, as in the same place, page 542, the praised Chronicle of Alberic records in this manner: Two of the brothers of Louis king of France, namely John and Dagobert, die.

[44] These likewise as St. Louis's brothers la Chaize reckons in the History of St. Louis, page 51. eight, and two sisters. He was not But others enumerate more: for a daughter born in the year 1205, and a son by the name of Stephen, the brothers Scévole and Louis Sainte-Marthe add to the preceding in the History of the French House, tome 1, from page 505. But our Labbe, whom others too follow, in the Genealogical Tables of the royal House of France, from page 54, enumerates altogether eleven children of Louis VIII by Blanche, nine sons in this order: Philip, Louis, Robert, Philip and John twins, Alphonse, Charles, Stephen, Philip surnamed Dagobert; and two daughters, the eldest by birth of unknown name, and Isabel. For the rest, concerning the three who came to manly age — namely Robert, Alphonse, and Charles — more will be said in their places: as also concerning Blessed Elizabeth, or Isabel, a most holy woman, who will also have a place in our Work at the XXX of August. Certain writers of the Order of Preachers, and many others whom Arthur du Monstier cites in the Franciscan Martyrology, page 390, to whom others also afterwards were added, will have it that St. Louis was obtained by the prayers of St. Dominic and by the rosary recited by his mother Blanche, which, as it is utterly unknown to the writers of the Life, so will easily fall to the ground from what has been said. My colleague Cuper in the preliminary commentary on the Acts of St. Dominic, tome 1 of August, page 404, shows, after Echard the Dominican, that this cannot be connected with the deeds of St. Dominic, and that it was incautiously taken by more recent writers from Alan de la Roche, a fabulous author, which was enough to confute the fable.

[45] obtained by prayers from a childless mother. Nor indeed does this fight the less with the Acts of St. Louis. Let us briefly hear some things from Thomas Malvenda, who in the Annals of the Preachers at the year of Christ 1245, chapter 24, page 136, narrates more of these matters: Blanche was, he says, in matrimony with Louis now more than twelve years without offspring, which he fixes to the year 1212 or 1213. But truly that Blanche did not lack offspring at that time is clear by the authority of contemporary writers: for Alberic in the Chronicle, page 485, relates that Philip, firstborn of Louis VIII and the eldest by birth of St. Louis's brothers, was in the year 1214 betrothed to the daughter of the count of Nevers, which certainly could not have been done if Blanche had then been destitute of offspring, and Louis had been born within a short time, as Malvenda has it below. I add no more; for the unskilled author of this little fable, who deceived Malvenda and others incautious, drew the occasion of inventing it from ignorance: because he thought that St. Louis was the eldest son by birth, and that his parents had long lacked offspring: which, since they are false, the structure resting on this foundation falls of itself. Yet from this we do not disapprove the most pious custom of reciting the rosary; nor do we deny that St. Louis was granted to France by a singular gift of God.

§ V. The year of the Saint's birth established by the authority of the ancients.

Disagreement of the ancients about the year of his birth, The day of St. Louis's birth is certain, and received by the common consent of the historians: for that the Saint was born on the day of St. Mark the Evangelist, or the XXV of April, authors both ancient and modern hand down. Concerning the year, however, in which this illustrious Star of France arose, I do not find the same consent. For although the writers who flourished in these last times have gone off into almost one opinion, and most of the learned today believe that St. Louis was born in the year 1215, yet I have not found this sufficiently established and confirmed by suitable reasons. Wherefore I would have the learned French pardon me for calling that lately received opinion to a new examination, and for determining from the authority of the ancients which seems to have been the birth-year of the most holy King: for on this depends the chronology of his whole Life.

[47] for some set 1215, others 1214. Only two years, namely 1215 and 1214, come into dispute, some authors setting this, others that, as St. Louis's birth-year: for although some, even ancient writers, seem to designate the year 1213, their opinion will be sufficiently refuted from what is to be said. But now there are few among the ancients who speak of the year of his birth itself; but more suggest it by saying of what age he was when he obtained the kingdom and was crowned with the royal crown. It must therefore be diligently noted that he was crowned in the year 1226, as is now acknowledged by all, on the first Sunday of Advent: and so all those who attribute to Louis more than twelve years of age when he was crowned are against the year 1215; those who affirm that at that time he had not yet completed twelve years, are against that same year

favor it: but those who attribute twelve years simply favor neither opinion much, since it is uncertain whether they mean them complete or incomplete. These things being noted beforehand, I shall bring forward the testimonies of the ancients which I have found for either opinion, yet not being about to decide the matter by the number of witnesses alone, but rather chiefly to consider which are to be preferred to which, even among the ancients, in this matter.

[48] Nangis in the Life of St. Louis in du Chesne, tome 5, Nangis in the Life favors the year 1215; in the Chronicle he opposes it: page 327, patronizes the year 1215 in these words: Louis his son, who had not yet attained the twelfth year of his age, obtained the summit of the kingdom of the Franks — and that in the year 1226, as he presently adds: things consonant with this the reader will find in the same Life in various places, where he speaks of the King's age. Nangis's opinion would have some weight, if he had not afterwards written the contrary. Hear what he writes in the Chronicle composed later: for in it he adorns Louis with the title of Saint, which he does not do in the Life. In d'Achery's Spicilegium of the new edition, which I shall always allege in the course of the work, page 31, the death of Louis VIII being related at the year 1226, he thus goes on: Whom there succeeded in the kingdom Louis his son, and, by the industry and prudence of his venerable mother Blanche… he is crowned, in the fourteenth year of his age not completed. Nangis therefore, who in the proem to the Life asserts that he gathered the ears of the reaping doctors, or composed his History from the writings of others, fell upon some doctors when he was gathering St. Louis's deeds, and upon others when he was writing his Chronicle; and these, seen later, he at last preferred, in designating the new King's age, to those whom he had followed in composing the Saint's Life. Although therefore a writer's second opinion is to be preferred to the first which he abandoned, and thus Nangis seems rather to oppose the more recent writers' opinion than to help it, yet I shall not rely on the authority of this writer, whose chronology we shall often find straying. So much for Nangis, whose former opinion perhaps moved many to set the year 1215 as St. Louis's birth-year, because they had not read his Chronicle, published long after the History, and did not sufficiently perceive his chronological lapses.

[49] The opinion of the more recent historians the brief Chronicle of Saint-Denis hands down most clearly, an anonymous writer in the Chronicle of Saint-Denis designates the year 1215, written by an anonymous Benedictine monk of that same abbey, and published by d'Achery in tome 2 of the Spicilegium from page 495, in which, at page 496, at the year MCCXV these words are read: In this year was born Louis the King, son of Louis the king, on the feast of St. Mark the Evangelist. Nothing is clearer than this testimony, provided the author be such that we can safely stand by his testimony: this therefore must be investigated. That anonymous writer carried down his Chronicle, very brief indeed, to the year 1292, from which a conjecture can be made that he wrote about that time, namely toward the end of the XIII century, after Nangis had written the Deeds of St. Louis, or at almost the same time. This author therefore could have followed Nangis; or, if he did not follow him, he was not so near to the birth-year that he could not have strayed in it.

[50] another anonymous writer of the same abbey the year 1214: This anonymous writer could certainly pass over among St. Louis's brothers Philip the eldest by birth, and the others whom he seems altogether to have been ignorant of, since he records the birth of the others but omits that of these. Since therefore this author is not sufficiently suitable, by whose testimony we may define this matter, we set against his testimony the testimony of another monk of the same abbey, likewise anonymous, whose Little Work on the deeds of St. Louis du Chesne published in tome 5 from page 395, where he thus begins in the proem: That holy Louis the ninth, son of the aforesaid Louis by queen Blanche, daughter of the king of Spain, in the XIII year of his age succeeded his father in the kingdom. And presently, the proem being finished: That holy Louis therefore, a youth of XIII years, being bereft of his Most Christian father. Thou seest, I think, reader, how little the monks of the abbey of Saint-Denis agree about St. Louis's birth-year: from which I gather that their authority must be banished from this controversy, and other authors sought who were better instructed on this matter.

[51] with the year 1215 William Guiart agrees: William Guiart in Du Cange, page 133, asserts that St. Louis had not yet had twelve years when he was crowned: this author therefore favors the year 1215, or the more recent writers' opinion. But since he wrote only at the beginning of the XIV century, he could not by himself know St. Louis's birth-year, but had to receive it from others; nor is it improbable that he followed Nangis's former opinion on this matter. Then William Guiart erred in enumerating the sons surviving Louis VIII; for presently at the beginning of the Poem he writes that four sons were left by the deceased Louis VIII: St. Louis, Robert, Alphonse, Charles: but there were living even then John and Philip surnamed Dagobert: we cannot therefore be secure that he did not likewise err in designating St. Louis's birth-year. Especially since we could show not a few chronological errors in this author, if it seemed worth the labor. To this testimony therefore I shall oppose other authors who will readily oppose the more recent writers' opinion as much as the said poet helps it.

[52] but the same is opposed by Nicholas Trivet, William de Puylaurens, Nicholas Trivet of the Order of Preachers carried his Chronicle down to the year 1307, to which we said from Du Cange at number 37 that Guiart carried down his Poem: that Trivet died about the year 1328, at about seventy years of age, Echard thinks, tome 1 On the Writers of the Preachers, page 561; so that the age of both was almost equal, and the authority of the Chronographer with the Poet ought to be at least equal. But he in tome 3 of the Spicilegium, page 189, at the year 1226 thus writes: Louis king of the Franks dies, and there succeeded him his son St. Louis, crowned as King when he was fourteen years old. Receive also men contemporary with St. Louis. William de Puylaurens, who carried his Chronicle down to the year 1271, which Catel published after the History of the counts of Toulouse, page 85, the death of Louis VIII being related, thus goes on: Whom Louis his firstborn succeeded in the kingdom. Now he was of the age of fourteen years when he began to reign. With this nearly agrees the Chronicle of an uncertain author, subjoined to the preceding, in these words: Whom Louis his firstborn son, of the age of nearly fourteen years, succeeded in the kingdom. This author sets an end to his Chronicle at the year 1312.

[53] Older than both is Vincent of Beauvais, and familiar with St. Louis, Vincent of Beauvais, and the anonymous writer of the Life. of whom we treated at number 34, who in book 30 of the Speculum Historiale, chapter 129, concerning the death of Louis VIII and the age of St. Louis succeeding him in the kingdom — from which his birth-year is dug out — thus writes: In the year of the Lord MCCXXVII he passes over there to Christ (Louis VIII). We shall convict this of error in its place. After a few words he adds concerning the son: And so Louis his firstborn … is crowned as King, who was about to complete the XIV year of his age on the next following feast of St. Mark the evangelist. With Vincent the anonymous French biographer plainly agrees, of whom I treated at number 32. Both these authors err in the time of the King's crowning; yet they judge that he was born in the year 1214, as is plain from the computation of the reckonings, nor does it certainly follow from this error that they likewise erred in the birth-year. The preceding writers, namely Trivet and William, bring down the holy King's birth to the year 1213, which is contrary to many authors who say twelve years simply, and thus they too must be judged to have erred, as will afterwards become more plain, but rather by one year than by two. These authors therefore easily outweigh the single testimony of Guiart: but neither does their authority seem so great in this matter that we can safely determine the matter; nor does it please me to adduce more chronographers of this kind, since a controversy is not to be settled by the number of authors alone: but it has pleased me to adduce these, that it might be plain how easily those could have erred who have been brought forward for the year 1215, since even those erred who were nearer to the deed, or to St. Louis's birth.

[54] Thus far the controversy has been balanced with almost equal weights on either side. Three most approved authors set the year 1214: Now, since I have not at hand more authors of any weight who can bear testimony for fixing St. Louis's birth to the year 1215, I shall bring forward witnesses to whom we can scarcely deny credit, and who with consonant voice testify that the holy King was born to the world in the year 1214. Edmond Martène in tome 5 of the Most Ample Collection of Old Writers, from column 917, published from a manuscript codex of the royal library the Chronicle of Tours, by an anonymous author indeed, but, as the editor observes in the same place, of a certain Canon of the church of St. Martin of Tours, who, having begun it from the very creation of the world, drew it down to the year MCCXXVI, in which he was living, says Martène: but for the year MCCXXVI one should read MCCXXVII, to which it is read to have been drawn down. But the author in the preface, column 919, after he has set forth what authors he followed in more ancient matters, thus subjoins: For the rest, the things which we have subjoined we have partly found set out elsewhere, some others were seen by us, and others ascertained by sure report. Since therefore the same author asserts a little before that he took pains to weave the sequence of times down to his own times, and since the things which he committed to memory concerning St. Louis's coronation, and the disturbance of the kingdom which presently followed in the year 1227, are the last which he composed, we easily understand that the things which he related concerning St. Louis's age and coronation are to be reckoned among those seen, or ascertained by sure report. That this author therefore is to be preferred to all the rest whom we have cited hitherto in designating St. Louis's birth-year is clearer from what has been said than that it ought to be proved at greater length.

[55] Let us hear then what he sets down, and let us safely follow it. At column [ ], the death of Louis VIII being related at the year 1226, he thus goes on: He being buried, they solemnly crowned the boy Louis, the author of the Chronicle of Tours, his firstborn son (of those living), in the XIII year of his age, on the vigil of St. Andrew the Apostle, by the hands of James bishop of Soissons, the see of Reims being vacant, to the kingdom of France. Several circumstances of the coronation, which this author pursues more exactly than any other, we shall give in their place. Since therefore St. Louis was born on the XXV of April, he was likewise born in the year 1214, as is plain to one computing the numbers from the XXV of April of the year 1214 to the XXIX of November of the year 1226. Let this therefore be the first witness: whose words, transferred from the Chronicle of Tours into the Breton Chronicle, the reader will find in tome 2, column 359, of the History of Britain of the lord Lobineau.

[56] the author of the second Life A second testimony, and that irrefragable, the confessor of queen Margaret will give, and thus one contemporary with St. Louis: although his testimony

I do not think irrefragable from the author's age alone, but chiefly because he followed those monuments to which in this matter we cannot deny credit: for we said in §2 that this author wrote the Life from the Acts of the canonization according to the sworn testimonies of most excellent men, and added nothing of his own except the order, as he himself testifies in the same place. But who would believe that anything about the Saint's age was inserted into the Acts of the canonization unless it were altogether certain and by no means doubtful? Who would doubt that the very authentic instruments were consulted, in which the day and year of his birth were noted down, before anything about the Saint's age was written in the Acts of the canonization and confirmed by sworn testimony? He truly does not know with how great caution proceeding is made in this matter, who thinks that even slightly to be doubted. Let us hear then what this author says about St. Louis's age when his father met death in the year 1226: The King of France, he says, the father of the venerable holy Louis, having died in the manner which we have said, this blessed King remained alone, being a little more than twelve years old, under the guardianship … of his mother. That this man agrees with the preceding author — that is, that the death of Louis VIII took place while St. Louis was in the thirteenth year of his age — is clear and manifest. And so I proceed to the third witness.

[57] and Bernard Gui, who gave an exact chronological compendium of the life; Edmond Martène in tome 6 of the Most Ample Collection published various Little Works of the most illustrious Bernard Gui, bishop of Lodève, of the Order of Preachers, a man most learned for his time, whom James Echard, tome 1 On the Writers of the Preachers, from page 576, shows to have flourished already toward the end of the XIII century, although he met his last day only in the year 1331 at about seventy years of age. After the said Little Works of Bernard, from column 539, Martène published from a manuscript of the royal library the Number of the monasteries of nuns of the Order of the friars Preachers, written also by Bernard himself, but afterwards augmented by an anonymous writer, as the Reverend Father Matthew Texte teaches in a learned Dissertation on the birthplace of St. Louis, page 9: the same Echard had already published before the said Work, page VI, from Bernard's manuscript, without the augmentation afterwards added: but since certain typographical faults occur there, I shall rather cite Martène's edition. And so at column 541, treating of the monastery of Poissy, founded in honor of St. Louis, he gives a brief chronology of the Saint's chief deeds, which I shall insert whole in this place, that the reader may see how exactly all things have been deduced chronologically, and may at the same time have a chronological compendium which we are to follow and to confirm in its places. The monastery, he says, of Poissy near Paris, which began to be founded in honor of the most glorious confessor Blessed Louis the King, once the most pious King of the Franks, by the lord king Philip, as notably as royally and powerfully, in the year of the Lord MCCXCVII, the canonization having been heard of St. Louis, the most pious King of the Franks, once his grandfather, who was born into this world at Poissy, and received sacred baptism. But he was born on the feast of Blessed Mark the Evangelist in the year of the Lord MCCXIV. But he was crowned as King on the first Sunday of Advent, in the year of the Lord MCCXXVI, but in the XIII year of his age, which he was about to complete on the following feast of St. Mark the Evangelist. But he took the cross for the first overseas passage in the year of the Lord MCCXLIV, but in the thirtieth year of his age already completed. But he crossed the sea the first time in the year of the Lord MCCXLVIII, when he had already attained the XXXIV year of his age. But he returned thence, seven years having already been spent amid delays, in the year of the Lord MCCLIV. But he crossed the sea the second time in the year of the Lord MCCLXX, where also he passed over the sea of the present world in the army of the Lord, in the camp at Tunis on the VIII of the Kalends of September, in the aforesaid year of the Lord, but in the LVII year of his age. But he was canonized and noted in the catalogue of the holy Confessors by Pope Boniface VIII on the III of the Ides of August, on the said day, at Orvieto, in the second year of his Pontificate, in the year of the Lord MCCXCVII.*

[58] whom we think are altogether to be followed. Thou seest, I think, reader, that this chronological compendium has been composed with zeal, and that all things are most aptly connected with one another: so that either he must have found these chronological notes described elsewhere, or must have inquired into each with tireless zeal. But if he found each noted in its own time, there was no danger of erring: while if he himself investigated each, because he saw that a right chronology of St. Louis's Life was lacking, not even thus can we suspect that a learned man, so near to St. Louis's age, and intent upon this alone, that he might give an exact chronology, was deceived in ordering the deeds of one man. We have therefore three witnesses, greater than every exception, by whom we safely believe that St. Louis was born to the world in the year 1214: as Louis Lassere long since wrote in the Life of the same Saint, joined to the Life of St. Jerome, page 168. But that the learned French, and others, wrote the contrary, I judge came about because they had not seen these authors, lately dug out of the darkness, or certainly had preferred to walk in the already beaten path than to inquire into the truth by a laborious disputation. But truly it was not permitted me to act thus, nor to finish the matter in a few words, lest I should seem to have departed without sufficient reason from the opinion of most learned men.

* that is, expedition

§ VI. The birthplace Poissy, against a few moderns, confirmed from the testimony of the ancients.

Brief knowledge of Poissy, St. Louis's birthplace, Here we enter upon a second dispute, not unlike the preceding, namely concerning the birthplace. None seemed to doubt about it before these our times, the learned commonly asserting that St. Louis was given to the world at Poissy — which once was nothing but a royal castle, where the queens gave birth and the royal infants were brought up, writes du Chesne in the Antiquities of the cities of France, page 218. But it afterwards grew into a small town, which Baudrand in his Geography at the word Pisciacum thus briefly describes: Pisciacum, Poissy, a town of France, in the province of the Isle of France, with a stone bridge on the river Seine, six leagues distant from Paris toward the summer sunrise in the direction of Rouen, … and it is one league below the confluence of the river Oise with the Seine. And that not even in St. Louis's time was Poissy such as it is described by du Chesne is sufficiently gathered from Helgald in the Life of king Robert in du Chesne, tome 4, page 65, where the said author thus speaks: The royal seat called Poissy, set above the Seine, is quite convenient for the kings of the Franks. In it we have learned from ancient men that three monasteries were made: one in honor of holy Mary, another of St. John, a third of St. Martin the confessor. Of which the good king (Robert), taking one in honor of holy Mary the Mother of the Lord, and building it anew, rendered it quite honorable in ornaments and clerics, in gold and silver. These things about the beginning of the XI century, in which Robert reigned; and so, even if by Geoffrey and Nangis it is called a castrum, and elsewhere a villa, according to the usage of the time in which small towns were called by these names, Poissy seems even then to have been a town of nearly that size in which it is now beheld, and du Chesne's words are to be understood of a far earlier time. Further, the town of Poissy belonged to the diocese of Chartres, and still belongs, which the Texte presently to be praised says at page 7 of his epistle cannot be called into doubt, and which it will be useful to remember below. He who desires more about this town can go to Mabillon, book 5 On Diplomatic Science, chapter 115, and to Hadrian Valesius in the Notitia Galliarum at the word Pinciacum, for he contends that it is rather so named; but we shall name it Poissy, by the word now more received.

[60] which lately began to be called into doubt. None, as I have said, seemed to doubt that the said town was ennobled by St. Louis's birth: but in this our century at last the matter has begun to be called into doubt: for certain learned men have judged that they found the Saint's birthplace in the diocese and territory of Beauvais, where they will have him born in a certain village of the county of Clermont, which, called in French Neuville, or Neofville-en-Hez, I shall call Nova-villa. The reason for departing from the long-received opinion is explained by Montfaucon in tome 2 of the Monuments of the French Monarchy, page 121, where he confesses that later writers set St. Louis's birth at Poissy: but he asserts that the Lord Maillart, an advocate of Paris, shows in a manuscript dissertation that No contemporary author says that he was born at Poissy. This is the first reason. Their second reason is drawn from three old charters, yet removed by a huge interval of times from St. Louis's age, by which immunity from tolls is granted to the inhabitants of the said place in favor of St. Louis born among them, by which immunity likewise their forebears are said to have enjoyed, to whom that privilege is granted. Which, says Montfaucon, seems to leave no doubt. Such was that man's judgment, when he did not yet know the foundations of the common opinion. Further, the judgment of so learned a man, which was fitted to draw others too into that opinion, moved the Reverend Father Matthew Texte, a learned man of the Order of Preachers, to write an Epistle, or French Dissertation, by which he should claim St. Louis's birth for Poissy. This epistle was given on the XV of October of the year 1735, by which the foundations of the adverse party are utterly enfeebled. But since certain of the adversaries, thinking it perhaps less seemly to yield so easily, made some reply, he gave a second Epistle in answer to the letters of the Lord Maillart, on the VIII of September of the year 1736; and a third on the 1st of June of the year 1737, by which he answers certain objections of the lord le Beuf: to these others too were afterwards added, which the curious reader will find in the Mercure historique. He therefore who desires to see the matter treated at length can consult the said Epistles, from which we shall borrow those things which shall seem to suffice for claiming the holy King's birth for Poissy, with as much clearness and brevity as we can.

[61] That St. Louis was baptized at Poissy in the church of St. Mary various biographers assert, It is shown that St. Louis was born at Poissy and those coeval: but the adversaries deny that it follows thence that he was also born there, which we confess is not altogether certain from this. Let us nevertheless try whether from the manner in which Geoffrey de Beaulieu, the arbiter of the King's conscience, and from him Nangis, relate it, it cannot be deduced by at least a probable conjecture. Geoffrey at number 53 praises the King's piety, in that he said that the chief honor had come to him at Poissy from the sacred baptism there received, and presently subjoins the following words: Whence also when he sent secret letters to some familiar, and for some cause wished to suppress the name of King, he called himself Louis of Poissy, or lord of Poissy: choosing rather to be named from the place of his baptism than from any famous city of his own. The author suggests more in these words than he clearly states. He clearly says that the name Louis of Poissy was sometimes used by the King,

and pleasing on account of the baptism received at Poissy, Choosing to be named from the place of his baptism. But he suggests that Louis had the same place of baptism and of birth: for from the place of his baptism he could not by common usage call himself of Poissy unless it were the same as the place of his birth. For who, I pray, would call himself of Paris because he was washed with the salutary waters at Paris, if he had been born at Rome? And so neither would St. Louis have called himself of Poissy on account of his baptism alone, if he had been born in the territory of Beauvais. Why therefore, you will say, does Geoffrey allege this reason alone for that name? Because, forsooth, this alone conduced to showing the King's piety, which he was commending by this example; then because perhaps this reason alone impelled the Saint to use that name. For even if that name suited him on account of his birth, not on account of his baptism, it could be that the grace of baptism alone impelled the King to use it, from which otherwise he could have abstained. If these things appear to anyone too subtle, let him see the clearer arguments which will presently follow. Now from that same baptism I draw an argument against the adversaries.

[62] They confess the baptism received at Poissy, and meanwhile will have him born at Nova-villa in the territory of Beauvais, and not in the village of Nova-villa fifteen leagues distant from Poissy, as the praised Texte says in his first Epistle, page 17: but receive in a few words how little probably these things are said, even if we should feign that other proofs are lacking. We must say either that St. Louis was born about that time at which infants are commonly wont to be born, or earlier than that, or later. If he was brought forth into the light at nearly the accustomed time, or later: who would believe that Blanche, a most pious mother, was absent by so great an interval from the place where she wished her son to be baptized; that she wished to give birth in an ignoble place rather than in the town and palace destined for her for giving birth; in another's house rather than in her own? For the place where they will have Louis born was in the county of Clermont, not yet annexed to the crown, as Texte shows at page 16. These things therefore are incredible. If you should feign that St. Louis was born much earlier than other infants are commonly born, and that this was the cause why Blanche was absent from home, not even thus will the matter become credible. For who would believe that Blanche was so negligent of her son's salvation that she should have a son born before the accustomed time, and thus liable to greater danger of dying, carried fifteen leagues, there at last to be washed with the salutary waters, whose baptism a premature birth would have urged should be hastened? Can that most prudent princess be believed to have been so unlike herself, that she who afterwards preferred her son dead than brought into danger of salvation by a deadly sin should now neglect the danger of salvation, and herself expose that same son to danger? These things indeed are incredible; and thus it is incredible that St. Louis was born in the county of Clermont but baptized at Poissy. Several reasons of this kind the reader will find in the praised Epistles of Texte; we proceed to other arguments.

[63] by various reasons: William of Chartres at number 25 relates that the holy King was wont to fast on all the vigils of the Apostles, even if in the diocese of Paris, or in another where he was staying, there were no fast: and when certain persons asked why he did this, since there was no precept of fasting on certain vigils there, he says that the King replied: That he came originally from the diocese of Chartres, in which vigils of this kind are fasted. That author without doubt heard this from the King himself: and so it is clear that St. Louis was not born at Nova-villa in the diocese of Beauvais, but in the diocese of Chartres, in which Poissy was: for that the word oriundus here signifies the same as the word natus, or ortus, the reader will easily note, and Texte has already shown it in Epistle 2, page 4, and Epistle 3, page 8, whom he can consult: lest, while we answer any little objections whatever, the disputation beget weariness and grow to too great a bulk.

[64] and by the testimony of Philip IV, The said Texte in Epistle 1, page 10, brings forward another testimony from the letters of Philip IV surnamed the Fair, given at Nealpha in the month of July, in the year of the Lord MCCCIV, by which he founds the royal monastery of Poissy in honor of St. Louis his grandfather, whose autograph he testifies that he has seen, and from which he cites these words: Hence it is that we, calling to memory the affection of excellent love, and the zeal of inmost affection, which the excellent confessor blessed Louis, once King of the Franks, our grandfather, had toward the church of blessed Mary of the town of Poissy, in which, being reborn at the font of baptism, he is recognized to have received the beginnings of the Christian faith and of our salvation, and toward that town itself, THE PLACE OF HIS ORIGIN, while he enjoyed the conveniences of the present life &c. St. Louis loved, on his grandson's testimony, the church of Poissy, in which, being reborn at the font of baptism: he loved also the town, or that Town itself, the place of his origin. These things are clearer than that they should leave St. Louis's birthplace doubtful. I know indeed that to this argument of the praised Texte certain things have been opposed by the adversaries about the word origin, and certain things too about the French version not altogether exact; but the French version does not concern us, since the Latin words are clear enough: nor are the objections about the word Origin of such weight that they ought to be recorded here. Nearly similar words from another epistle of Philip the Fair Texte relates in Epistle 3, page 10, who also most kindly transmitted these letters to us.

[65] Besides, for settling the controversy even the words of Bernard Gui given at number 57 ought to suffice by themselves: and of Bernard Gui. Who was born into this world at Poissy, and received sacred baptism. This a pious, learned, and coeval author says of St. Louis, concerning whom we have said enough in the preceding §. To such a man we cannot deny credit in a matter in which contemporary authors do not easily err. There is added, for confirming this truth, the very monastery founded in honor of St. Louis, not in the territory of Beauvais but at Poissy in the diocese of Chartres. Which things seem to me to suffice for claiming St. Louis's birth for Poissy without any doubt, nor is it necessary to add more; yet the reader will find more in the praised Epistles of Texte. It remains that we briefly answer the arguments of the adversaries.

[66] Three diplomas are brought forward, of which the first is of the year 1468, The adversaries' argument is answered. the second of 1475, the third of 1601, by which for some time the inhabitants of Nova-villa are exempted from tolls in favor of St. Louis born there; it is added that their forebears too had enjoyed the same immunity. The first two diplomas are of Louis XI, the third of Henry IV. What force, I pray, can these instruments have against the proofs already adduced, and against the opinion received by common consent? For indeed the first is later than St. Louis's birth by two centuries and a half; then the said diplomas only narrate what reason the inhabitants alleged for obtaining this exemption: but things which are only narrated in this manner in princes' diplomas do not render probable a deed otherwise improbable. Whence from the diplomas it only follows that this was boasted at that time by the inhabitants of Nova-villa, who seem easily to have believed what they too much desired. For who does not know what dreams an immoderate love of one's fatherland does not feign for itself, often from the slightest occasion? If therefore Louis XI granted exemption to the said inhabitants, if Henry IV afforded that favor, they seem to have taken thought rather for their want than to have given credit — certainly not full credit — to their account: which they themselves sufficiently suggest in the words cited in Texte, when they only say that the matter had been so related to them, but not proved. Receive a similar deed from Joinville at number 155: There was, he says, a certain poor fisherman who came and told the count of Poitiers's wife that he had freed the count of Poitiers from the hands of the Saracens, and she ordered twenty Parisian pounds to be given him. Will the adversaries believe that the pious princess was persuaded that her husband had been snatched from the hands of the Saracens by this poor man? I do not think they will believe it. So therefore neither do I judge that the said kings were altogether persuaded that St. Louis was born at Nova-villa in the county of Clermont; but rather that they did not repudiate a claim alleged, perhaps in good faith, so as piously to succor the inhabitants' poverty. But if the adversaries altogether contend that this was believed by Louis XI and Henry IV, they will further have to prove that they were no more liable to error in this matter than the authors alleged by us were; which they will never be able to accomplish.

§ VII. The Saint's pious boyhood and youth: his excellent upbringing and instruction.

Louis's holy boyhood: Of St. Louis's boyhood few things occur in the writers of the Life, and in other authors of that time, from which nevertheless we shall abundantly understand that it was holy, and conformable to the rest of his life. Boniface VIII in the Bull of canonization thus briefly speaks of it: From the first beginnings of his early age he loved the Son of God with tender affection of mind. The writers of the Life, to be published below, all commend Louis's holy boyhood, but I shall not transfer their words hither: for from Joinville alone we can sufficiently gather how much he had already advanced in the knowledge of the Saints in the thirteenth year of his age, when he was marked with the royal crown. He narrates at number 27 that the King had the greatest confidence in God's help, when in the most sacred Sacrifice of the Mass he heard these words: To thee have I lifted up my soul, my God, in thee I trust. When, he says, he said these words of himself on account of the mighty burden which he was taking up. If Latin words, briefly read out, so carried the Boy to God — which Joinville seems to have heard from his own mouth — it must be that he was already taught by the Lord to dispose ascents in his heart, to walk carefully with his God, and to have his converse in heaven. Which also becomes manifest from the following words of Joinville: His hope, he says, was greatest in God from infancy. For thou wilt not find the greatest hope without living faith, without burning love, without humility and the other virtues.

[68] the diligent care of his pious mother to instruct him excellently, These excellent virtues in Louis, a boy in age but already an old man in manners, must first indeed be referred as received from the divine kindness and from its excellent liberality toward him, and then also to the excellent and holy instruction of his most prudent mother, as the biographers acknowledge: with whom other authors too agree. Innocent IV, the supreme Pontiff, in an epistle to queen Blanche in du Chesne, page 412, thus speaks of her care to instruct her sons excellently: For which reason the tongues of all the faithful speak their (thy sons') praise with exultation, likewise sounding the proclamation of thy goodness, since thou hast so instructed them from infancy in the fear and love of the Lord that, ever loving right and salutary things, they have been continually delighted in his good pleasures. This is the common and true voice of the faithful concerning the instruction of all Blanche's sons. Nevertheless the pious mother instructed Louis diligently before the rest, and to be taught

took care that he be instructed, because for him, who was one day to administer the kingdom, both human and divine wisdom was the more necessary. The second Life has this at number 13: with which the anonymous monk of Saint-Denis agrees at page 396 in these words: Attending therefore to these things, the prudent lady queen Blanche, mother of that glorious king Louis, had him who was to preside over the governance of so great a kingdom, and whom also she loved more ardently than her other sons, more attentively nurtured both before and after his father's death, more diligently guarded, more solicitously formed in every good. For she herself formed him by examples and good instructions in those things which she believed to please God, and by which a good prince ought to please in his governance, and to avoid the things contrary to his will. She also committed him to be formed in the aforesaid things to those whom she judged to be sufficient and fit for the aforesaid.

[69] The notable fruits of this instruction the author subjoins, which bore rich fruits of her labor describing the manners of the holy Youth up to about the twentieth year of his life, which I have judged should here be pursued by me too, lest the affairs of the kingdom should thereafter have to be interrupted by the narration of these matters. Thus therefore he goes on: But the youth Louis, of good character, being already taught by the mastership of the Holy Spirit, knowing that it is good for a man when from his youth he has borne the yoke of God, gave himself wholly to the pursuit of virtues, advancing so far that, although he was a youth in the administration of the kingdom, yet he did nothing youthful in his work; nay rather, since he was a youth and still felt the ardors of a commanding age, despoiling the young man, he put on the old, leaving what he was, taking up what he was not. For in the first years of his youth he began both humbly to advance in the knowledge of letters under a master's care, and to appear gracious in the eyes of all in honorableness of manners. Gladly frequenting the church too, devoutly and diligently attending upon God's service, every day hearing Mass and the canonical Hours with chant, which he too himself said with a chaplain deputed to him as cleric for this purpose, neither singing worldly songs nor willing to hear them, he avoided unlawful games, and abstained from all unseemliness and shamefulness, injuring none in words or deeds, reviling none, sweetly reproving those who seemed to offend him, speaking to each in the plural — which among the French is a token of respect — asserting nothing by oath, he commonly used human speech. At last the author thus concludes: It would be a long task to set forth the holy beginnings of this holy King, who so began in the works of sanctity, and so deserved to consummate them, that, in no wise forsaking the law of his mother, who often pressed upon him that she would rather that he incur temporal death than that he offend his own Creator by mortal sin, he is reported to have been free in all his life from the contagion of deadly crime. Thus far that author, anonymous indeed, but sincere.

[70] Nangis in du Chesne, page 327, recounts Louis's holy beginnings in this manner: he bore fruits: Who, a boy of the highest freeborn quality, like a shoot cut from a sweet-flowing tree, fixing his root in his earliest flower, began to send forth the odor-bearing flowers of a most pleasing boyhood, and, under the discipline of his excellent and venerable mother Blanche, who was bringing him up prudently and diligently under her guardian protection, to form his generous mind to wisdom. But restraining the motions of his breast from unlawful things by noble continence, and spurning the wanderings of a feeble little age, he clung with willing heart to the treatises of the wise. But if he caught anything of uprightness or of prudence with his ear, as the time dictated, he straightway committed it to his sagacious memory. Whence from the beginning of his reign, by a wisdom divinely inspired in him by God, he wished to have counselors and assessors, both clerics and laymen, most choice, as much in fidelity as in life and wisdom, and had them chosen from wherever he could. He had heard indeed of a certain emperor who is reported to have said that it would be a lesser evil to have a bad emperor or king than bad counselors: because many easily draw one, not one many. To these the second Life adds his singular respect toward his mother; and an honorable relaxation of mind now and then, in which he so shrank from all levity that he forbade a certain squire to sing profane songs, and ordered him to learn thoroughly certain hymns about the blessed Virgin, which he should sing before the King, and which the King himself sometimes sang together with him: which things the reader will find set forth more fully in the same place, chapter 1, from number 13.

[71] St. Louis's preceptor, and the King's notable respect toward him: To what masters Blanche committed the care of bringing up St. Louis and instructing him in letters, coeval authors do not explain. About the fourteenth year of his age he had a preceptor deputed to him alone, who everywhere clung to the youthful King's side, and whom he himself revered as a disciple his master. We have this from the Bull of Canonization cited at page 487, in which the Pontiff thus speaks: And when, through the increases of times, that same King had attained the fourteenth year of his age, the aforesaid queen (Blanche) deputed a proper master for him, who should imbue him with the knowledge of letters and form him in good manners. And the King himself, being set under that same master's rod, was so obedient and reverent to him, and so humbly received his discipline, that, being anticipated by the grace from above, he advanced praiseworthily in both.

[72] his other masters. Although before about the fourteenth year of his age he does not seem to have had a preceptor deputed to him alone, yet from this we ought not to infer that only at that time he began to be imbued with the knowledge of letters. For indeed already in the thirteenth year of his age, when he was crowned King, he seems not to have been ignorant of the Latin tongue, because the Latin words of the Mass, cited at number 67, raised his mind to God, and because already at this time he recited the canonical Hours. He seems therefore before this time to have had masters in common with his brothers, who imbued the royal boys both with the liberal arts and with the knowledge of letters; but in the fourteenth year of his age to have received a proper one, who should devote himself solely to the instruction of the youthful King. For the rest, Wadding in the Annals of the Minors lately reprinted, tome 2, page 162, with many other more recent writers, attributes to St. Louis masters of the Preachers and Minors, which I cannot confirm by the authority of the ancients, although I am not ignorant that the Preachers and Minors were dear to queen Blanche, and were thereafter in no less esteem with St. Louis.

§ VIII. The death of Louis VIII: his care before death about his son's succession: his testament: St. Louis's coronation.

Louis VIII, returning from the expedition Baudrand in his Geography at the word Monpenserium thus writes: Monpenserium (Montpensier) was a castle of France in Lower Auvergne, near Aigueperse, in which Louis VIII king of France died in the year MCCXXVI on the VII day of November; now, wholly ruined, it lies on a hill, where only its traces are seen, yet it is even now marked with a ducal title. Matthew Paris at the year 1226, page 230, calls the place where Louis VIII died an Abbey, named Muntpansier; which was not far distant from the siege (of Avignon). But he is plainly mistaken in this, that he places Montpensier near Avignon, whereas all writers, even coeval ones, say that it was in Auvergne. So much for the place where Louis, St. Louis's father, died. Now let us briefly hear his last expedition against the Albigensians, and his death, from coeval writers. Alberic's Chronicle at the year of Christ 1226, page 520, thus relates the matter: Romanus, the Cardinal of France, namely legate of the Apostolic see, signed king Louis with the cross, with a strong army, for the way of the Albigensians. King Louis, being signed with the cross against the Albigensians, went off with his armies, besieged the city of Avignon, and, after a great loss of his own men and many perils, powerfully obtained that city, and triumphed over it and its inhabitants as he wished. The whole province about Toulouse was subjugated and subjected; the lord King also renewed two bishops, one at Avignon and one at Carcassonne.

[74] Then, when he was returning into France, the siege of Toulouse being deferred, undertaken against the Albigensians, dies of disease, Imbert de Beaujeu, a warlike man and disposed to labor, being left as guardian of the land with a very great hand of warriors, as William de Puylaurens narrates in chapter 36, the king and the legate came on their way through Auvergne. But the king, being overtaken by a sickness which, as was afterwards said, he bore secretly, completed the course of the present life at Montpensier, the Lord so willing, in the autumn season, namely on the seventh of the Ides of November, on a Saturday, as Alberic has it at page 522. That the king was given poison to drink by the help of the count of Champagne Paris writes in the place cited, as report relates, although others assert that he expired not by poison but by the dysenteric disease. He contends also that he met death already before the city was taken: but in this whole narration Paris mingled so many either errors or falsehoods that he takes away all credit from himself: the reader will see him refuted in Catel, History of the counts of Toulouse, from page 327. These things I have thought should be recorded in few words, both because mention is made of them in the Acts, and that the reader may perceive in what state Louis VIII left to his son St. Louis the war against the Albigensians, long waged but not yet brought to an end — Whose, says the praised William de Puylaurens, purpose it was to return to those lands the following spring, if he lived. The same author adds a deed worthy of a pious king, by which Louis's conjugal continence is excellently commended, in this manner:

[75] But it was, as was said, a sickness that could be relieved by the use of a woman; an excellent example of continence being left at the close of his life: which, as I heard from a man worthy of credit, the noble man Archambaud de Bourbon, who was in his company, hearing it related that the king could be helped by a woman's embrace, sought out a beautiful and well-born maiden, and, having instructed her how she should offer herself to the king and speak, that she had come not from desire of lust but for the help of the infirmity she had heard of, had her brought into the chamber by his chamberlains in the daytime while the king slept; whom the king, waking, when he had seen her breathing near, asked who she was and how she had entered; who, as she had been instructed, disclosed for what she had come; to whom the king, giving thanks, said: It shall not be so, girl, for I would not sin mortally in any way; and, the said man lord Archambaud being called, he charged that she be honorably married. But that King, worthy both in fact and in name to rule others, who ruled himself with such virtue, who, if it were possible, was unwilling to avoid bodily death by sin. The wise king prudently laughed at the mad prudence of a foolish pander, who offered an uncertain hope of life at the certain ruin of the soul: since a thousand times over the life of the body must be offered, that the death of the soul may be warded off. Now let us see in what manner Louis before his death took counsel for his son and successor.

[76] Louis before his death binds the nobles by oath, He was not ignorant that certain of the chief nobles of the kingdom had lately been joined in a covenant for the ruin of the kingdom: for this cause a few days before his death

he exacted an oath from all the nobles who were present with him as he lay sick: of what kind it was, and by whom it was made, that same king's letters teach in Du Cange, in the observations on the History of St. Louis, page 53, which I transfer hither: Louis, by the grace of God king of the Franks, to all his friends and faithful to whom the present letters shall come, greeting and love. Let all of you know that, when it had befallen us at Montpensier to labor under a grave illness of the body, fearing for the peril of the kingdom after our decease, with provident deliberation and salutary counsel being first had, we summoned our beloved and faithful prelates and barons, the archbishops of Bourges and Sens, the bishops of Beauvais, Noyon, and Chartres, the count of Boulogne, the count of Montfort, the count of Saint-Pol, and John of Nesle, and asked them, adjuring them, that they should swear before us that they would, as quickly as could be, if anything should befall us after the manner of men, do fealty and homage in good faith to Louis our elder son as their lord and king, and that they would procure that he, as quickly as could be done, should be crowned king, &c. Done at Montpensier in the year MCCXXVI, in the month of November. These things the dying Louis prudently for his son's security.

[77] who had already before drawn up a testament, He had already drawn up a testament in the preceding year 1225, which the often-mentioned du Chesne inserted in tome 5 of the Writers of France from page 324, from which I shall copy out only those things which pertain to St. Louis and his brothers: First, he says, we will and charge that our son who shall succeed us in the kingdom have the whole land which our most dear father Philip of pious remembrance held, and as he held it and we hold it in fiefs and demesnes, excepting those lands and fiefs and demesnes which we except by the present page. This is St. Louis's inheritance: after which he subjoins the portion of three sons, next to Louis in age, in this manner: We will indeed and ordain that our second son by birth have the whole land of Artois in fiefs and demesnes, and all the other land which we possess on the part of our mother Elizabeth, saving his mother's dower, if she should survive. But if the same man who shall hold Artois should die without an heir, we will that the whole land of Artois, and the other land which he should hold, return freely and entirely to our son the successor of our kingdom. Robert obtained this portion of his, and left it to his son when dying, and hence arose the county of Artois, as David Lindanus more probably thinks, book 1, chapter 6, On Dendermonde, although others will have this county erected already by Philip Augustus, or even earlier.

[78] from which some things are recited. To his third son he bequeathed the following: Likewise we will and ordain that our third son have the whole county of Anjou and of Maine in fiefs and demesnes with their appurtenances. This was John, whom we shall see betrothed with this dowry in its place. The Lord de Choisy therefore strays, in the Life of St. Louis, page 3, who, because he had not known all St. Louis's brothers, writes that these things were bequeathed to Charles. Charles indeed obtained this county after John's death, but by St. Louis's liberality, not by his father's testament. To Alphonse, then the fourth son, Louis bequeathed these things: Likewise we will and ordain that our fourth son have the county of Poitou, and the whole of Auvergne in fiefs and demesnes with their appurtenances. Alphonse obtained this county, but, he dying without offspring, it presently returned to the crown. Let us hear what Louis determined about his other sons: Likewise we will, he says, and charge that our fifth son be a cleric (this was Philip surnamed Dagobert, who died in boyhood) and all the others who shall be born after him. But after the fifth, and after the testament was made, there was born only Charles, in the year 1226 at the end of March, as the Chronicle of Saint-Denis has it in d'Achery, tome 2 of the Spicilegium, page 496. But perhaps the clerical life did not please Charles; wherefore St. Louis's pious liberality granted to Charles the portion of the deceased John, which had devolved to himself, as we shall see in its place. He who desires to see the remaining bequests of this testament can go to it in the place assigned.

[79] Louis VIII had not provided in his testament upon whom after his death the administration of the kingdom should fall [Blanche, being ordered to administer the kingdom, calls together the magnates for her Son's coronation:] until his son should be of such an age that he could administer it himself: but before his death, before the archbishop of Sens and the bishops of Beauvais and Chartres, he declared that he willed that queen Blanche should administer the kingdom for her son, who was a minor, which they attested by their letters, as Father Gabriel Daniel writes from ancient monuments in the History of France, tome 2, column 2. Blanche, a woman of manly spirit, not hindered by the mourning contracted from her husband's death, presently orders the nobles of the kingdom to be summoned to Reims, to be present at the coronation of Louis her son on the first Sunday of Advent. But not with the same minds did the nobles receive the queen's command, but, as the coeval author of the Chronicle of Tours writes in Edmond Martène, tome 5 of the Most Ample Collection of Old Writers, column 1070, the counts of Champagne and of Brittany, the count of La Marche, and other men of Poitou, being summoned to the royal crowning, neither came, nor excused themselves save with contumelies of words. Nay, they held little gatherings from day to day with the messengers of the king of England, and promised the king of England their help and their counsel for destroying the King and the kingdom of France, and for submitting themselves.

[80] Matthew Paris at this year 1226, page 231, reviews the reasons but many of them refuse to be present, for which most of the great men refused to be present at the coronation, and relates that several were absent. His words I subjoin: And so, Louis king of the Franks being dead, his queen Blanche caused to be summoned generally the archbishops, bishops, and other prelates of the churches, together with the magnates belonging to the crown, that they should come to the coronation of Louis her son and of the deceased king, to Paris (rather to Reims) on the day before the Kalends (rather the third of the Kalends) of December. But the greatest part of the great men, before the appointed day, asked, according to the Gallican custom, that all the imprisoned, and especially the counts Ferrand of Flanders and Reginald of Boulogne, be freed from prison; who, to the subversion of the liberties of the kingdom, had now for XII years been held in bonds under a stricter custody. Moreover certain of them asked that their lands be restored to them, which his father Louis, and his grandfather Philip, had now for a long time unjustly held occupied. They add also that no one of the kingdom of the Franks ought to be despoiled of any right of his by anyone save by the judgment of the twelve peers; nor should anyone be pressed with war unless it were first declared a year before, and he forewarned. And when all these things should have been amended for them, then first they would not delay to come to the coronation. But the queen, by the legate's counsel, fearing lest delay should beget peril, the clergy of the kingdom being summoned, and a few of the nobles whom she could have, caused her Son — namely a boy scarcely ten years old — to be crowned as King on the day of St. Andrew the Apostle. There withdrew themselves indeed from this coronation the duke of Burgundy, the count of Champagne, the count of Bar, the count of Saint-Pol, the count of Brittany, and almost all, to say it briefly, the nobles belonging to the crown: who prepared themselves rather for battle than for the unity of peace and concord. Thus far he.

[81] yet not a few are present. Vincent of Beauvais, book 30 of the Speculum Historiale, chapter 129, more briefly declares that the greater part of the nobles were absent, in these words: She (the queen) calls several of the greater barons of France to the coronation, but they refuse to come. For, from grief for the father and the desolation of the kingdom, they are not at leisure there for joy, but rather there give themselves to tears and mourning. This forsooth was the specious pretext of those who acted more modestly: for that others all but sounded the trumpet is plain from what was said before. Thou seest here, reader, the beginnings of the disturbances which we shall explain more fully in the next §. Nevertheless, notwithstanding this absence of certain princes, la Chaize contends, book 2, number 1, that a sufficiently numerous throng of courtiers was present at St. Louis's inauguration; and at number 2 among the nobles who were present he reviews John of Brienne king of Jerusalem, the patriarch of Jerusalem, the cardinal legate of the Pontiff, the count of Boulogne, the new King's uncle, the count of Dreux, the count of Blois, the three brothers the lords of Coucy, the countesses of Flanders and of Champagne, kinswomen of the King: nay, also the duke of Burgundy and the count of Bar, whom Paris writes to have been unwilling to be present. He adds from Philip Mouskes that the count of Champagne was already on the road that he might be present; but that he was compelled to withdraw by command of the King and the queen, and by the counsel of the princes present, because he was hateful to all on account of his withdrawal from the siege of Avignon, and the suspicion of Louis VIII having been taken away by him. These things indeed do not altogether agree with the authors cited before, but the matter is of lesser moment, nor can it easily be determined whether the sayings of Philip Mouskes or those of Matthew Paris are the truer. One thing must be held for certain, that many of the chief men were absent.

[82] Louis, being endowed at Soissons with the belt of knighthood, This absence of the nobles, a forerunner of the disturbances about to arise in the kingdom, did not hinder the queen from taking care that the inauguration be performed at the appointed time. Yet another ceremony had to be premised, one not wont at that time to be neglected by princely men: for Louis, on account of his immature age, had not yet been endowed with the belt of knighthood. That this was done in the city of Soissons before the coronation we have from the Chronicle of Andres in d'Achery, tome 2 of the Spicilegium, page 866: Louis, he says, still twelve years old, son of the said Louis, being promoted a knight at Soissons, is solemnly consecrated as king at Reims by the lord James bishop of Soissons, because the see of Reims was vacant. Concerning the ceremonies by which noble men were made knights, or horsemen, Du Cange has many things in the Glossary of Latin-barbarous words at the word Miles, and certain things also in dissertation 22 on Joinville: from which we understand that the same were not always observed. In the said Glossary, tome 4, column 743, he has these things concerning the persons who created a knight: In these sacred ceremonies the military belt was conferred on the new knight by some prince or magnate, the military blow being given, as was solemn, a bishop or priest performing the sacred rite and blessing the sword… Sometimes the belt of knighthood was conferred by the bishops and abbots themselves in the very church, clothed in sacred vestments… Nor yet was the sword always on these occasions girded on the knight by the bishops themselves; but sometimes the knight himself, having received it from the altar, fitted it to his own side, if indeed the prince were of greater dignity. Since therefore it is not expressed from whom St. Louis received the sword of knighthood, it is probable that either it was handed to him by the bishop of Soissons, or that it was received by the King himself from the altar.

[83] Louis, being endowed with the belt of knighthood, betook himself to Reims to be anointed. At Reims he is anointed and crowned by the bishop of Soissons, The sacred ampulla, with whose chrism the kings of France are anointed, from

the abbey of St. Remigius as far as the church of the blessed Virgin three hundred armed horsemen escorted, both for security and for magnificence, says la Chaize at page 59: but when he says in the same place that it was handed over there by the abbot into the hands of the archbishop of Sens, that seems to be attributed to the error of Philip Mouskes, who thought that St. Louis was anointed and crowned by the archbishop of Sens, whereas it is established that James de Bazoches, bishop of Soissons, suffragan of the archbishop of Reims, performed it, as today all admit. The ceremonies of the sacred unction and coronation Louis Lassere describes at length from folio 169, where the curious reader will find them. One thing I here observe with Joinville at number 27: that the pious King, not ignorant of how great a burden was being laid upon his shoulders, and of how great wisdom he had need for rightly administering the kingdom, placed all his confidence in the Lord, and with mind fixed on God repeated the words of the Mass taken from the Psalms: To thee have I lifted up my soul, my God, in thee I trust. And indeed, as no one has hoped in the Lord and been confounded (Ecclesiasticus 2), so neither did his hope deceive Louis, as will become manifest from what is to be said.

[84] The year in which St. Louis was crowned is certain, [on the first Sunday of Advent, the 29th of November of the year 1226, in the thirteenth year of his age.] although in designating it some authors, even contemporary ones, have erred. Rightly Nangis at page 327: Within a month after his father's death he was crowned and anointed at Reims on the first Sunday of Advent by the hand of the venerable father lord James bishop of Soissons, the see of Reims being vacant, namely in the year from the Lord's Incarnation one thousand two hundred and twenty-six. With whom Alberic at page 522 agrees in all points, and the Chronicle of Tours in the place already assigned, and very many other ancient writers. Besides, those who assign the year 1227 to the death of Louis VIII and to St. Louis's coronation, as Beauvais in book 30, chapter 129, and the Chronicle of Andres in the place cited at number 82, with certain somewhat later writers, are refuted from the epistles written to St. Louis and to Blanche in the year 1227, and from many instruments and deeds which must be referred to that year, so that on that matter there ought to be no doubt. The day is equally certain: for since it was the first Sunday of Advent, as Joinville and others assert, and since that in that year fell on the XXIX of November, or the vigil of St. Andrew the Apostle, it must be that he was crowned on the vigil of St. Andrew the Apostle, the XXIX of November, as I find it asserted with the Chronicle of Tours in various Chronicles. Certain more recent writers therefore must be corrected, who designated the first of December. Nor ought the coin to stand in the way which James de Bie exhibits in Metallic France, folio 24, in this manner.

For indeed the authority of a coin, of whose age nothing is established, must yield to so many coeval authors: unless one should prefer to believe that the sacred unction was performed two days after the coronation, or on the 1st of December, as is noted on the coin, which I leave to be discussed by the learned French. For the rest, the King's age at this time is deduced from what was disputed in §5 about the year of his birth, which, as also the other things, Bernard Gui, cited at number 57, rightly expresses in these words: But he was crowned as King on the first Sunday of Advent, in the year of the Lord MCCXXVI, but in the XIII year of his age, which he was about to complete on the following feast of St. Mark the Evangelist.

§ IX. St. Louis's powerful adversaries at the beginning of his reign: the origin of the disturbances, and the conspiracy of the princes against the King.

St. Louis obtained many enemies along with the kingdom: Being about to describe St. Louis's deeds in the kingdom, we shall presently relate mighty disturbances, dissensions, wars, and perils of the King greater than all these. Wherefore it behooves us in a few words to forewarn the reader who is less attentive to particulars that these did not arise by Louis's fault, and thus do not stand in the way of his praise; nay rather that it conduces greatly to the King's highest glory that, having obtained a kingdom shaken by the wars of foreign enemies, and torn by the conspiracies of subjects and of client princes, he at last so pacified it that neither foreign nor internal enemies dared to stir anything further, and that he brought back that concord not at his own but at his enemies' expense. Nevertheless, as regards the first years of his reign, more shaken by these tumults, we confess that the glory of the empire preserved for Louis must for the greater part be attributed to queen Blanche, by whose command all things were carried on: yet so that the youthful King must not be despoiled of all praise; for we shall see him everywhere acting with his mother, everywhere present, everywhere strenuously and prudently performing his part. These things being premised, it must likewise briefly be related what enemies St. Louis obtained together with the kingdom.

[86] the chief were the king of England, The chief enemy of France was already for a long time the Englishman, intent upon every occasion of recovering the provinces lost in Gaul. For indeed, since the king of England had possessed Normandy and many provinces beyond the Loire, of almost all of these John — father of Henry III, at this time reigning in England — had been deprived by Philip Augustus, St. Louis's grandfather. The English contended that these had been unjustly snatched away; but the French asserted that they had been lawfully occupied, because John king of England, a vassal of the king of France for the said provinces, had been condemned by the judgment of the twelve magnates of France whom they call peers, and had been fined them. War indeed, arisen from this contention, had sometimes been interrupted by truces; but peace had not yet grown together; nor did the English cease to seize whatever occasions of recovering the provinces once theirs. These things, briefly set out in this place for the light of what follows, can be found more fully recounted in various historians who treat those times; as also the things which will be said about other princes.

[87] The second enemy of St. Louis at this time was Peter count of Armoric Brittany, the count of Armoric Brittany; by surname Mauclerc or bad cleric, brother of the count of Dreux, and born of the royal stock of Louis VI, who had obtained the county of Brittany by marriage with the countess Alix in the time of Philip Augustus. He was a man, as Lobineau depicts him at greater length in the History of Brittany, tome 1, page 207, born for arms, of the highest wit, but one inclined more often to evil than to good; little sincere in words, inconstant in covenants, zealous for his own right and authority, and submissive only where necessity required it. He possessed, besides Brittany, certain neighboring cities, so that both by his strength and by his crafty wit, and by his wealth and his dealings with the king of England, he was to be feared. For the rest, the King himself acknowledged in Joinville at number 31 that none was more hostile to him than Peter count of Brittany: but the reasons why he conspired with others against the kingdom will presently be explained.

[88] The third was Theobald count of Champagne, and afterwards king of Navarre, the count of Champagne, likewise the King's kinsman, powerful in wealth and in a broad province. This prince the historians commonly depict in black colors: nay, it was boasted at that time that Louis VIII was taken off by poison through his agency, as we have seen. But the chief coeval authors do not have this, nor have I found any mention of this suspicion in the ancient writers, except in Matthew Paris, who was accustomed to insert any malignant rumors whatever into his History, and in Philip Mouskes the poet. I should therefore believe that this report was spread by his enemies when he withdrew from their covenant, and found credit with few. The King certainly and the queen seem to have been free of that suspicion, because they afterwards undertook to defend him against the confederated princes. For the rest, although Theobald had obtained the county of Champagne by the favor of Philip Augustus, and by the protection of Louis VIII, as la Chaize says at page 46, and had retained it against his cousin, who contended that it pertained to her — concerning which more must be said below — yet he had already on repeated occasions shown himself less obedient to Louis VIII, so that he seemed to be seeking an occasion of withdrawing himself utterly from his rule.

[89] To these was added Hugh of Lusignan count of La Marche, [the count of La Marche, the count of Bar, the nobles of Poitou, and the count of Toulouse with the Albigensians.] who had married the widow of John king of England, and the same the mother of Henry III then reigning in England, and had an ample dominion beyond the Loire, both on his own part and on his wife's: namely, besides the county of La Marche, the province of Saintonge and of Angoulême, with part of the province of Poitou. To these was added, as will be plain below, the count of Bar, as also the magnates of Poitou. Besides, war was even then vigorous against the count of Toulouse and the Albigensians, who indeed had often been conquered and despoiled of a great part of their dominions; but by so many and so numerous armies they had not yet been able to be utterly overcome. All these princes were sounding the trumpet against Louis, nor did they omit to solicit others; who, if they had not yet plainly gone over to their party, were certainly already wavering, and were at last about to join themselves with those whose covenant they judged more useful to themselves. If with the power of these princes there be compared the King's forces, such as they were at that time in France, it will manifestly appear that Joinville spoke truly at number 28, along with the other biographers, when they affirmed that a singular protection and help of God was altogether necessary for the youthful King, that he might not succumb to so many and so powerful enemies. Now let us examine when this conspiracy first arose, and for what cause the princes seem to have risen up against their lord and King.

[90] [The count of Brittany strives to procure a divorce between the count and countess of Flanders,] The first and chief reason of the conspiracy seems to have been none other than that they might lessen the authority and power of the King, which had been marvelously increased under Philip Augustus, St. Louis's grandfather, and might increase their own power by his abasement. Hence they wished certain lands to be restored to them, unjustly, as they boasted, taken away, and complained that the rights of the kingdom had been injured by the preceding kings; as Paris, cited at number 80, has it. Besides this, however, another reason is found from the ambition of the count of Brittany, which the Chronicle of Tours, written at the same time, hands down; but the matter must be taken up somewhat higher. Alberic's Chronicle at page 468 thus runs: In the year MCCXIII Ferdinand of Spain, son of the king of Portugal, obtains the county of Flanders, to whom was given the first of the daughters of the count and emperor Baldwin, by name Joanna, to wife, at the petition and instance of the old countess of Flanders (Matilda), the paternal aunt of that Ferdinand. But the aforesaid Ferdinand, Fernand, or Ferrand, as others call him, having obtained Flanders through his wife, being confederated with Otto IV the emperor and with other princes, waged war against Philip Augustus king of the Franks, by whom in the year 1214 he was conquered in a celebrated battle together with the confederated princes; and he was captured with the count of Boulogne and made over to prison, as Alberic and very many others narrate at that same year 1214. Philip Augustus was unwilling to free these counts from prison, and Louis VIII his son was unwilling for some time, until the imprisonment of the count of Flanders gave occasion to Peter count of Brittany of seeking the county of Flanders. At that time marriages which had long been contracted and consummated in good faith were not seldom wont to be dissolved on account of some impediment which had lain hidden,

and was afterwards detected. Further, some such impediment, by which the marriage of Ferrand count of Flanders with the countess Joanna should be invalid, Peter count of Brittany either thought that he had found, or certainly feigned: for he had obtained letters from Pope Honorius III — not indeed, as I shall prove below, by which the marriage should already be dissolved, but that an examination should be instituted concerning its validity: he accused the marriage as invalid, and was planning to take to wife the countess Joanna, who consented to him, being about to obtain the county of Flanders by this marriage.

[91] This whole business became known to Louis VIII, who, in order to disturb these machinations, began to treat of releasing the count of Flanders from prison: but the king's death intervening, we shall see him released after the death of Louis VIII. [that he may take the countess to wife, letters having been obtained from the Pontiff] This cause of the conspiracy of these princes the author of the cited Chronicle of Tours assigns. Hear then in what manner he recounts the matter in Martène, tome 5 of the Most Ample Collection, column [ ], where he says that the men of Avignon had to expect the ruin of their city, Louis VIII assaulting their walls with continual attacks, unless the business had been disturbed by the barons of France, who had secretly conspired against the king… For when Peter count of Brittany had obtained letters from Pope Honorius concerning the celebrating of a divorce between count Ferrand and Joanna countess of Flanders, and also accused the marriage, and had beforehand arranged that she, consenting, should be betrothed to him; the king, being angered on hearing this, and not consenting to the abominable work, redeemed count Ferrand for XL thousand Parisian pounds, and on the following nativity of the Lord, fortifications and hostages having been received from him and from the barons of Flanders, freed him from prison (Blanche carrying out his pact, as we shall say): on this account Peter count of Brittany, with the counts of Champagne and of La Marche, and many other barons, had conspired against all, the king not excepted, as was said, so far fostering and helping the men of Avignon and the count of Toulouse that he sent his messengers to them with gifts, and, receiving their gifts and messengers, showed himself suspect to the king and to all.

[92] La Chaize at page 65 does not embrace this cause of the conspiracy, to examine the validity of the marriage: the divorce being hindered by the king, which he had read only in more recent authors, though he would, I think, have admitted it had he considered this Chronicle. For why should we not believe a contemporary and sincere author, especially in a matter which is out of keeping neither with the usage of that time nor with the crafty wit of the count of Brittany? For indeed, to pass over other examples, Alphonso king of Leon had not long before been separated by papal command from two wives, first Theresa, then also Berengaria of Castile, St. Louis's aunt. Further, I cannot assent to the opinion of Lobineau, who in the History of Brittany, page 219, so took the cited words, When .. he had obtained letters concerning the celebrating of a divorce, as if the Pontiff had already declared the marriage void. For since the author adds these words, And also accused the marriage, the marriage had not yet been examined, nor had a divorce yet been commanded by the Pontiff: otherwise the count of Brittany would have had no need of accusing the marriage. The same the outcome of the matter declares, since they remained joined. And so, in my judgment at least, the count of Brittany had obtained nothing but that the marriage be examined, and that proceeding be made to a divorce if after a lawful examination it had been found invalid. For the rest, on what ground the count of Brittany contended that the said marriage was invalid the author does not express.

[93] The letters of this covenant, signed in the year 1226, the said Lobineau gives in French in the place assigned, he conspires with other princes against the king: which he asserts were composed at the same time. The former are the count of Brittany's, by which he teaches that he was bound by oath to the count of Champagne to bring him help against anyone whatsoever who can live and die. The others are the count of La Marche's, by which he likewise binds himself against anyone whatsoever, the count of Brittany excepted. These three counts, therefore, the leaders of the whole faction, had already conspired while Louis VIII was living, either in the very siege of Avignon or before: there were added, Louis being dead, the magnates of Poitou and the count of Bar. Hear the said Chronicle of Tours, column [ ]: The kingdom of France being thus left in the hand of a woman and a boy, he says, Savary de Mauléon and others, by the counsel, as was said, of the magnates of Poitou, sparing no order, sex, or age, seized whomsoever they could take by land and sea; so far submitting themselves to the king of England that they called Richard his brother to their aid for destroying La Rochelle and the other land of the king of France, and received him in their towns, homages being done. And below: Theobald count of Champagne, and Henry count of Bar, who had conspired against the king, came also under the King's safe-conduct to the parliament, and there with Richard the brother of the king of England, and with other messengers of that kingdom, and with the barons of Poitou, treated many abominable and bitter counsels against the king of France.

[94] [they likewise treat with the English about a covenant: the machinations of the king of England.] These things were indeed being treated with Richard, who had already before been in the duchy of Aquitaine belonging to the English, and both parties desired a covenant against the King; but it could not so quickly be agreed between Richard and the princes about the conditions of the covenant, because he already had a covenant with the men of Poitou. Meanwhile King Henry of England, this rebellion of the nobles being heard, seized the occasion of trying the magnates of the provinces which he contended were his. Paris narrates the matter at the year 1226, page 231, in this manner: But the king of the English, hearing of the dissension of the aforesaid nobles, sent to the parts overseas Walter archbishop of York, and Philip of Aubigny, a knight, with other solemn legates, to the great men of Normandy, Anjou, Brittany, and Poitou, who were of right bound to be subject to him: asking with great promises that they would deign faithfully to admit him, desiring to come to them. These things the Englishman was contriving at this time, that he might recover what had been lost. And indeed a mighty evil seemed to threaten the kingdom: but the Lord, who scatters the counsels of the nations, kept his beloved Louis from ruin, and this whole tempest shortly vanished, as we now undertake to narrate.

§ X. The supreme Pontiff's protection asked and obtained by the King: the count of Flanders released from bonds: the princes' conspiracy scattered: the attempts of the English eluded: truces with the same.

The King asks and obtains the supreme Pontiff's protection: The King and the queen, endowed with equal piety, prudence, and fortitude, seeing the storm hanging over their head, omitted nothing which prudence and fortitude could suggest for removing the peril. In the first place they sought the protection of the apostolic See, not being ignorant how much its favor at that time availed among Christians. Gregory IX, the supreme Pontiff, granted their requests, not without praise of the kings of the Franks, an epistle being given to the King and the queen, which in Martène, tome 1 of the Most Ample Collection, column 1210, thus sounds: Gregory, bishop, servant of the servants of God, to his most dear sons in Christ Louis, illustrious King of the Franks, and to B. his mother and his brothers, greeting and Apostolic blessing. From our memory there cannot, as neither ought there, fall away the sincerity of faith and devotion which the kings and kingdom of France are known hitherto to have had toward God and the most holy Church: whose sincerity the apostolic See, favorably pursuing, always took pains in manifold ways to honor those kings and that kingdom. You too, on account of the common duty which ought to look to widows and orphans, we are bound to pursue with special affection, from the fact that thou, son King, being the successor and heir of thine own as in devotion so in blood, art said to pursue the business of the faith … against the Albigensian heretics… Led therefore by consideration of this kind, we clemently grant your supplications, and receive your persons together with that kingdom, your households, and all your goods under the protection of blessed Peter and our own, and fortify them with the patronage of the present writing &c. Given at the Lateran on the VI of the Ides of May, in the first year of our Pontificate, of Christ 1227. Another epistle on the same day the Pontiff gave to Romanus, Cardinal of St. Angelo, papal legate in France, by which he commits the same business to his care; and which the reader will find in the same place, column [ ]. Further, that the papal legate excellently fulfilled his part, even before this epistle was received, and everywhere clung to the King's side, will be plain in the course of the work. It is credible that his authority availed not a little, both for bringing back the rebels and for confirming the minds of those wavering in fidelity.

[96] Another protection against the seditious the prudent queen provided for herself she releases the count of Flanders from prison by releasing the count of Flanders from prison: concerning whose liberation Meyer in the Annals of Flanders at the year 1226 thus writes: He (St. Louis), chiefly by the intervention of his mother Blanche, loosed from bonds count Ferdinand his cousin, twelve years and five months after he had been captured. But he was released at the Epiphany of the Lord, and therefore those who keep the Roman custom refer his redemption to the twenty-seventh year. There are those who think that he was freed by the gold of his brother Alphonso, who at that time held the kingdom in Portugal, together with that of the princess Joanna. Others (which is nearer the truth) record that he was pardoned only at the prayers of queen Blanche, who was his maternal aunt and the king's mother, after he himself and his wife had religiously sworn to the terms of peace which we mentioned above. That he was redeemed with gold the Chronicle of Tours cited at number 90 has. Nor does this seem doubtful, since the countess Joanna confesses in her charter, published in Martène, Most Ample Collection, tome 1, column [ ], that she was helped in redeeming her husband by the gold of the abbot and convent of St. Vaast.

[97] But the conditions on which Louis VIII had determined to release him, on the conditions here recorded: Meyer records at the preceding year: That if Ferdinand should again fall away from the king, he himself, being moved by the Roman Pontiff, should be expelled from the kingdom from the communion of the pious; that Flanders should be interdicted from the sacred rites by the bishops of Laon and Senlis; that the town of Douai should remain some years still in the King's hand; that all the nobility and the prefectures of Flanders should (swear) that if in future the counts should violate this peace, they would desert the counts and defend the king's part, until peace should be composed by the XII great men of France. But if perchance any noble should refuse to bind himself in this manner, the count should drive him from Flanders, gather all his goods into the treasury, and never bring him back save by the King's grace and will. In addition, it should never be lawful for the counts of Flanders to restore their towns on this side of the Scheldt, or to raise new fortifications anywhere, save by the assent and will of the kings. He adds that these conditions were made in the month of April, but that the count remained in prison until the aforesaid time, because the Flemings refused to swear to these conditions, which not even afterwards would they do. But it sufficed Louis that the count and his wife had sworn, so that by these pacts he might firmly join him to himself against his enemies: nor did the count deceive his hope in the disturbances that thereafter followed. For the rest, the count's instrument, made at Lille in the month of January, in which all these things are read more fully, thou wilt find in Leibniz, Codex juris gentium, page XI.

[98] an army being gathered he advances to the parts of Poitou; Now let us set forth with how great swiftness and prudence the King and the queen the whole conspiracy

of the aforesaid nobles scattered, and stilled the commotions that had been stirred up. Nangis in du Chesne, page 327, thus undertakes to narrate the matter: In the same year (1226 after the manner of the old French) in which King Louis was crowned, Hugh count of La Marche, and Theobald count of Champagne, and also Peter count of Brittany, conspiring against that same King and their lord, entered upon a covenant with one another. Whence the count of Brittany, with the consent of the count of Champagne — who without leave, nay against the will and precept of the now deceased king Louis, had returned from the land of the Albigensians — was strengthening as best he could, and furnishing with victuals, the castle (in Normandy) which they name Saint-James-de-Beuvron, which, together with another (in the Perche) which is called Bellême, the deceased king Louis had long before handed over to him in keeping. But the new King, still a youth, thoroughly perceiving their confederation and their most wicked machination against his kingdom, declared, swearing by the arm of his own strength, that he would defend himself from all: and, counsel being had with his own, leading against them an army of incredible multitude, he hastened with all speed to the Quarry of Courçay. For the King had in his company Romanus the Cardinal, then papal legate in France, and the count of Boulogne his uncle, and also Robert count of Dreux, brother of the count of Brittany. But when the count of Champagne had seen the King's marvelous army, and, naturally fearing his lord, and adhering to the King of France, he swiftly sprang back from the fellowship of the counts of La Marche and of Brittany. Whom the most kindly King received with cheerful countenance into his former friendships.

[99] where the count of Champagne is reconciled to him, with the count of Bar, The count of Champagne, being the first to return to obedience — yet with the count of Bar, as we shall presently see, although Nangis does not mention him — led various authors into error. La Chaize at page 67 and other more recent writers thought that the King first set out with an army into Champagne; that hence terror was struck into the count, and arms laid down by him. But neither is the King read to have moved into Champagne in the authors of that time, nor was the count of Champagne yet reconciled to the King when he was already, about March, staying far from Champagne with an army beyond the Loire in the province of Poitou, so that it must be said that this journey into Champagne was invented from a deceptive conjecture. De Choisy at page 12 attributes this reconciliation to the count's love, as though, having seen queen Blanche, being astonished at her beauty, he had presently cast arms from his hands. But truly this is neither known to the ancient authors nor credible: for let us suppose that the count burned with this insane love; a like affection toward himself, a married man, he could not hope for in the most upright queen Blanche. We shall therefore presently assign the true reason of this reconciliation from an author before whose eyes almost the deed was done, when I shall have set forth with him the King's advance more exactly than it is described above by Nangis.

[100] The author of the Chronicle of Tours, who sets an end to it in this year, who were dissenting from the English. thus sets forth the movement of the King and queen with the army: In the year MCCXXVII, on the X of the Kalends of March, namely on a Saturday, there came to Tours Louis King of France with Blanche his mother and a countless army of armed men. Tarrying here in no way, he moved his army to the parts of Poitou, where certain of the rebels were staying: But on the morrow, says the author, having set out to Chinon, and then to Loudun (in the province of Poitou), he held a parliament with the counts of Brittany and of La Marche and their supporters at the Quarry of Courçay (which Nangis above names the Quarry of Courçay, nor is it far from Loudun) for nearly XX days, messengers going between. In this place he doubtless invited to himself all the confederated princes, but the counts of Brittany and of La Marche refused to be present, and dealt with the King through messengers. But there came to the King the counts of Champagne and of Bar, whom in the same place he recalled to concord. These things the same author narrates, who thus goes on: For Theobald count of Champagne, and Henry count of Bar, who had conspired against the king, came also under the King's safe-conduct (or a promise of safe access being obtained) to the parliament, and there with Richard the brother of the king of England, and with other messengers of that kingdom, and with the barons of Poitou, treated many abominable and bitter counsels against the King of France. But the Lord so changed the mind of each of them, and divided him from the other, that each one for himself, without consulting the others, the business (of the covenant) being unaccomplished, remained desolate at Thouars (in Poitou). Meanwhile Richard the brother of the king of England, and Savary de Mauléon (one of the chief magnates of Poitou), who had long waited, tried to seize the count of Champagne and the count of Bar, who were staying outside the walls of Thouars; but their snares being discovered, fleeing secretly from Thouars, they submitted themselves in all homages to the King of France.* This treachery of theirs impelled — nay compelled — the wavering to reconcile themselves to the King: for not undeservedly did they fear for themselves, since on this side they beheld treachery, on that the King's most flourishing army set before them.

[101] By this wound inflicted on the rebels' covenant by the King's swiftness, who in winter-time so quickly both gathered and led so great an army, [The counts of Brittany and of La Marche, being twice summoned by the King, weave delays,] the way was readier for subduing the others. But the King preferred to do it without shedding of blood rather than by force and arms. Let us hear then in what manner he accomplished it. Nangis, after the reconciliation already set forth has been related, thus goes on: Then he caused the two aforesaid counts, namely of La Marche and of Brittany, to be summoned by royal edict to his parliament, still acting in the parts of Poitou, as will be plain from what follows. What do they? They weave delays, and desire to remove the royal army further off: But, says the author, they, who had already been confederated against him and against the queen his mother, holding the King's command cheap, and utterly disdaining to come to his parliament (namely so long as he should remain there with the army), sent word to him that they would come to Chinon in the province of Touraine, if it should please his will; that is, that he should lead his army back thither. The King did this, garrisons however being left to guard the borders about the province of Poitou, as the Chronicle of Tours has it: But this in vain, says Nangis; for on the appointed day they neither came in person, nor were willing to send sufficient men in their own stead. Whence, being summoned a second time, and being persuaded by their kinsmen to come to the parliament of the King their lord, they sent word to him that they would appear before him at Tours with willing mind, but, putting off from day to day the fulfilling of the command, because indeed they were not acting sincerely, but rather desired to remove the army.

[102] being summoned a third time, they come to him at Vendôme, and are reconciled The King and his counselors could not fail to perceive this, yet he wished to keep every form of law. For thus Nangis goes on: The noble King, being vehemently angered, counsel being taken with his barons, lest he should seem to do anything against the laws, ordered them a third time to be present at his parliament. And then at last, weighing their own foolish pride and the clemency of the King their lord, they sent word to him humbly and devoutly that they would appear in his presence at Vendôme, if he willed, and would make amends for all the wrongs which they had done. Which as they promised with the mouth, they fulfilled in deed. But the King, as he was of inborn meekness, unwilling to render evil for evil, mercifully remitted for them the penalty of conspiracy and of disobedience. But the Chronicle of Tours, after the submission of the counts of Champagne and of Bar has been related, thus goes on: This being done, the King returned to Vendôme by the said route, the summonses being sent beforehand, and, fortifying the fortifications, left for the defense of the land two hundred knights (each of whom had some servientes, as they called them, that is, common soldiers). And while the King was thus returning, the counts of Brittany and of La Marche, seeing that all and each had unanimously forsaken them, spoke with their lips and shook their head, and, under the King's safe-conduct (or fortified by the King's safe-conduct) came to Vendôme on the XVII of the Kalends of April, and there, before the legate, homages being done, came to a peace in this manner.

[103] on the conditions here recorded. Louis King of France promised that John his brother, a boy of eight years, should be betrothed to Yolanda daughter of Peter count of Brittany, and granted him the county of Anjou, and left to the said count of Brittany the city of Angers, Baugé and Beaufort, and Le Mans after the death of queen Berengaria, with their appurtenances, homages excepted, for the aforesaid boy until XII years; and moreover gave to that same count and to his heirs in perpetuity, and quitclaimed, Saint-James-de-Beuvron, and La Pierrière, and the castle of Bellême with their appendages. Which things the King granted to the Count on this condition, to be kept for his brother John until he should be of that age at which he could govern them himself, were part of the inheritance left to John by his father Louis's testament, recited at number 78: other cities pertaining to his inheritance the King himself wished to keep. But the count on his part likewise promised that he would give certain towns to his daughter, as the lord Lobineau teaches from ancient monuments in the History of Brittany, tome 1, page 221. Further, that marriage was hindered by John's death, which followed not long after. The remaining conditions of this pact see in the praised Lobineau in the place assigned. But to the count of La Marche, says the cited Chronicle of Tours, utterly remitting and quitclaiming the dower of his wife, once queen of England, and also the pacts of Louis king of France his father, he disbursed a countless sum of money, and thus received those schismatics, the penalty being remitted, into favor, and absolved them. Martène, tome 1 of the Most Ample Collection, from column [ ], published the conditions on which peace with the count of La Marche was ratified, which at the beginning thus run: Louis … we, with the assent and will of our most dear mother B. queen of the Franks, have granted to our beloved and faithful Hugh of Lusignan count of La Marche that our most dear brother Alphonse count of Poitiers may have to wife Elizabeth daughter of the said count of La Marche, if the Roman Church shall grant it, and that Hugh the firstborn of that count may take to wife Elizabeth our most dear sister.* But the marriages never came together, because before the marriageable age of these children other discords arose. The remaining conditions of the peace the reader can consult in the same place. Likewise the pacts with the countess of La Marche about her dower thou hast in the same place, column [ ], which are marked as made in the month of March of the year 1227. But at column 1209 there are extant letters of certain nobles who at the same time at Vendôme, by command of the count of La Marche, swore clientage to the King. From which we understand with how great swiftness this whole conspiracy was laid to sleep; for on the X of the Kalends of March the King first came with an army to Tours; but before the end of March four powerful counts — namely of Champagne, of Bar, of Brittany, and of La Marche — were not only torn away from the covenant of the English, which they were treating, but were also bound to King Louis by sworn clientage, and were forbidden to treat with the English. Thus this tempest,

which threatened ruin to the kingdom, was laid to sleep in the briefest time, God protecting the King beloved of him.

[104] It remains that we recount what outcome the machinations of the English had in this year. Henry king of England gained nothing from these disturbances of the kingdom; They had hoped for themselves a mighty gain from this disturbance of the French kingdom. For we saw at number 94 that legates were sent by Henry king of England to solicit the provinces which he contended were of his right. What effect these gave, Paris narrates at the year 1227, page 232, in these words: At the same time, the paschal solemnity being at hand, the archbishop of York, and the bishop of Carlisle, with Philip of Aubigny a knight, the king's messengers, returned into England from the parts overseas. They had indeed been sent to the magnates of those regions, who by ancient right were bound to belong to the king of England. To whom it had been proposed on the king's part that they should with coaxing exhortations and great promises induce them to receive the said king, desiring to come to them, and to acknowledge him as their natural lord. But, that we may not draw out words long and in vain, before the king's messengers had come to those parts, the King of the Franks, his mother interposing her offices, had made peace with those barons and had received their homages, distributing to them abundantly lands and castles belonging to the King's right, making himself friends of the mammon of iniquity. But the count of Brittany, whose daughter the messengers were asking to be joined to the king in marriage, gave in answer to the king's messengers that he had composed a covenant of peace with the King of the Franks, which he could in no way violate. From which you may easily understand that it was necessary for Louis not to deal too severely with the counts of Brittany and of La Marche, the better to elude the attempts of the king of England.

[105] What at last did Richard, brother of the king of England, accomplish with the men of Poitou? Alberic in his Chronicle at the year 1227, page 523, records these things: and Richard, truces being agreed, returned into England. Count Richard, brother of the king of England, who two years before had seized La Réole and the parts about Bordeaux against the king of France, was conquered in battle by the King's kinsmen Humbert lord of Beaujeu and Peter count of Brittany, and thus returns into England. The count of Brittany seems, after the peace entered upon with the King, presently to have wished thus to prove his fidelity, so that these things seem to have taken place in the month of April. I should believe, however, that there were only certain skirmishes, since the Chronicle of Tours is silent about this victory, relating only the truces agreed with Richard and the magnates of Poitou, and subjoining them presently to the peace ratified by the King with the counts, in these words: This being done, the King, through messengers, confirmed a truce with Richard brother of the king of England, and with Savary de Mauléon, until the feast of St. John, and with Hugh viscount of Thouars until the fifteenth day after that same feast, oaths being given on both sides. But Hugh viscount of Thouars not only made a truce with the King, but also submitted himself to him altogether, as is plain from the clientage, or liege homage, as they call it, which he swore to the King in the month of April of the year 1227, in Martène, tome 1 of the Most Ample Collection, column 1210. It may nevertheless be that he first entered upon a truce and then upon a peace, and that the author, who here made an end of writing, had not yet learned anything about the peace. And afterwards, he says, returning into France, he called back the knights whom he had left to guard the land. And so, after Richard perceived himself the weaker in certain skirmishes, as it seems, he made a truce with the King, and thereafter returned into England, concerning whose return Paris in the place just cited has these words: At the same time, in the month of May, Richard the king's brother came into England. Thus not only king Henry's hope, but Richard's too, was eluded in this year. But Louis, all things being pacified, returned with his mother to Paris, the open force of his enemies being repelled, but not yet freed from their hidden snares.

la Charriere de Curcei*

* that is, his paternal uncle

* Chinon

* Loudun

* Vendôme

* that is, they had offended

* Baugé

* Beaufort

* le Mans

* S. James de Beuvron

* la Perrière

* Bellême

* i.e. renounced

* la Réole

* i.e. had occupied

§ XI. Deeds against the Albigensians; tithes granted to the King: a covenant with the emperor Frederick: the abbey of Royaumont founded: a new conspiracy of the nobles against the King, and a hidden machination for seizing him.

The count of Toulouse intercepts the castle of Hauterive; In the year in which we are engaged, 1227, war was also waged against the Albigensian heretics, but more slackly on account of other affairs of the kingdom. The aforementioned William de Puylaurens at page 85 writes the following concerning the deeds of this year in that war: In the same year as above (that is, 1226 after the manner of the French, who then began the year from Easter, but after the Roman and present manner toward the beginning of the year 1227), in the following winter, the fortification which was in the castle of Hauterive is attacked by the count of Toulouse, and before help had come it surrendered itself to that same count, life being spared, and there was slain by the stroke of a crossbow bolt Stephen Ferreol, a noble man of the diocese of Agen, of the aforesaid count's party. Imbert de Beaujeu, who had been left there by Louis VIII, seems to have been absent at that time, perhaps with part of his military forces; since indeed we have seen that he was about the month of April occupied against Richard the Englishman, whom we related at number 105 to have been conquered by him. But that warlike man, having returned thither after the truce agreed with Richard, presently repaired the loss.

[107] For thus the said author goes on: At that time too he was guarding the castle which is called Bézier, which the lord Imbert besieged in the following summer, when the year of the Lord MCCXXVII was already reckoned, in which the count of Toulouse had set as a garrison strenuous men, Pons de Villeneuve and Olivier de Termes, and many other warriors. And there were in the army the lord archbishop of Narbonne and the bishop of Toulouse, whom on a certain day, as he passed with several men about the village, those within, crying out, unfaithfully called Bishop of the devils. And those who were with him said: Hear you that they call you Bishop of the devils? Certainly, he himself answered, and they say truly: for they are devils, and I am their bishop. Which (castle), being stormed strongly with engines, is taken, and, not a few knights and footmen fleeing by night, the rest who were found fell partly by the sword, partly by stakes. But the pious bishop gave effort to rescuing the little children and the women. But the heretics — Gerald de la Motte their deacon, and other companions of his — were burned in the flames of fire. These later things, and what we shall thereafter relate about the war of the Albigensians from William, Bernard Gui too has in the Life of Gregory IX, tome 3 of the Writers of Italy, page 571. And the book entitled The Illustrious Deeds of the Franks, in du Chesne, tome 5, page 775. The rest in the following year.

[108] Further, on the occasion of this war there arose in the kingdom of France no small murmuring against the queen The French ecclesiastics, in order not to pay tithes, appeal to the Pontiff; and the papal legate. Odoricus Raynaldus narrates the matter from the papal letters at the year 1227 from number 56, which receive in summary. Tithes had been decreed in the council of Bourges, to be paid by the ecclesiastics to Louis VIII for promoting the war against the Albigensians: these the Cardinal legate was exacting for St. Louis for the same use, and by his own authority was compelling the ecclesiastics to pay them. Certain men, bearing this ill, appealed to the Pontiff, to whom they also gave letters crammed with most bitter complaints. Gregory IX, being softened by these laments of the Gallican clergy, ordered the legate, having rebuked him with grave words, to desist from what he had begun. But the matter being thereafter more maturely considered, and the legate's reasons being heard, he changed his opinion, and granted the tithes to St. Louis for the use of the war to be waged against the Albigensians, letters being given to him, which for the confirmation of what has been said I transfer hither from Raynaldus, number 61:

[109] To the illustrious King of France. When our beloved son Romanus, Cardinal deacon of St. Angelo, then A. S. L., in the council of Bourges summoned for the business of peace and of the faith, had received counsel that if the king of France of bright memory, thy father, should take that business upon himself, he would offer him a tithe of all the ecclesiastical revenues of his legation up to five years, if the business should so long endure; and that king, being divinely inspired, had taken up the aforesaid business, the same legate offered and promised him, up to the aforesaid time if the business should so long endure, the said tithe, to be spent according to his own will, so long as by himself or by his men, as the business should require, he should take care to pursue it in good faith. But since against a deed of this kind certain chapters of three provinces, namely of Reims, of Tours, and of Rouen, have opposed themselves, and, lest they should be compelled to pay the said tithe, have deemed it right to appeal to the Apostolic See for themselves and for those adhering to them: we, certain proctors of the chapters and the aforesaid Cardinal being heard upon this, and considering indeed that for so evident a necessity, and so useful a business of the Church of God, the said legate both could by right of his legation determine or ordain what he saw to be expedient, and also, from the fact that he had received a special power from the Roman Church of ordaining and determining whatever he should see, according to the prudence given him by God, to be expedient for the business, we have deemed that his ordinance, lawful in order and holy in cause, and also the promise made to the king by the counsel of almost the whole council of Bourges, should be approved by the counsel of our brethren, and we hold it not only firm but ratified and pleasing; willing and determining by the authority of the present letters that, according to the said promise made by the said legate to that same father of thine, the tithe be paid thee entirely. Given at the Lateran, on the Ides of November, in the 1st year* — that is, of Christ 1227. That the Pontiff rightly preferred the profit of the Church to the exaggerated laments of certain men, the outcome of the war, to be related in its place, has abundantly taught.

[110] Louis enters upon a covenant with the emperor Frederick: In this year likewise St. Louis, his most prudent mother taking care of it, renewed in the month of June the covenant with the emperor Frederick entered upon by his father, and with his son Henry king of the Romans in the month of August; but by this certain things useful to both parties were established, and it was provided that the emperor should not join himself with the English against Louis; as du Tillet hands down in tome 2, page 179, in the Collection of Treaties. This was useful for the tranquility of the kingdom, otherwise sufficiently disturbed at this time; yet I would have the reader note that the thing was accomplished before Frederick was struck with anathema by the Pontiff Gregory, which Raynaldus in the same place, number 29, hands down was indeed done in the same year, but on the feast of St. Michael. To note

this I have wished, lest anyone think that St. Louis entered upon covenants with a man deprived of the communion of the faithful: the same may be observed at the year 1232, when these covenants were renewed.

[111] he founds the abbey of Royaumont, To this year 1227 there also seems to be recalled the foundation of the abbey of Royaumont, an illustrious monument of the youthful King's piety; although authors do not altogether agree about the time. Angelus Manrique in the Cistercian Annals refers it to this year, tome 3, page 346, where he thus speaks: In the Chronology four abbeys concerning this year are recorded in the following order. Then he cites these words: In the year MCCXXVII, on the sixth of the Kalends of March, the abbey of Royaumont was founded. That the year is not here begun after the French manner from Easter, the following foundations indicate, which are said to have been made in the same year in the months of May and June. Whence I do not sufficiently perceive why la Chaize at page 78 narrated the foundation in the year 1228; unless he found it so in other monuments. Nangis, presently to be cited, refers the building of the abbey to the year of Christ 1230. Which things the praised Manrique tries thus to reconcile with each other: Perhaps the buildings, begun to be constructed in this year, having grown through three years, though not yet altogether completed, could then for the first time receive monks. So much for the time. Now it must also be discussed whether the Saint did these things with his own or his father's money.

[112] Louis VIII in du Chesne, page 325, not from the goods deputed to that purpose by his father's testament, determined these things in his testament: Besides, we will that all our precious stones which are in our crowns, or outside the crowns, be sold, and that from their price a new abbey be constructed of the Order of St. Victor in honor of the blessed Virgin Mary, and that all the gold which is in the crowns, or rings, or other jewels, be likewise sold for the work of the aforesaid abbey. That St. Louis satisfied this last will of his father by founding the abbey of Royaumont, the brothers Sainte-Marthe write, tome 4 of Gallia Christiana, page 776, along with la Chaize at page 78 and de Choisy at page 18: which if it is true, the foundation will be reckoned to Louis VIII rather than to St. Louis. But Gerard du Bois doubts whether it was this or another abbey which St. Louis founded by force of his father's testament: for indeed in the History of Paris, tome 2, page 299, he thus speaks after the words of the testament cited: That (abbey) was moreover built by Louis IX his son in the diocese of Beauvais in the year MCCXXX, and was called Royaumont; or, as others judge, in the district of Brie near Lésigny. The place was called Ivernetum, or Hibernale, whence the abbey took its name. This is called in French Iverneaux, of which brief mention is made in Gallia Christiana, just cited, page 514, in these words: Of Hibernale, of the Order of St. Augustine, of the diocese of Paris. Whether this abbey was founded from the testament of Louis VIII I leave to be further investigated by the present editors of Gallia Christiana, since monuments for proving it are not at hand for me. But that the abbey of Royaumont is owed rather to the royal munificence of St. Louis than to his father's testament, these reasons persuade.

[113] It is not credible that St. Louis would have used the goods left by his father's testament for founding an abbey of the Cistercian Order, but by his own munificence, since his father willed that from them an abbey of the Order of St. Victor should be founded; especially since the abbot of St. Victor had been appointed among the executors of the testament. Then, coeval authors attribute the glory of the abbey of Royaumont founded to St. Louis; nay, Louis himself in a Charter to be cited below attributes the foundation to himself alone, no mention being made of his father's testament. What too of the fact that Geoffrey de Beaulieu excludes the goods left by the aforesaid testament from the foundation of this abbey? Receive his words at number 29: Besides, from his earliest age he began to build very many houses and monasteries of religious: among which he constructed especially that illustrious monastery of blessed Mary of Royaumont of the Cistercian Order, and a church of admirable beauty, from his own means, and assigned it copious revenues. Who would say that St. Louis constructed the abbey from his own means, if he used for it his father's jewels, which were not his own? Finally, the Cistercians acknowledge St. Louis alone as founder of Royaumont, as may be seen in the Cistercian Menology of Claude Chalemot, page 280; nor do I judge that another is to be acknowledged, although Louis VIII would have to be called the chief founder if the abbey had been founded from his testament. So much about the author of the foundation, which things are also confirmed from what follows: now receive the manner of the foundation.

[114] Nangis at page 330 thus speaks of it: In the year of the Lord MCCXXX, the fourth of his reign, Louis King of France, and at mighty expense; burning with youthful chaste love, as one whose soul, like a hart to the fountains of waters, longed for the Lord, constructed a sumptuous abbey of admirable workmanship in the bishopric of Beauvais near Beaumont, in a place which was called Cuimont, which now from the King's name is named Royaumont. In which from the beginning of its newness he established an abbot with XX monks of the Cistercian Order to serve the Lord there, and adorned the church, constructed within, marvelously with ecclesiastical ornaments. And that the monks, worshippers of God, dwelling assiduously in it, might be at leisure more freely and more devoutly for the divine praises through unshaken times, he mercifully disbursed to that same place very many and mighty estates whence they might be sustained. Concerning the expenses spent on founding this abbey the second Life hands down these things at number 48: In which abbey there is so much of work that it is believed it could not have been done by any other man of those parts save by the King; and the costs and expenses of the buildings alone are believed to have exceeded a hundred thousand Parisian pounds: which was a mighty sum at that time.

[115] he frequently increases the abbey's revenues, The yearly revenues of that same abbey St. Louis thereafter increased to the point that at least sixty monks could be sustained by them. Receive the letters attesting this increase, and the foundation itself, from Martène, tome 1 of the Most Ample Collection, column 1267: Louis &c. We make known that, since we, for the remedy of the soul of Louis our father of bright memory, and for the remedy of our own soul, and of the illustrious queen Blanche our mother, and also of our predecessors, have caused the monastery of Royaumont of the Cistercian Order to be founded, and have constructed the buildings for the greater part, we add to the revenues assigned to that same monastery five hundred Parisian pounds to be paid each year at the Temple of Paris in three accounts, namely on the feast of All Saints a third part, at the Candles (that is, at the feast of the Virgin purified, on which candles are blessed with solemn rite, as the editor notes) a third part, and at the Ascension of the Lord a third part; until we shall have assigned to that same monastery the said five hundred pounds in revenues, or in land, at the estimation of good men whom we shall appoint for this. But so much shall be subtracted from the payment of the aforesaid D pounds as shall have been assigned to them in revenues or in land. For we understand that from the aforesaid five hundred pounds, and the other revenues already assigned by us to the said monastery, at least sixty monks are to be sustained, who shall reside in the aforesaid monastery… Done at Paris in the year of the Lord MCCXXXV in the month of October.*

[116] even while he was overseas: and in it he gives illustrious examples of virtue. With such love did Louis pursue this abbey that not even in the overseas expedition was he forgetful of it: for both in the year 1249 in the camp near Damietta he increases its revenues, giving certain estates to the abbey; and in the year 1250 at Acre he writes letters to his mother on behalf of that same abbey; both instruments the praised Martène published, the latter at column [ ], the former at column [ ], from which likewise the reader will understand that the abbey's revenues were rather often increased by the holy King. For the rest, in the praised abbey, which the Saint most frequently visited, he gave illustrious specimens of charity, humility, and all the virtues, as is related in the Acts to be published, especially in the second Life, in various places. Thou wilt read in the same place that Louis, his royal majesty being laid aside for a while, not seldom served the monks at table, waited on the sick even with his knees bent on the ground, carried stones and lime with the brethren, attended day and night at the sacred readings, sermons, and divine offices; and finally performed all the exercises of Religion with equal piety and modesty: for these exercises the holy King used, in place of hunting and games, to relax his mind. Let it suffice to have said these things about the foundation of this abbey, in which the piety and liberality of St. Louis shone forth amid the very disturbances of the kingdom: for we are recalled to a new conspiracy of the nobles, also in this year.

[117] Nearest to the King in blood was Philip count of maritime Boulogne, Philip count of Boulogne conspires with other nobles against the King, as being the son of Philip Augustus and St. Louis's uncle: he had obtained the county of Boulogne by marriage with Matilda, daughter of count Reginald or Raynald, who had been captured with the count of Flanders, and, the latter being released, was kept in prison, although, as Alberic affirms in his Chronicle at the year 1227, many labored for his liberation. This seems to have been done in favor of count Philip, lest Reginald, being released from prison, should reclaim the county. Philip himself doubtless knew with how easy a business he could be despoiled of his dominion while Reginald lived, and he seems to have stirred nothing against the King or the queen so long as he lived. But Reginald, on the testimony of the cited Alberic, About the following Easter (after the count of Flanders was released, that is, of the year 1227) ended his life by a voluntary death, as is said. Being now freed from this bridle, Philip presently went over to the party of the rebels, being made leader of the covenant, as Joinville says at number 28. The reason of this conspiracy seems to have been none other than that they might drive queen Blanche from the administration of the kingdom: for indeed they had sufficiently perceived that their attempts must always be eluded by her prudence and constancy, so long as she should administer the kingdom with her son. Certain authors indeed write that the nobles promised the kingdom itself to the count of Boulogne; others will have it that it was also offered to Enguerrand lord of Coucy, * the King's kinsman, and maternal uncle of the counts of Brittany and of Dreux: but it is not credible that this was sincerely done by them, since coeval authors are silent on that matter. If therefore such things were perhaps at some time boasted by one man or another, we cannot judge that this was the princes' counsel.

[118] The nobles were gathered at Corbeil, as the said Joinville writes. [whom they try to seize: but, the snares being detected, he is brought back to Paris.] But since they perceived from the preceding conspiracy that open force would profit them less, thinking that hidden snares must be used, they tried to seize the King, being about, forsooth, easily to extort whatever they wished if they should have him in their power. Louis had, as the manuscript Life of the anonymous author has it, made an excursion with no great company toward Orléans, when he is warned that snares were being laid for him by someone, by the care, as it seems, of the count of Champagne, for against him thereafter all were most of all exasperated, Because, says Nangis, he had laid bare their most abominable counsels to the King. Being warned of this matter, Louis returns in haste; having advanced

as far as Montlhéry, he sent to Paris that the Parisians should come to the aid of himself and his mother. They, hearing of the King's peril, presently, armed in a mighty multitude, brought the King and the queen back to Paris not without auspicious acclamations, as Joinville almost narrates at number 28. Hear also Nangis at page 328: They envied, he says, (the princes) that queen Blanche the King's mother seemed to have the guardianship of the kingdom and of her Son. Whence on a certain day, when the King was at Châtres beneath Montlhéry, knowing that almost all the barons of France were machinating for his harm, he was unwilling to return with the few knights whom he had brought with him. But gathering an army from every side, walled about with a multitude of armed men, with arms and warlike array he went back honorably to Paris. So great was the gladness of the Parisians when the King was received, that they wished to attest it by a struck coin, and to preserve its memory. This coin I transfer hither from James de Bie, folio 26. Further, that the coin, although no time is marked on it, must be referred to this return of the King, and not to his return from the overseas expedition, is gathered from two things. First, because, on the testimony of James de Bie, page 95, interpreting the coin, on the other side there is the effigy of queen Blanche, administratrix of the kingdom, who was dead when Louis returned from the East. Then Paris, which as the figure of a woman freed from great fear casts herself at the King's feet, suggests the deed just related, in which the Parisians, being informed of the King's peril, brought them back unharmed. What the princes thereafter contrived we shall set forth in its place: for here we set an end to this year, in which the holy King was happily snatched by divine favor from a twofold peril, which du Pleix wrongly confused at the year 1227, thinking that these snares were laid for the King before the peace entered upon with the counts of La Marche and of Brittany.

* Hauterive

* i.e. by the dart of crossbows

* i.e. was fortifying

* la Bessède

* Bourges

* i.e. at Paris

* de Coucy

* Montlhéry

* Châtres

§ XII. Deeds of the year MCCXXVIII; namely a year's truce with the English: deeds against the Albigensians: peace composed with the count of Toulouse.

Pious donations: statutes against the Jews In the year 1228 St. Louis showed his liberality by certain donations. In the first place, to the abbey of the Premonstratensian Order which the Latins named Gaudiumvallis, the French Joyenval, founded some years before by Bartholomew de Roye chamberlain of France (as Martène notes, and the Sainte-Marthe brothers prove at length, tome 4 of Gallia Christiana, from page 457), not far from the town of Saint-Germain-en-Laye, he granted a place for constructing a mill: as thou wilt find from the Charter given on this matter in Martène, tome 1 of the Most Ample Collection, column [ ]. Then he remitted to his own and the monks' guests in the town of Saint-Germain-en-Laye the duty of supplying mattresses and cuissini, as he calls them. See his Charter in the same place, column [ ]. Besides, he confirmed and increased his father Louis VIII's statutes against the usuries of the Jews, adding within what terms Christians should pay their debts to the Jews. His letters on this matter thou hast in the cited Martène from column 1224. Let it suffice to have noted these things about them, since we must proceed to others.

[120] The truces agreed with the English in the preceding year had expired. truces with the English renewed for a year: But that these might be renewed, Henry king of England asked of St. Louis, by letters published in Martène, tome 1 of the Most Ample Collection, column [ ], in which he says that this was commanded him by Pope Gregory IX. That they were granted by Louis for a year, the Pontiff likewise asking, the letters published in the same place, columns [ ] and 1224, teach, which are marked as given in the month of June of the year 1228. Truces of this kind I find likewise made with William archbishop, lord of Parthenay, a client of the count of La Marche, from the letters published at column [ ]: whence we understand that the magnates of Poitou still adhered to the English. Further, affairs were not lacking to St. Louis in this year too, and in the following: for war had thereafter to be waged in three parts of the kingdom, by which divine providence exercised the holy Youth's constancy. But the authors who relate these disturbances so disagree among themselves that, although these things have been recounted by several, you would scarcely — or not even scarcely — find two who agree with each other in all points. Nor is that greatly to be wondered at, since the same things have been recounted by ancient authors with a less exact order of time and of deeds. That Joinville before the rest gave occasion to this confusion we shall show at the following year, to which we shall show in the same place that the war in Champagne, and the war waged against the count of Brittany and the English, pertain. Now we shall pursue the war promoted for the Catholic faith against the Albigensians, and shall subjoin its happy and likewise glorious outcome.

[121] Domestic peace, gained after the nobles' snares had been eluded, the war against the Albigensians promoted, the Pontiff exhorting: gave Louis occasion of bringing this war to an end. For that there was peace with the nobles in this year, although it was faithless and about shortly to break out into a most grievous war, we shall prove in its place. Pope Gregory too was exhorting the holy King to devote himself to that war, and was sending back the Cardinal of St. Angelo, his legate, into France at the King's request. Thou wilt understand this from the Pontiff's letters in Raynaldus at the year 1228, number 20, in which he thus addresses the King: The business which is carried on against the Albigensian heretics is the business of peace and of the orthodox faith, for which the kingdom of the Franks has always stood, as though founded in its solidity; and thy forebears laid down persons and goods, pursuing the cause to the honor of God and to the glory of the aforesaid kingdom, so that its devotion is announced to the whole world as being singular. But thy father of renowned remembrance, kindled with the fervor of devotion of this kind, like a true Israelite pursued the said business, and, pursuing it happily, passed from earthly things to those above. Thou too, an imitator of the same devotion, hast begun to dedicate thy first fruits to that same business, submitting thy shoulders manfully with the zeal of charity, that thou mightest be able to accomplish what was praiseworthily begun by thy father. Wherefore we praise the almighty Lord, who inspired in thee so pious an affection, and suppliantly pray that he may by his mercy bestow a happy outcome. And indeed, since the princes of lands ought to purge their lands of all evils, it befitted thy magnificence that thou shouldst set heart and hand to routing out heretical depravity from the parts of the Albigensians, which, since they are within the bounds of thy kingdom, it is expedient for thy fame and honor that thou shouldst as powerfully as swiftly extirpate that same plague, lest, if thou defer longer, the faith there wholly perish, and the land which the Catholics hold be lost, and a plague of this kind pour itself over into nearer places. Finally king Nebuchadnezzar is read to have decreed that whoever should blaspheme the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego should perish, and his house should be destroyed. If therefore a foreign king raged, lest the God of Israel should be blasphemed, wilt thou, a Christian prince, and the successor and heir of Most Christian forebears, to whom perhaps the Lord has by his high and secret judgment reserved the consummation of the business, not fulfill the office of a devout prince against his blasphemers?* He adds that he is sending back the Cardinal of St. Angelo, asked for by the King, with a wider power than before. With these goads the Pontiff was stirring Louis, who was running of his own accord.

[122] two towns taken by the count of Toulouse: But truly the count of Toulouse meanwhile omitted nothing whereby he might restore his own affairs and those of his Albigensians. The damages inflicted on both sides the aforementioned William de Puylaurens narrates in chapter 37 in this manner: But in the following winter (that is, about the beginning of the year 1228) the castle of Saint-Paul is surrendered to the count of Toulouse. And likewise about the following paschal season, the count recovered the castle of Sarrasin, the fortification at the head of the castle being besieged and shut in, and although help had been hastened by the landholders and others who could be had close at hand (for the lord Guy de Montfort, wounded by an arrow, had perished at Varilhes a little before), they could not reach the besieged. But on the outside the count of Toulouse had shut them in with a great palisade, with outworks having a face of defense toward both those coming from without and those shut in; whither also the archbishop of Narbonne, and the bishops of Toulouse and of Carcassonne, came together: and the lord Imbert de Beaujeu returned, who after the taking of Bessède had withdrawn into his own land: for a time there also ran up the archbishop of Bourges with a gathered hand of armed men, who had come to visit his province. Nevertheless they could not break the siege. Nay, Matthew Paris at this year, page 240, writes that French sent by St. Louis to break the siege were cut down by the count, and that three times in this same summer: but Paris does not deserve credit in the things which he relates about the war waged against the Albigensians; for he everywhere shows himself unfair to the French, but favoring the heretics, and narrates many things utterly unknown to others, so that these can seem to have been intruded afterwards into his History by heretics.

[123] another, on the contrary, stormed by the French: Further, whither the French turned themselves when they saw that they could not break the siege of the said town, William thus records a little below: And a counsel occurred to the prelates and barons, that, since they could not come to the aid of their own men shut in, they should besiege there the neighboring castle Montech, which, being besieged, when they had stormed it some days, they took by surrender: and the noble man Otho de Cauda, with Otho de Linaris and other knights, was captured there. But the rest who were shut in at the head of the castle of Sarrasin, when nothing at all remained which they might eat, surrendering themselves with their lives spared, resigned the castle to the enemy. And it was the counsel that they should straightway besiege the castle of Saint-Paul, and on account of it they came to Lavaur. Thus far the author: for the understanding of which it must be noted that by castra here fortified towns are signified, and by heads of the castle, the more fortified places of the town, which we properly call castles. But Lavaur, in French Lavaur, whither he says the cross-signed came, is a town five leagues distant from Toulouse, afterwards adorned with episcopal dignity.

[124] After the cross-signed came thither, their counsel being changed, the reckoning of the time, they determined to attack Toulouse itself — not indeed that they wished at once to storm the city itself, which some have wrongly written was stormed by them. But they undertook to wear out its inhabitants by continual devastation of the fields, that vexation might give understanding, which also they happily accomplished. That this devastation was made in the year 1228 in the summer season is clear from what the author premised: for in chapter 37 he says that Bessède was stormed by the French in the summer season of the year 1227; but in the following winter the Castle of St. Paul, then after Easter the Castle of Sarrasin, was surrendered to the count of Toulouse. Which being done, the cross-signed began to lay waste the fields about Toulouse. This had to be noted, because the author, having spoken ambiguously, led some into error, both about the time of this devastation and about the peace that followed, which we shall prove below was made at the beginning of the year 1229. Now let us hear the matter itself from the said author.

[125] But, he says in chapter 38, what rather

pressed on, by which the cross-signed laid waste all things about Toulouse, in the year of the Lord MCCXXVII, those who had arranged to cut down (that is, to lay waste by cutting) the vineyards of the city of Toulouse withdrew from their first purpose. The year assigned, unless a fault has crept in, must not be understood of the devastation which he relates, lest the author contradict himself, but of the counsel or arrangement of laying waste the vineyards, so that all things may hang together: And their forces being called together, he says, the prelates coming from every side from Gascony — the archbishops of Auch and of Bordeaux, and also certain bishops and barons, with their cross-signed peoples — about the feast of the Nativity of St. John they direct their way toward Toulouse, and encamped in a place toward the East which is called Pech-David, and began from the upper part to demolish the vineyards. Which being demolished on the first side, they transfer their camp to a place which is called Mont-Audran, and harassed their adversaries with a threefold labor and damage; for they had very many men who cut down the crops, likewise others who applied iron picks to destroying the towers and walls of the strongholds (or fortifications set outside the city). Likewise several others who pressed on with grinding down the vineyards.*

[126] For whom this was the daily discipline. At dawn, the celebration of Masses being heard, laid waste. they dined soberly, and, the crossbowmen being sent ahead and the ranks prepared for battle and warfare following, they approached the vineyards nearer to the city, the citizens being scarcely yet roused from sleep; and, beginning thence, their face being turned toward the camp, they returned crushing the vineyards, whom the military ranks followed little by little; and in this order they proceeded daily, until, nearly three months' time being completed, it was accomplished on almost every side. I remember that the pious bishop said, while cutting down they returned as though fleeing: In a marvelous manner by fleeing we overcome our adversaries: for they were being invited to conversion and to humility, from whom there was withdrawn that on account of which they had been wont to be proud; just as there is salutarily withdrawn from a sick man that which by excess could have harmed him.* With this affection the pious father acted toward his sons, who, as an imitator of God, desired not death but conversion, that sinners might live. And this indeed which had been done pertained much to the purpose of the bishop and of like men, that this vexation of the adverse party might give understanding to their hearing, which also in fact followed.

[227] Then they invade the dominion of the count of Foix. These things being accomplished against the men of Toulouse, the French turned their arms against the count of Foix, joined by covenant to the count of Toulouse, the cross-signed however departing who had joined themselves from Gascony to St. Louis's forces. Which the same author thus relates in chapter 39: This business therefore of the cutting-down (or devastation) being accomplished, the prelates, barons, knights, and peoples of Gascony returned home, but the rest with a strong hand went up toward Pamiers, invading the land as far as the Pass of Barre of the count of Foix, and, pitching their tents beside the place which is called Saint-Jean-des-Verges on that plain, they lay there many nights, and, fortifications being set where it was expedient, they return.* Further, the Pass of Barre is a narrow place among the mountains, which the count could defend with easy work, as la Chaize says at page 99. Hence it came about that they proceeded no further. But in what manner they brought the count of Foix to concord after the peace made with the count of Toulouse will be briefly said below. But now we shall narrate in what manner the peace was composed, by which the heresy of the Albigensians was throttled, to the highest glory of the youthful Louis, although these things were not accomplished before the year 1229.

[128] Peace offered to the men of Toulouse: its conditions begun at Meaux, Romanus, Cardinal of St. Angelo, having returned from Rome in this year 1228, as Alberic affirms in the same place, sent the abbot of Grandselve, the King without doubt consenting, to offer peace to the men of Toulouse, which they eagerly embraced. The praised William de Puylaurens narrates the matter in chapter 39 in these words: Meanwhile the venerable abbot of Grandselve, the lord Elias Guarin, came from France, by the legate's authority offering peace to the men of Toulouse, who, being shaken by the many vexations already tasted, consent to a peace being made; and, truces being taken, parleys are held about Baziège, and it is arranged that there be a going into France, and the place for meeting was first assigned at Meaux in Brie, a city of the count of Champagne; and there were present, as much by command as of their own accord, the archbishop and his suffragans of the province of Narbonne, and there came thither the count of Toulouse, and other men, and citizens of Toulouse, who are named in the form of the peace or in other instruments drawn up therefrom; and there were the legate and several other prelates who had been summoned, where in treating of the manner of the peace there was a tarrying for several days. The count of Champagne too was present as arbiter of the peace to be reconciled, as is plain from the Charter of the abbot of Grandselve about the pacts between the King and the count, which Martène published in tome 1 of the Anecdota from column 943, where the thing is said to have been accomplished with the counsel of the count of Champagne. But the instrument is marked as made in the month of January of the year 1228, namely after the French manner, that is, of the year 1229 if we begin the year from the first of January.

[129] and completed at Paris by Peter of Colmieu. But the pacts at Meaux do not seem to have satisfied the King, and many things seem to have been added to them at Paris which appeared more effectual for extirpating heresy. For indeed the instrument published by Martène contains fewer things than that which was made at Paris in the following month of April, and which we shall subjoin below from Catel. Besides, Martène's instrument does not record all the things which William de Puylaurens and Alberic at the year 1229 affirm were inserted into the conditions of the peace, which nevertheless Col. 304A are read exactly in the instrument made at Paris. I judge also that the Parisian pacts were composed not by the abbot of Grandselve but by Peter of Colmieu; for Alberic writes this in his Chronicle at the year 1229, page 528, in these words: This is the form of the peace which was treated through master Peter of Colmieu, and arranged between the King and the count of Toulouse. After which he subjoins the chief conditions of the peace, which we shall give entire. But that the pacts were completed at Paris the cited William de Puylaurens hands down in this manner: Then they set out for Paris, that all things should be consummated in the King's presence, and, all things being said and sealed to the end, the count was reconciled on the day of Good Friday. Further, Peter of Colmieu, by whose labor chiefly we said the conditions of the peace were completed, John of Ypres in the Chronicle of St. Bertin in Martène, tome 3 of the Anecdota, column 710, calls A venerable man, and of great learning, where he also asserts that the archbishopric of Tours and other sees were refused by him, and writes that he was occupied by Apostolic authority with the Albigensians in the parts of Toulouse, so that this business seems to have been committed to him both for his learning and for his knowledge of affairs. He was an Italian by nation, from the town of Colmieu, and was thereafter made archbishop of Rouen, and created Cardinal by Innocent IV, as the Sainte-Marthe brothers write, tome 1 of Gallia Christiana, page 586.

* royal

* Château-Sarrasin

* Varilhes

* Montech

* i.e. had stormed

it was read: Archiepiscopus Auxitanus & Burdegalensis*: which I have corrected from the sense and from the Chronicle commonly called Monfortian.

inchoantes*

* Pamiers

* i.e. truces

* Baziège

§ XIII. The pacts between the King and the count of Toulouse.

Heretics to be investigated, and the count's dominion to be purged of them; These pacts William Catel published in the History of the counts of Toulouse from page 332, which Labbe thereafter inserted into tome XI of the Councils from page 415: these we too shall reprint in this place, that the reader may understand with how great severity St. Louis judged that heretics and their supporters were to be dealt with. They are moreover of this kind: In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity. Louis by the grace of God King of the Franks. Let all know, present alike and to come, that whereas Raymond son of Raymond formerly count of Toulouse, long persisting in the excommunication of the Church and of God, wishing to be for a long time contumacious and rebellious, yet returning to his heart, the Lord bringing it about, came at the command of the Church and of our most dear friend Romanus, Cardinal deacon of St. Angelo, legate of the apostolic See, and of us, humbly and devoutly asking his absolution, and demanding the grace and mercy of the Church and ours, and not judgment. But he promised to the said legate in the name of the Roman Church, and to us, that he will henceforth be devoted to the Church and to us and to our heirs, and will faithfully adhere unto death, and that he will always with all his strength war down heretics and those who believe, favor, and receive them in the land which he himself and his own hold and shall hold, sparing in this neither neighbors, vassals, kinsmen, nor friends, and will at length purge the land of heretics and of heretical foulness, and will also help to purge and defend the land which we shall hold; and he promised that he will do due justice without delay upon manifest heretics, and will cause it to be done through his Bailiffs manfully and powerfully. He will also diligently inquire, and cause inquiry to be made, about finding heretics, believers, favorers, and receivers of the same, according to the ordinance which the said legate shall make upon this: and that heretics may more easily and better be found, he promised that he will pay for two years two marks of silver, and thereafter in perpetuity one, and to him who shall have taken a heretic, and, through the bishop of the place or another who has power, he who shall have been taken shall have been condemned of heresy, so that, if he shall have taken several, he shall give, or cause to be given, as much for each. Concerning others not manifest, and believers, and receivers, and favorers of heretics, he shall observe, and cause to be observed, according as the said legate or the Roman Church shall ordain.*

[131] routiers to be expelled, the rights of the Church to be defended: Likewise he shall keep, and cause to be kept, peace in the land which he himself and his own shall hold, and shall help it to be kept in the land which we shall hold in our hand, and shall expel the Routiers and shall punish them with worthy and due animadversion, and their receivers: he shall defend churches and ecclesiastical men, and cause them to be defended from his own men, and shall preserve to the same the rights, liberties, and immunities which they have, and shall cause them firmly to be preserved: and lest henceforth in that land the keys of the Church be despised, he shall observe the sentences of excommunication, and shall cause them to be observed by his own and through his own. He shall shun the excommunicated, or cause them to be shunned, as is contained in the sacred constitutions.*

[132] [the excommunicated to be compelled to satisfaction: catholic magistrates to be appointed:] And if any shall have remained contumaciously in excommunication for a year, then that same Raymond shall, at the Church's command, compel them to return to the bosom of mother Church, by occupying all their goods movable and immovable, and shall hold them until they make full satisfaction for the cause for which they were bound in the bond of excommunication, and for the damages given on the occasion of the aforesaid excommunication; he shall cause all his Bailiffs appointed and to be appointed to swear at their very appointment that they will faithfully observe all the aforesaid, so that, if they shall be found negligent in these things,

they shall be punished according to the measure of the offense, and, if they shall have been guilty of all, let them be punished with the loss of their goods. He shall also appoint as Bailiffs in the land not Jews but Catholics, and men noted with the suspicion of no heresy, and such forbidden men cannot be admitted to buying the revenues of cities and towns, or of castles, or of tolls; and if perchance such a man shall have been appointed unknowingly, he shall expel him and punish him as soon as he shall have been informed upon this.*

[133] ecclesiastical goods and rights to be restored: tithes to be paid: Likewise that same Raymond promised that he will at present restore, and cause to be restored in full by his own men in all the land which he himself and his own held, all the immovable goods and rights of churches and of ecclesiastical persons; namely those which churches or ecclesiastical persons held before the first coming of the cross-signed, or of which it shall be established that they were despoiled. But concerning others he shall stand to law before the ordinaries, or before the said legate, or those delegated by the Apostolic See. He also promised that he himself will henceforth pay tithes entirely, and will cause them to be paid entirely by his own men in good faith, and that knights and other laymen shall not have tithes in the land which he himself and his own hold and shall hold, nor will he permit them to have them, but they shall revert entirely to the churches according to the disposition of that legate, or of the Roman Church.

[134] for damages inflicted on the Church in movable goods But for the damages inflicted by himself or by his own men upon churches or ecclesiastical men in movable things, or in the destruction of castles or towns or other things, immovables excepted, of which restitution ought to be made as was said above, he shall pay ten thousand marks of silver, to be assigned to good, fit, and faithful persons whom that legate shall choose, or the Roman Church, who shall divide the aforesaid quantity proportionately and faithfully by the counsel of good men, according to the quantity of the damages; nor shall he or they be able to be sued further beyond that sum for damages of movables or the destruction of houses or towns, as has been expressed above.

[135] Likewise he shall pay to the Cistercian abbey two thousand marks of silver, restitution to be made: that revenues may thence be bought for the refreshment of the abbots and brethren in the general chapter. To the abbey of Clairvaux five hundred marks for buying revenues for the refreshment of the abbots and brethren who come together on the feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin: to the abbey of Grandselve a thousand marks: to the abbey of Belleperche three hundred marks, to the abbey of Candeil two hundred marks, for constructing the said monasteries, as much for the damages inflicted on the same in movable things as for the salvation of his own soul.

[136] Likewise he shall pay six thousand marks, which shall be retained for fortifying, strengthening, likewise money to be given for guarding towns, and for maintaining teachers: and guarding the castle of Narbonne, and the other castles which we shall hold for the Church's and our own security up to ten years, as is contained below, and as shall have seemed expedient: but the aforesaid twenty thousand marks he shall pay within four years from now. Likewise four thousand marks shall be deputed by that same Raymond to two masters of Theology, two Decretists, six masters of the liberal arts, and two masters of grammar, teaching at Toulouse, which shall be divided in this manner. Each of the masters of Theology shall have fifty marks each year, namely up to ten years; yearly each of the masters of decrees shall have thirty marks up to ten years; each of the masters of arts shall have twenty marks up to ten years. It pleases me to observe in this place that the university of Toulouse arose from these terms, and was confirmed in the year 1245 by Innocent IV the supreme Pontiff, as Du Boulay has it in the History of the university of Paris, tome 3, page 194. Hence the French struck a coin, one side of which exhibits queen Blanche, moderatress of the kingdom, the other Toulouse teaching. This James de Bie in Metallic France, folio 26, represents in this manner.

[137] Let us return to the pacts: Likewise, immediately after his absolution he shall take up the cross for a penance from the hand of the lord legate against the Saracens, warfare to be waged for five years in the Holy Land: and shall go overseas within two years, being about to stay there for five whole continuous years. But those who adhered to the Church, to us, to our father, to the counts of Montfort, and to those adhering to them, that same Raymond shall not burden on this occasion, that they adhered to the Church, to us, to our father, to the counts of Montfort, and to those adhering to them, but shall treat them kindly as friends, as though they had not been against him, heretics excepted, and those who believe them: and the Church and we shall humbly do the same concerning those who adhered to that same Raymond against us and the Church, excepting those who do not come to the Church's peace and ours together with that same Raymond.

[138] the count's daughter to be joined in matrimony with the King's brother: But we, considering the humility of that same Raymond, and hoping that he will faithfully persevere in devotion to the Church and in fidelity to us, wishing to do him a favor, shall give his daughter, whom he shall hand over to us, in marriage to one of our brothers by dispensation of the Church, and shall leave to that same Raymond the whole bishopric of Toulouse, excepting the land of the Marshal, which the Marshal shall hold from us: but after the death of that same Raymond, Toulouse and the bishopric of Toulouse shall be our brother's, who shall have his daughter to wife, and of the sons received from those two: but if our brother — which be far from it — should die without sons by her, Toulouse and the bishopric of Toulouse shall revert to us and to our heirs, and the daughter, or the other sons, or daughters, or heirs of that Raymond shall be able to claim no right in them: and if that daughter should die without sons by our brother, Toulouse likewise, and the bishopric of Toulouse, shall revert to us and to our heirs: so that in every case that may occur, Toulouse and the bishopric of Toulouse shall revert to us and to our heirs, and none shall be able to claim any right there, save the sons or daughters descending from our brother and his daughter, as is aforesaid.*

[139] part of the dominion to be left to the count for life: Likewise we leave to that same Raymond the bishoprics of Agen and of Cahors: of the bishopric of Albi, we leave to that same Raymond whatever is of the bishopric of Albi on this side of the river Tarn, namely on the side of Gaillac: and the city of Albi shall remain on our part, and whatever is beyond that river toward Carcassonne in that same bishopric of Albi, and we shall have the bank and the water on our side as far as mid-river, and let that same Raymond likewise have the bank and the water to mid-river on his side, the rights and inheritances of others being saved, provided that of those who are on Raymond's part they do what they shall owe, and likewise of those on ours. The bishopric of Cahors we leave to that same Raymond, excepting the city of Cahors, and the fiefs and other things which king Philip our grandfather had in the same bishopric at the time of his death: and if the said Raymond shall die without sons procreated of lawful matrimony, the whole land shall remain to his daughter whom our brother shall have to wife, and to the heirs received from her, so that the said Raymond as true Lord may have full right and free Lordship in the aforesaid land which is left to him, the aforesaid conditions being saved as much concerning the city of Toulouse and the bishopric of Toulouse as concerning the other land named above, so that at his death he may be able to make pious alms, according to the usage and customs of the other barons of the kingdom of France: all the aforesaid we leave to him, saving the right of the Church and of ecclesiastical men, as is expressed above.*

[140] some things to be yielded to the King, others to the Church: Whence Verfeuil with its appurtenances, and the town of Lasbordes with its appurtenances, we leave, according to the ordinance of our father king Louis of good memory, and of the count of Montfort, to the bishop of Toulouse and to the son of O. de Luers, yet so that the bishop of Toulouse shall do for Verfeuil to Raymond what he was bound to do to the count of Montfort, and his son shall do what he was bound to do to king Louis our father of good memory. Other donations made by us, or by our father, or by the counts of Montfort, are not to be held, nor shall that same Raymond or his own be bound to them in the land which is left to that Raymond. Of all the aforesaid the said Raymond shall do us liege homage and fealty according to the custom of the barons of the kingdom of France. All the other land which is on this side of the Rhone in the kingdom of the Franks, and all right, if any belongs to that Raymond or could belong to him in it, he has precisely and absolutely quitclaimed to us and to our heirs in perpetuity. But the land which is in the empire beyond the Rhone, and all right, if any belongs to that Raymond or could belong to him in it, he has precisely and absolutely quitclaimed to the said legate in the Church's name in perpetuity.*

[141] Likewise, all the natives who were exiles from that land for the Church's sake, [exiles for the sake of the Church or of the King to be restored: rebels to be pursued with war:] for our father's sake, and for the counts of Montfort and those adhering to them, or withdrew from that same land of their own will, unless they be found heretics condemned by the Church, let them be entirely restored to their former state as regards their inheritances and possessions, on account of those things, if they had any by cause of donation from our father, or from us, or from the counts of Montfort. But if any of the men who shall remain in the land which is left to Raymond shall be unwilling to return to the Church's command and ours — especially the count of Foix and others — that same Raymond shall make live war upon them, nor shall he make peace with them, or truces, without the assent of the Church and ours; and if their lands shall be occupied, they shall remain to that same Raymond, all fortifications and strongholds, walls, and ditches being first destroyed, unless either for the Church's security or our own we shall wish to retain them up to ten years after the acquisition, and then we shall retain them together with the revenues and proceeds of those castles.

[142] Likewise that same Raymond shall cause the walls of the city of Toulouse to be utterly demolished, the walls of Toulouse and of thirty castles to be demolished: and the ditches to be filled, according to the command, will, and ordinance of the legate. Likewise there shall be demolished from their foundations, and their ditches filled, thirty towns and castles by that same Raymond: namely Fanjeaux, Castelnaudary, la Bessède, Avignonet, Puylaurens, Saint-Paul, Lavaur, Rabastens, Gaillac, Montaigu, Puycelsi, Verdun, Château-Sarrasin, Moissac, Montauban, Montaigu, Agen, Condom, Saverdun, Hauterive, Cassanolium, Puygeolis, Hauteville, Villepeyroux, Layrac, and five others at the will of that legate; nor

shall they be able to be rebuilt without the will of the Church and ours, nor shall new fortifications be made elsewhere. Nevertheless that same Raymond will well be able to make towns not fortified, if he shall wish, in the land which is left to him: but if any of the towns or castles which ought to be demolished, as has been said, should be of his men, and they should be unwilling that they be demolished, that same Raymond shall make live war upon them, nor shall he make peace or truces with them without the assent of the Church and ours, until the walls be demolished and all the aforesaid ditches be filled.

[143] The aforesaid Raymond promised and swore to us and to the said legate unless the pacts be kept, the count's subjects are absolved of their oath; that he will firmly and perpetually observe these things in good faith, and without fraud and evil device; and that he will in good faith cause them to be firmly observed by his men, and vassals, and faithful ones: he shall also cause all the citizens of Toulouse, and the other men of the land which is left to him, to swear that same thing, and shall add to their oath that they themselves will give effectual effort that Raymond himself keep them: and if that same Raymond come against the aforesaid, or any of the aforesaid, by that very fact they are absolved by his will, and from now he himself absolves them from the fealty and homage, and every other obligation, by which they are held to him, and they shall adhere to the Church and to us against him, unless within forty days, after he shall have been admonished, he shall have amended this, or shall have stood to law before the Church concerning those things which pertain to the Church, and to law before the King concerning those which pertain to the King.

[144] and his land shall fall into forfeiture: And all that land itself which is left to him shall fall into the King's forfeiture, and that same Raymond shall be in that state in which he now is as regards the King, and as regards the excommunication, and all the other things which were decreed against him and his father in the general council or afterwards. It shall also be added in their oath that they will help the Church against heretics, believers, favorers, and receivers of them, and against all others who by occasion of heresy, or of contempt of the Church's excommunication, should stand contrary in the land which is left to them, and in the other lands aforesaid, and they shall help the King against all, and shall make live war upon them until they return to the command of the Church and of the King; but the aforesaid oaths shall be renewed from five years to five years at the King's command.

[145] towns and castles to be handed over to the King for ten years, But that all the aforesaid may be fulfilled, and be more fully and better observed to the Church and to us, he shall hand over for the security of the Church and ours, into our hands, the castle of Narbonne, which we shall hold up to ten years; we shall fortify and strengthen it, if it shall have seemed expedient. Likewise, he shall hand over to us for the security of the Church and ours, into our hands, the head of the castle of Lavaur, the castle of Montaigu, Penne of the Agenais, Roquepeyrouse, the castle of Cordes, the castle of Verdun, the castle of Villemur: and up to ten years we shall hold them, so that for the first five years that same Raymond shall pay us for the expenses of the guard, in each year, a thousand five hundred Tours pounds, these not being reckoned in the six thousand marks aforesaid: in the other five years, if we shall wish to hold them, we shall cause them to be guarded at our own expenses.*

[146] of which the King can demolish four, if he will: We nevertheless shall be able, if it shall please the Church and us, to demolish four castles of the aforesaid, namely the castle of Lavaur, the head of Castelnau, of Villemur, and Verdun; and on account of this the aforesaid sum of a thousand five hundred Tours pounds shall not be diminished; the revenues and proceeds of the castles, and all things which are received by right of lordship, shall be Raymond's, and we at our own costs shall hold the heads of those castles, and Cordes; and the said Raymond shall have there his own Bailiffs, not suspect to the Church and to us, who shall do justice to men, and receive the aforesaid revenues and proceeds. But after the ten years we shall restore the said heads of the castles, and Cordes, to the said Raymond freely, the conditions aforesaid being saved, and if all the aforesaid, as much as concerns the Church and us, shall have been observed. But Penne of the Albigeois he shall hand over to us before the next Kalends of August, together with the other castles, to be retained by us up to ten years.*

[147] But if he shall not be able to have that one up to that term, another castle to the King then he shall cause it to be besieged, and live war to be made, so long until he have it, nor shall he make peace or truce with him who holds it or shall hold it, until he have it; yet let him not on account of this be delayed from the overseas pilgrimage, concerning which it has been ordained above: and if up to a whole year after those Kalends of August he shall have handed over to us the aforesaid Penne of the Albigeois, it shall be in the condition of the aforesaid castles, namely that we shall render it to him when we shall render the other castles: but if after the aforesaid year he shall not be able to assign that same Penne of the Albigeois, from that time he shall hand it over to the Templars or the Hospitallers, or to other religious, in alms in perpetuity, the inheritances being saved of those who hold themselves on our part, to be possessed at the will of the legate or of the Roman Church: on such condition, that they themselves alienate it not out of their own hand, nor make war from it upon the said Raymond, save at the Church's command.

[148] And if any religious cannot be found who shall wish to have it, or to be handed over to the Templars or Hospitallers, or to be demolished. let it be altogether demolished, nor be able to be rebuilt without the will of the Roman Church, and ours, and that of Raymond himself. Likewise, until he hand over the said Penne of the Albigeois to us, or to the Templars, or to the Hospitallers, or to other religious, as has been said, we shall on account of this hold Penne of the Agenais bound, and the castle of Narbonne. And if also within the two years he give Penne of the Albigeois to the Templars, or Hospitallers, or other religious, as has been said: for so long a time after the ten years shall we at our costs hold, if we shall wish, those two aforenamed castles, as long a time as he shall have deferred to hand over Penne. And if after the ten years Penne of the Albigeois should not have been acquired, for so long after the time mentioned shall we hold those two castles after the ten years, until it should be restored and should be assigned, as has been expressed above.*

[149] And we absolve, so far as pertains to us, the citizens of Toulouse The King releases the count's subjects from the oaths made to himself. and the other men of the land which we leave to that same Raymond, from the oath and the other obligations made to us, and to our father, and to the counts of Montfort, or to others in their stead; from the penalty and forfeitures by which they had bound themselves to us, or to our father, or to the bishop of Toulouse, or to other prelates, or to the counts of Montfort, if ever they should return into the lordship of that same Raymond or of his father: the conditions aforesaid being saved in all things and through all things. But that all the aforesaid may remain ratified, we have caused the present page to be strengthened by the authority of our seal and by the character of the royal name noted below. Done at Paris in the year of the Lord MCCXXVIII, in the month of April, but in the III year of our reign, there standing by in our palace those whose names and signs are subjoined. No Steward. The sign of Robert the butler, the sign of Bartholomew the chamberlain, the sign of Matthew the constable. Given while the chancellery was vacant. It ends. Thus far the pacts, in which I have been unwilling to linger longer in explaining the cities and castles mentioned therein: for the reader will easily understand that they are all situated in Occitania, although some of them can be found with difficulty, because certain words have been dislocated, and perhaps certain ones have either changed their name or wholly perished.

[150] Yet receive briefly the year in which these things were accomplished; because various men have been deluded in designating it. in what year these things were accomplished. Done at Paris, he says, in the year of the Lord MCCXXVIII, in the month of April, but in the third year of our reign. From the third year of the reign, which was only begun in the month of November of the year 1228, it becomes clear that the year 1228 is here marked after the manner then in use among the French, who began the year from Easter, and that Odoricus Raynaldus erred with others after Bernard Gui, whom he cites, when he wrote these things at the year 1228, number 25: Raymond was reconciled … on the holy day of Good Friday at the end of the preceding year of the Lord aforesaid MCCXXVII, but at the beginning of the year of the Lord MCCXXVIII — for the author begins his years from the day of the incarnate divine Word. Nor is this alone proved from the years of the reign, but it is also manifest from elsewhere. For since, as we said at number 128 from Alberic, the Cardinal of St. Angelo returned from Rome into Gaul only in the year 1228, how could three meetings for the peace have taken place — namely at Baziège, at Meaux, and at Paris — before the month of April of the same year? How could the said legate have been present at the meeting at Meaux before the year 1228, or at least about its beginning, since the pacts of Meaux were signed in the month of January? This year therefore is clearer and more certain than that it ought to be proved by more arguments. But the error seems to have been born from a passage of William de Puylaurens ill understood, which we set forth at number 125, although he otherwise clearly designates this year in chapter 40, using these words: But after the peace celebrated at Paris at the end of the year (that is, of the French year, a few days before Easter) in the following year of the Lord MCCXXIX in the month of July, through master Peter of Colmieu, discharging the office of legate, the city of Toulouse was reconciled, the count not yet having returned from France. And so there is no doubt but that these pacts, the reconciliation of the count, and the council of Toulouse that followed, were accomplished in the year of the Lord 1229, if we begin the year from the month of January.

* to him

* i.e. robbers gathered from country folk

* i.e. of tolls

* i.e. to be fortified

* Guy de Lévis

* the Tarn

* of Gaillac, a town on the Tarn

* Cahors

* Verfeil

* that is, the proscribed

* i.e. with ditches

* Fanjeaux

* Castelnau

* Avignonet

* Puylaurens

* Rabastens

* Montaigu

* Puycelsi

* Verdun

* Moissac

* Montauban

* Agen

* Condom

* Saverdun

* Chasseneuil

* i.e. fortifications

* i.e. of Vassals

* Penne en Agenais

* Cordes

* Villemur

* Penne en Albigeois

* perhaps, ten years

§ XIV. The count of Toulouse reconciled to the Church with his own: the submission of the count of Foix: laws passed by St. Louis for the extirpation of heresy and for the liberty of the Church.

Raymond count of Toulouse absolved with solemn rite, The conditions aforesaid being confirmed on both sides, the count of Toulouse with his own was loosed by solemn rite from the bond of excommunication, and was reconciled to the Church on the very day of Friday of Holy Week. Concerning which the often-praised William de Puylaurens speaks thus in chapter 39: Then they set out for Paris, that all things should be consummated in the King's presence, and, all things being said to the end,

and sealed, the count was reconciled on the day of Good Friday, and those who were with him bound with the sentence of excommunication. And it was a piety (or a thing worthy of commiseration) to see so great a man, who for so long a time and against so many nations had been able to hold out, led naked in shirt and breeches, and with bare feet, to the altar. There were present at these things two Cardinals of the Roman Church, one our legate in the kingdom of France, and the other in the kingdom of England, the bishop of Porto. Further, count Raymond, being in this manner restored to the Church, offered himself of his own accord to be kept in the tower of the Louvre at Paris, until the chief heads of the pacts should be committed to execution, as the aforementioned author has it in chapter 40. The King's letters in Catel, page 338, teach this also; but since these in Catel are mutilated in the names of the hostages, I subjoin the same from the Cistercian Annals* of Manrique, tome 3, page 352:

[152] Louis &c. Let your whole body know he hands himself over to the King to be kept, with other hostages, that Raymond, son of Raymond formerly count of Toulouse, has remained in our prison at Paris at the Louvre at his own petition, and of his own will, for the fuller security of the Church and ours, until that same Raymond shall have handed over his daughter into our power at Carcassonne to our messengers, and shall likewise have assigned to our messengers ten castles, namely the castle of Narbonne, Penne in the Agenais, Roque &c. …, so that when he shall have handed over his daughter and the said castles, as has been premised, and it shall have been established concerning this to us and to Romanus, Cardinal deacon of St. Angelo, legate of the apostolic See, that same Raymond shall freely return. But upon his returning, Guy de Cavaillon, Raymond de Castelnau, Bertrand des Monts, Hugh de Rois, Hugolinus du Pont, Ernald de Calquino, Pontius Ortolanus, Ernandus Burranus, Raymandus Isanus, Bernard de Miremont, Raymond du Pont, Hispanus Garini, Bertrand de Ganingues, Peter de Cocianum, Peter des Monts, Bernard de Villeneuve, Peter of Toulouse of Moranum, Raymond son of the seneschal Hugh de Alfaro, and the son of Hugh John, who for the greater security of the Church and ours had remained hostages with him in our keeping, shall remain in hostage until it shall have been established to us and to that same legate that of the walls of Toulouse there has been demolished up to five hundred taysias … in that part, namely, which goes about the castle of Narbonne. So that free access may lie open to that castle, and the ditches be filled up there to the full. Which when it shall have been done, and it shall have been established concerning this to us (and) to the said legate, those same hostages shall freely return. In testimony of which thing we have caused our seal to be set to the present letters. Done at Paris in the year of the Lord MCCXXVIII in the month of April.* At the same time, namely, at which the conditions of the peace were confirmed, these were added, that those might be fulfilled more certainly. From these, moreover, we understand that the count himself was a hostage; and that it was not free for him, after this condition had been assumed, to depart from Paris before his daughter and the castles had been handed over to the King's messengers.

[153] The praised Catel adds in the same place that there are preserved in the archive of Carcassonne letters of count Raymond, the King receives his homage under a condition; in which he declares that twenty citizens of Toulouse were given by him to the King as hostages, until the mentioned part of the walls of Toulouse should be cast down and the ditches filled; and that those hostages swore that, as soon as they should have returned to Toulouse, they would take care that the remaining part of the walls be cast down and the ditches filled: Which has now been done, says Alberic at page 529. Catel then subjoins other letters of the King given at the same time, in which he declares that he has received the count's sworn clientage under the condition that he keep the conditions of the peace prescribed: But if, he says, the aforesaid Raymond should not keep all the said things as much as concerns Us and the Church, or should contravene in anything, We from that time, by his own will, place him back in that state in which he was before we received his homage, and by that very fact he shall from that time be in every way, as regards Us and our kingdom, in that state in which he then was, so that the homage rendered be held for nothing, and We and our men might be able to make raid against him, and to occupy the land which by the peace we left to him. He adds that he will altogether keep the castles to be handed over to him by the count, for the security of the Church and of his kingdom. These things were decreed and done at Paris.

[134] [the count with the men of Toulouse swears that he will keep the pacts, in the council of Toulouse.] Further, William de Puylaurens in chapter 40 relates what was thereafter accomplished at Toulouse: After the peace, he says, celebrated at Paris at the end of the year, in the following year of the Lord MCCXXIX in the month of July, through master Peter of Colmieu, discharging the office of legate, the city of Toulouse was reconciled, the count not yet having returned from France, who of his own will remained in the King's prison at Paris until the walls of Toulouse should have fallen, and the castles and towns, as had been ordained in the peace, and until his daughter Joanna, being nine years old, should have been handed over to the royal messengers at Carcassonne — whom afterwards Alphonse, the King's brother, count of Poitiers, took to wife. That same count therefore, being made a knight by the lord King on the feast of Pentecost, presently, the things which had been covenanted being fulfilled, returned to his own; whom after not many days the legate follows, cross-signed men without number having been sent ahead with indulgence to the lands for demolishing the castles, who were about to come with arms had not the peace intervened. And that same legate celebrated a council there at Toulouse after the summer, at which were present the archbishops of Narbonne, of Bordeaux, of Auch, and many bishops, and other prelates. Likewise there were present the count of Toulouse, and the other counts except the count of Foix, the barons and the seneschal of Carcassonne, and two consuls of Toulouse, one of the city and the other of the borough, who swore the statutes of the peace upon the soul of the whole community; and both the count and the rest approved and did it, and afterwards the whole land did the same. The statutes made in this council for the extirpation of heresy and the liberty of the Church, in the month of November, see in Labbe, tome XI of the Councils, from column 426. But the things done at Toulouse by the legate against those suspected of heresy thou wilt find briefly recounted in the cited William de Puylaurens.

[155] Proceedings are taken against the Albigensians and the count of Foix; The conditions of the peace having been sworn by the count of Toulouse and his subjects, it remained that the places occupied by the heretics be recovered, and the count of Foix tamed, lest in any part there should be a safe receptacle for heretics. The King, that he might be able the more easily to accomplish this, granted to the count of Toulouse all the things which had already been snatched from the count of Foix in the year 1228, until that man should be reconciled to the King. William de Puylaurens narrates this in chapter 40 in this manner: To this I add, that the count of Foix, who formerly of himself had sought peace with that same King's father without his own lord the count of Toulouse, and had not found it as he wished, remained in war, the King by benefit of the peace handing over the land which formerly had been acquired as far as the Pass of Barre to the count of Toulouse; which land indeed the count held, and set his bailiffs there, until, in process of time, after the count of Foix had composed with the King, a thousand pounds of land in the Carcassès being given him by the King, that same count of Toulouse handed over the said land from the Pass of Barre downward to that same count of Foix to be held in trust, to be rendered back to him whenever he should require it without delay; and he held it in his lifetime until now.

[156] That in a short time the Albigensians were subdued by the help of the men of Toulouse, and that the count of Foix was forced to peace, we understand from the Chronicle of Alberic at this year, page 530: Thereafter, he says, in this summer the armies of the cross-signed set out against the Albigensians, the former are subdued, the latter commits himself to the King's mercy: and all the horsemen and warriors of Toulouse, bishop Fulk being received back, were joined to our men; and although through certain difficulties and assaults and grievances which they sustained before the castle of Tabara, nevertheless the whole land, God granting, was recovered. The count also of Foix, who was a most powerful adversary, seeing that he could not escape the hands of the men of Toulouse, who knew all his hiding places, he too at length consented to the peace, and held himself to the counsel of the catholic princes. Nay rather, he committed himself and his own to the King's mercy, as we learn from St. Louis's charter about the peace made with the count of Foix, which Martène published in tome 1 of the Most Ample Collection, from column [ ], of which this is the beginning: Louis by the grace of God &c. We make known that, whereas Roger Bernard count of Foix, a treaty being held with our beloved master of Colmieu and Matthew de Malliaco, had submitted himself, and his own men, and his own goods, and those of his men, which he holds and has now, and which he himself and his father held, to our good compassion, according to the tenor of his letters drawn up upon this, and had sworn that he would in all things keep our command upon this: nost &c.* So much about the count's submission.

[157] But what laws St. Louis gave to count Roger the conditions of the peace given to the count of Foix by the King. is presently subjoined: it will suffice to hand them down here in a summary: We, he says, have made such mercy of our counsel for him and his own men at present … namely, that to him and his heirs we have given in perpetuity for an inheritance a thousand Tours pounds yearly, … and he on account of this has done us liege homage, and is bound to do it to our heirs, and his heirs likewise. Then the count had to hand over two castles, namely Montgailhard and Lordat, which the King could retain as long as it seemed expedient to him; but when he should wish to render them back, he had to render them in that state in which the count had handed them over: the castle of Foix also for five years, but to be restored in the same manner, and for that five years Louis grants the count five hundred Tours pounds yearly. Besides, it was not lawful for the count to erect new fortifications, nor to repair the old, nor to receive the enemies of the Church or of the King. But these acts are marked as done at Melun in the year of the Lord MCCXXIX in the month of September. These conditions truly are much milder than those imposed on the count of Toulouse. Further, at the same time Atto Ernaud of the castle of Verdun fled to the King's mercy, which castle had been handed over to Louis by force of the Parisian treaty mentioned above; to him he granted fifty pounds in each year by a charter in the cited Martène, column [ ]; likewise to Guy de Gournay, blinded by the Albigensians, he assigned a yearly pension, column [ ]: which gifts of royal liberality I have thought should be briefly intimated here.

[158] Nor do those things seem to be passed over which William de Puylaurens prudently observes concerning the end set to the war An observation upon the pacts with the count of Toulouse, and the peace made with the count of Toulouse, acknowledging God's singular providence in these things, protecting St. Louis's kingdom: For in the first place, he says, of that same kingdom

auspices concerning so protracted a war of that same count,

thus did God honour his boyhood, that

of the several conditions contained in the aforesaid peace

and obtained, each one by itself alone would suffice

almost for a price of ransom, if the King had found the same

count opposed to him in a pitched battle

in the field, and had taken him: as is that Toulouse,

and the bishopric of Toulouse, granted to him for his life

only, he could leave to no heir of his,

nor could any heir of his, or any of his daughter,

reclaim any right there, save only those descending from that daughter

and from the brother of the same King.

Likewise it would suffice for a penalty, that he be for five years

beyond the sea. Likewise that he bound himself to pay twenty-

seven thousand marks of silver. Likewise

that all the other land beyond the bishopric of Toulouse

toward the East, within the Rhone and

beyond, he quitclaimed to the King, and relinquished to the Church. And I say nothing

of the rest, to whose burdens he subjected himself,

by which, if he had been captured, he would seem to have been

very greatly punished, so that what was done, or was, may be

believed to have been done not by man, but by God.

So he, and rightly. Of so great moment did this peace

not undeservedly seem to the Gauls, that they willed to preserve

its memory by a struck medal, of which the one part

exhibits the effigy of Blanche, because she was the ruler

of the kingdom: the other side represents the peace itself

in this manner, in James de Bie, fol. 26.

[159] and the rights acquired by the King on Montfort's ceding them: Chaize, page 104, rashly insinuates

somewhat of doubt about the right acquired by the King

on this occasion: but since he confesses that the Pontiffs, bishops,

and councils acknowledged the justice of the matter, I do not

think that more about these things was known to Chaize. The Lateran

council had of old adjudged the county

of Toulouse to Simon, count of Montfort,

Raymond the elder being deposed: into his father's rights

had succeeded Amalric, count of Montfort, who,

since he could not defend his rights by himself for want

of strength, transferred them to Louis, the father of St.

Louis, as the often-praised William

of Puylaurens writes, chap. 34: which he himself also declared in the same

month of April by letters published by Martène, tom.

1 of the Amplissima Collectio, col. [ ], which run thus:

Amalric, count of Montfort, &c. Let your whole

community know, that we have freely and absolutely

quitclaimed to our lord of bright memory,

Louis, illustrious king of the Franks, and to his heirs

in perpetuity, whatsoever of right belonged

to us, or could belong to us, in the county

of Toulouse, the viscounty of Béziers, and in

the whole conquest of the Albigeois: promising*

that in the oft-said matters neither we nor our heirs

shall henceforth be able to reclaim any right, nor

even on account of the peace which our lord Louis,

illustrious King of the Franks, son of the aforesaid lord

our king, made with R., count of Toulouse,

or shall make hereafter with others concerning the land;

nor is the lord King himself held to us on this account

in anything, unless he himself, regarding the aforesaid quitclaim

and our faithful service, of his grace

and liberality be willing to bestow something upon us. So

Amalric. Hence we understand why Raymond,

in the treaty of peace, is never named Count

of Toulouse, but Son of Raymond formerly count

of Toulouse, and that the King by his pacts with the count

acquired no new right, but the right which

he had over the county of Toulouse he for the greater

part ceded to Raymond for the life of himself and of his

daughter, and thence to the heirs descending in

perpetuity, if she had had offspring. Chaize adds,

page 105, that the King, out of the dominion whose peaceful

possession he obtained by these pacts, retained

nothing to himself save the city of Albi, and gave the rest

to Philip of Montfort, more probably Amalric's

cousin on the father's side, and that thence arose the county

of Castres.

[160] Catel, already often mentioned, at this

year 1229, new seeds of discord cut off. page 342, writes from the archive

of Carcassonne that a certain controversy arose

between the King and the count of Toulouse concerning

the execution of the pacts, but that it was settled

by the arbitration of the Pontifical legate, and of the count of Champagne,

in the month of June of the same year, the city

of Cahors being adjudged to the King with the fiefs thence depending,

and Saint-Antonin *, but there being remitted to the count

the fifteen hundred pounds which for five years

he was bound to pay to the King. Besides, he reports that Amilhau

*, a town of the province of Rodez, was restored to the count by

the King, from a declaration of the same count

found in the said archive. He adds also

certain other controversies between the King and the bishop

of Béziers ended by the arbitration of the same legate.

There arose also some difficulties in

the extirpation of the heretics, and after the legate had departed

thence, some were slain by the patrons of the heretics. For which and the like,

says William of Puylaurens, narrating these things,

chap. 40, which in those days were committed by

the ministers of the devil, the believers of the heretics, the count

of Toulouse was in manifold ways defamed for gross negligence,

both at the Apostolic See

and with the King of France, and even convicted … for these things

were committed by such as wished to return to the vomit of war,

and to bring back a relapse of past evils,

that, the peace being disturbed, they might be able to practise

their accustomed robberies, and to favour the heretics. But those malevolent men

made no great progress: for

although the count did not always show himself equally diligent

in persecuting the heretics, yet it was not

open to him, nor safe, to return to war, so long as

[161] In this manner, therefore, St. Louis, with equal glory

of his name and worth of his labour, This war being ended, the heretics began to be more effectually extirpated: set an end

to this war: which being brought to an end, another war

against the heretics, now destitute of the favour of princes,

could be advanced more happily and with greater

profit. It had been begun at the beginning of this century:

In the province of Narbonne, and in the dioceses of Albi, Rodez,

Cahors, Agen, and

certain lands beyond the Rhone belonging to the lord count

of Toulouse, as William says in his prologue: but,

as he adds, Scarcely within the space of 70 years

is it discerned to have had an end. So great was the force

of the evil, whose cause the said author, attributing it both to the sins of the people

and to the negligence of the prelates and princes,

describes in this manner in the same place:

[162] For while they slept of old who ought

to have watched, by whose fault, and how far they had prevailed, the ancient enemy secretly brought into those

wretched lands men, sons of perdition,

having indeed a show of piety, but denying

the power thereof, whose speech, like

a creeping canker, infected very many and seduced them; and thus,

with none setting himself as a wall for the faith against those climbing up

from the opposite side, these heretics so advanced for the worse,

that through villages and towns they began to have

for themselves lodgings, fields, and vineyards,

selling most spacious houses in which they might publicly preach

their heresies to their believers. And there were

some Arians, some Manichees, some

also Waldenses, or Lyonnese, who although

at variance among themselves, yet all conspired against the Catholic faith*

unto the ruin of souls;

and those Waldenses indeed disputed most keenly

against the others. Whence, in hatred of them, the others were admitted

by ignorant priests: on which account the land,

as reprobate and next to a curse,

brought forth little besides thorns and briars—plunderers

and freebooters, thieves, murderers, adulterers,

and manifest usurers.

[163] and how far they despised churchmen. But the chaplains were held in such contempt

by the laity, that their name, as though they were Jews,

was taken by many into an oath. Whence, as it is said, "I would rather be a Jew,"

so it was said, "I would rather be a chaplain, than

do this or that." Clerics too, if they went forth

in public, hid their small tonsures near the forehead

with the hairs of the back of the head. For knights rarely

offered their own children to the clerical state; but to the churches,

of which they themselves then received the tithes,

they presented the sons of their men. And the bishops

made clerics of such as they could for the time.*

The knights themselves also, despising lordship,

as it pleased them, with none forbidding, adhered to these

or those heretics; and the heretics were held in such

reverence that they had cemeteries

in which they publicly buried those whom they had made heretics ;*

from whom they received whole beds and garments,

and to whom bequests were made more liberally than to ecclesiastical

persons: they themselves were compelled neither to watches

nor to taxes . If also any*

man of war, going with them, were found,

he was safe from enemies; thus for a great part the devil

through them possessed the land in his own peace, as

his own hall: for darkness was set,

and the night of ignorance was made, and in it the beasts

of the forest of the devil passed through. Thus far the author,

recording what he saw and heard.

[164] The laws of St. Louis against the aforesaid evils: That these evils might be extinguished by an effectual remedy,

that heresy might be cut away, that ecclesiastical liberty,

oppressed in wretched fashion by the laity, might be

restored to its former splendour, and that excommunications

might not be despised, as was then

wont to be done, St. Louis framed excellent laws.

Here, however, it is to be noted that these laws were not given

to churchmen, which St. Louis thought was not of his

court, as we shall see in its place: but that they were imposed

on the laity and their magistrates, lest

they should oppress the rights of churchmen or suffer them to be oppressed.

This is manifest both from those things which are premised

in Catel and which follow, and

from the inscription, and from the laws themselves, in which

the barons swear, and the vassals, and the good towns,

that they will keep these laws: nowhere are churchmen bound to swear,

whom the King in these laws does not even

once address. But in what manner churchmen

ought to conduct themselves in extirpating the heretics,

the legate of the Apostolic See ordained with the council

of Toulouse, as you will find in Labbe, tom. XI

of the Councils, from col. 425. Further, these statutes of St. Louis

were sent to those to whom, on account of the heresy

of the Albigenses, they were necessary. Cossart, with

Labbe the editor, notes the following about them: These letters of King

Louis were given not to the Narbonnese

only, but also in like terms to the men of Cahors,

Rodez, Agen, and Arles, as

Catel teaches that he has learned from various copies:

I add, and to the men of Nîmes, as I understand

from a manuscript of our Sirmond. Nay, I think they were sent also to

other cities subject to St. Louis which the heresy

of the Albigenses had infected,

the inscription alone being changed in the several copies.

[165] Catel, page 340, premises to the statutes themselves

the declaration of the oath rendered by the Narbonnese, [which the magistrates and other laymen were bound to swear that they would observe,]

conceived in these words: Since those things which

look to the strengthening of the faith, and to the earning of the reward

of eternal salvation, are to be most diligently

promoted and procured, that they may be able to obtain

a saving effect, every faithful man ought

to labour the more studiously toward this. Hence it is that, when

the lord Louis, illustrious King of the Franks, had destined,

for the extirpating of heretical depravity in the parts

of the Albigeois, and for the reforming of the faith, and the keeping

of peace, for the firm and entire observing of the liberty and immunity

of holy Mother Church

Catholic, out of the accustomed clemency of his majesty, letters to all

the citizens of Narbonne and to other faithful men established through

the diocese of Narbonne, according to

the form written below; the lord P. de

Colmieu, discharging the office of the lord Romanus, then

legate of the Apostolic See, being present and requiring it:

The lord Aimeric, viscount of Narbonne, and

the consuls, and the other citizens, and the knights of the Narbonnese

country undersigned, in the presence of the lord P., by the

grace of God archbishop of Narbonne, and of his chapter,

having taken a corporal oath, promised firmly

and faithfully and inviolably to observe for ever, to the honour

of God and of the Church, all and each of the things

which are contained in the letters written below.

[166] Then, the King's statutes being recited, there is subjoined

the oath in this manner: how the Narbonnese swore with their viscount is here reported. We therefore, Aimeric,

by the grace of God viscount of Narbonne, for ourselves and

our successors, our land, by the will

and express mandate and authority of the lord Matthew

de Rachino, holding the place of the lord King

of the Franks in the parts of the Albigeois, who on the part

of the lord King commanded that all the aforesaid be sworn,

and firmly observed—all these aforesaid things and each of them,

as they are contained in the aforesaid letters of the lord Louis, illustrious

King of the Franks; the same letters having also been seen

and read through, and fully understood,

into the hand of the lord Peter de Colmieu,

discharging the office of the lord Romanus, legate of the Apostolic

See, the lord Peter, by the grace of God

archbishop of Narbonne, and his chapter, being also present—we promise

in good faith that we shall observe in perpetuity

and shall in no wise ever contravene; and, having touched

the most holy Gospels, freely and in good faith

we swear it; and we, the consuls, and the knights, and the honest

men of the city and borough of Narbonne, for ourselves

and our community, and the knights of Narbonne, by the

mandate and will of the same aforesaid persons,

swear, having bodily touched the most holy Gospels, that we shall be held

to observe in perpetuity all these aforesaid things and each of them, as they are contained

in the aforesaid letters of the lord King of the Franks,

the same letters having also been seen and read through, and

fully understood, and shall in no wise ever contravene them,

as did certain consuls, knights,

and honest men aforesaid who swore: Bernard

de Latis, &c. That it was sworn in this manner also

in the other cities to which the King's statutes were

sent, we cannot doubt. Receive now that

most laudable constitution of St. Louis itself,

as Labbe and Cossart published it from various copies

collated with one another, tom. XI

of the Councils, from col. 423:

[167] Louis, by the grace of God King of the Franks,

to all the citizens of Narbonne, That churchmen may enjoy their liberties and immunities; and to his other faithful

subjects established through the diocese of Narbonne,

greeting and love. Desiring in the first beginnings of our age

and of our reign to serve Him from whom

we acknowledge our kingdom, and that which we are, we desire,

to the honour of Him who gave us the summit

of honour, that the Church of God, which in your parts

was long afflicted, and shaken by innumerable

tribulations, may in our

dominion be honoured and happily governed. Whence,

by the counsel of great and prudent men, we ordain

that the churches and ecclesiastical men established in the aforesaid

lands may use the liberties and immunities

which the Gallican church uses,

and may fully enjoy them according to the custom

of the said church.

[168] let heretics condemned by the ecclesiastical power be punished; And because the heretics have for a long time poured out their

venom in your parts, staining our mother the Church

in manifold ways: for their

extirpation we ordain that heretics

who deviate from the Catholic faith, by whatsoever name

they be reckoned, after they have been condemned for heresy by

the bishop of the place, or by another ecclesiastical person

who has the power,

be without delay punished with the due animadversion.

[169] let no one receive or defend them; let them be deprived of all their goods; Ordaining also, and firmly decreeing,

that no one presume in any way to harbour or defend

heretics, or to favour them, or to believe them in any

way. And if any presume to act against the aforesaid,

let him henceforth be admitted neither to testimony

nor to any honour;

nor let him be able to make a testament, nor to have the succession

of any inheritance. All his goods,

movable and immovable, which are by that very fact confiscated,

we decree shall in no wise revert to him or to his

posterity.

[170] let lay magistrates seek out heretics and set them before churchmen; We ordain also and command that the barons

of the land, and our bailiffs, and our other subjects,

present and future, be solicitous and intent

to purge the land of heretics and of the filth of heresy.

And enjoining that the aforesaid diligently study

to investigate them and faithfully to find them; and

when they have found them, that they present them without loss of delay

to the ecclesiastical persons above mentioned;

so that, when they have been condemned in their presence for error and heresy,

all hatred, entreaty, price, fear,

favour, and love being set aside, they may hastily do

concerning them what they shall owe.

[171] let money be paid to him who takes a heretic; But because they are to be honoured, and to be encouraged

by rewards, who solicitously exercise their diligence

for finding and taking heretics:

we ordain and will and command that

our bailiffs, in whose bailiwicks heretics

have been taken, shall for each heretic, after he has been

condemned for heresy, pay entire to the taker

two marks up to two years' time, but after two years

one.

[172] let the freebooters be expelled: Since indeed the freebooters are wont to devastate and

demolish the aforesaid land, and to disturb the quiet of the Church

and of ecclesiastical men: we ordain

that, those freebooters being altogether expelled, peace

be perpetually kept in the land: to the keeping whereof

let all give effectual pains.

[173] let the excommunicate be shunned, and be compelled to seek absolution Besides these things, because the keys of the Church have been wont

to be despised in that land, we ordain that the excommunicate

be shunned, according to the canonical sanctions:

and if any shall have contumaciously persisted for a year in

excommunication, from that time let them be temporally

compelled to return to ecclesiastical unity:

so that those whom the fear of God does not draw back from evil

at least a temporal penalty may compel.

[174] Whence we enjoin that our bailiffs

shall after a year seize all the goods of such excommunicate persons,

movable and immovable: by the seizure of their goods: nor in any

way restore them to them, until the aforesaid have been

absolved and have satisfied the Church: nor even then,

save by our special mandate.

[175] As to the tithes, of which the Church was for a long

time defrauded through the malice of the inhabitants, let laymen not hold tithes:

we ordain and appoint that they be restored

to the churches: and that laymen shall no longer withhold tithes,

but shall permit the Church freely to have them.

[176] These statutes we command to be inviolably kept:

enjoining that the barons, let these things be sworn by all magistrates. and the vassals, and

the good towns, shall swear to keep these things, our bailiffs

being appointed executors thereto: who within a month

after they have been established in their bailiwicks shall publicly,

and in a public place, and on a solemn day, swear

that they will keep these things, and will cause them to be kept

by all in good faith. Which if they shall not do, they may

dread the penalty of all their goods and of their body.

Know also that we so will these statutes to be

observed, that even when our brother

shall hold that land, he shall swear to keep this,

and that he will cause it to be observed by his faithful men. And that

these statutes may remain firm and unshaken,

we have caused them to be strengthened with the protection of our seal.

Done at Paris in the year of grace MCCXXVIII in the month

of April. That is, by our reckoning in the year MCCXXIX.

[177] This constitution of St. Louis is cited by

the council of Valence, St. Louis praised on account of these statutes. celebrated in the year 1248,

can. XIII, in these words: Concerning the despisers of excommunications,

so far as concerns those who are in

the kingdom of France, let that constitution Cupientes be observed. The same article Innocent

IV urges in his letter to queen Blanche, published by

Baluze in the appendix to the Councils of Gallia Narbonensis,

tit. XIX, by whom for this cause St. Louis

is called a true zealot of the Church's honour,

and preserver of the faith. Truly in all these deeds

and statutes against the Albigenses there shines forth wonderfully the holy

King's ardour for preserving the Catholic faith

and for restoring the liberty of the Church, then wretchedly

vexed in those parts by lay

magistrates. Whence Geoffrey of Beaulieu, who

exhibits Louis as in many things like to king Josiah,

might not incongruously have confirmed his comparison from this:

for as Josiah, while yet a youth,

exterminated idols and idolaters, so also

Louis as a youth undertook to extirpate heresy and

heretics, and happily extirpated them,

so that of him too may be spoken the words uttered of Josiah in Ecclus. 49:

And he took away the abominations of impiety. Would that

the most flourishing kingdom of France, as it has hitherto

had many, and even now has, so

may go on always to have in this matter successors either of Josiah or of St.

Louis.

read: ductis*

* that is, a shirt

* that is, a prison

* the Agenais

* it is a measure of six feet.

* de Foix

* Mongrenier

* Lordat

* that is, land acquired by war

* Saint-Antonin

* Milhaud

* that is, dissenting

* that is, they consecrated clerics

* that is, they had led into heresy

* that is, taxes

§ XV. In the year MCCXXIX the house and church

of St. Catherine of Val-des-Écoliers built: certain other matters: the dissension

of the university of Paris, which was afterwards extinguished.

The temple of Val-des-Écoliers begun by others, Gerard du Bois, in the History of the church of Paris,

book 15, chap. 2, num. 5, writes thus:

In the year MCCXXIX was built the church of St.

Catherine of Val-des-Écoliers. Then, having recorded

the beginning of this Order, at num. 7 he teaches that the said

church was built chiefly by the liberality and at the expense of St.

Louis, although others, bound thereto by a vow,

also contributed their pains. The occasion of making the vow he traces from

the battle of Bouvines, and from the peril of Philip Augustus in it:

Perchance, he says, certain men assigned by office to the guard

of the king, whom by a word usual in those times

they called the king's servientes, while

they accompanied king Philip Augustus in the battle of Bouvines,

being set to the guard of the bridge of Bouvines,

understood the peril of the king, who in the line of battle

had come into danger of his life; and they vowed that, if he came off safe

and victor, they would build a church to God

under the name of St. Catherine. A little after, the king

being unharmed and victor, they became debtors of their vow. Nor

yet was it so ready a thing to discharge their pledge in these matters,

whether they were forgetful of the vow to be paid,

or the means of discharging their pledge were not at hand;

certainly the matter was drawn out to the times of Louis IX.

For they say that the soldiers approached the King, who

gave them power of building a church under the name

of St. Catherine, and pointed out to them the place,

and the canons of Val-des-Écoliers, to whom

they should commit the ministry of that church.

[178] advanced by the liberality of St. Louis, Then, having produced the letters of William, bishop

of Paris, by which he grants the faculty of building

the church, he shows from the following words of the

Necrology that it was built chiefly by the King's liberality: In the first place we ought to pray

for the souls of the most illustrious kings Philip and

Louis; for the joy and victory which they had

over the enemies of the kingdom in the conflict at the bridge

of Bouvines in the year MCCXIV. Louis, son of the aforesaid

Louis, a most holy King, who first

shone in France by sanctity, by grace together with virtue,

willed and ordained in the year MCCXXIX that

for the souls of the aforesaid kings our church

should be built. To these things the author subjoins the following:

In memory of this foundation there are seen at the door of the church

two stones, on the one

part of which is carved the image of St. Louis, hemmed in on this

side and on that by two attendants who bear clubs;

and on the other is discerned a canon regular

clad in a cope; on this side and on that mail-clad soldiers,

by whom without doubt are designated those servientes

whom we mentioned above. Further, in this

house of the canons of Val-des-Écoliers there was established

as it were a public college of the whole Order.

For young canons were wont to be sent into it,

twelve in number, from several places, who

were maintained at the common expense of the houses. These

indeed came often to Paris, and there stayed

to learn sacred letters, and they were admitted to the degrees

and honours of the academy. Thus concerning

this pious foundation says the said author.

[179] Hippolyte Helyot, in the History of Monastic,

not, however, from the vow of Philip Augustus, who had long since fulfilled it: Religious and Military Orders, tom.

2, page 393, writes that the priory itself of St. Catherine

of Val-des-Écoliers was founded in this year

by St. Louis in thanksgiving for the said

victory, adding that the vow made by king Philip

had already been satisfied by Louis

VIII by the foundation of an abbey erected in honour of the blessed Mary

the Virgin near Senlis, which

he named Victoria. But if the vow was satisfied

by the building of the said abbey, then Philip himself had long

since fulfilled the vow by founding the said

abbey, as appears from the cited Gallia Christiana,

page 923, where an instrument of Louis

VIII is cited, in which it is said in express words that the abbey

of Victoria was founded by Philip. Hence

the sayings of the historian of Paris about the vow not fulfilled

until the times of St. Louis seem to be in need of correction,

unless those instruments can be produced by which

we may safely believe that a double vow was made, one by king

Philip, the other by his soldiers.

Further, as concerns the foundation of the priory,

Helyot is supported by the anonymous French Life, who

among the foundations of St. Louis numbers the Church

and priory of St. Catherine of Val-des-Écoliers.

[180] There support it also in some measure the letters of the bishop

of Paris mentioned above, a house built together with the temple: in the praised

du Bois, in these words: We will that it be made known

to your community that we, assenting to the pious and devout

petitions of our beloved brethren and sons in the Lord

of the Order of Val-des-Écoliers, with regard to the divine

piety, have granted full

and free power of constructing a house and of building

a church in the parish of St. Paul, especially

since it is pious and salutary to pray for the departed,

and to bestow pious alms for their salvation;

and this we do at the petition of the servientes of the lord

King Louis, bearers of arms, who, providing for the salvation

of the soul of Philip the noble king, and especially of his son

Louis, both deceased, have built one

church for their redemption

for the use of the said brethren; that they, serving the Lord in the same,

may be bound to succour the souls of the said most noble kings

by prayers and divine offices,

showing thereby this one proof,

that as in their life they faithfully loved them,

so also after their death they have not been separated

from their love. From these things I gather that together with the church

and that therefore the King's munificence concurred to the building of

both. Then, that not even the foundation of the church

is to be attributed to Louis alone.

I judge therefore that the foundation both of the priory

and of the church was begun by others, and by the liberality of St. Louis

was the more promptly finished, and that thence

it came about that contemporary authors made no mention

of this foundation, because it was neither begun by him,

nor by him alone brought to completion. The lord

de Choisy, page 22, reports from a MS. of Val-des-Écoliers

that the King was asked to lay the first stone

of the temple, which occasion seems to have been

one of advancing the foundation by his liberality.

[181] In this year likewise St. Louis granted to Theobald

de Blazon certain fairs at Mirebeau, certain other deeds of the same year.

the usages and customs of the fairs of Angers,

to last each year for eight days. He confirmed

the settlement of a certain controversy between

William de Chauvigny and the burgesses of Castrum Radulphi,

his subjects: now Castrum

Radulphi is Château-Raoul, in Berry, and

commonly is now called Castrum Rufum or Châteauroux.

Besides, he permitted new prebends, erected in the church

of Sens by the authority of the Pontiff, to be augmented

out of the revenues of certain parishes.

He also confirmed the donation of Simon of Montfort, long since

deceased, made to the Cistercian nuns of St.

Pons in the diocese of Marseille. He received the oath

of fidelity of the widow of the Theobald

de Blazon just mentioned, for the castles which at the time of his death

her husband had held. These things, briefly narrated,

you will find confirmed by charters in Martène,

tom. 1 of the Amplissima Collectio, from col. [ ]

to col. [ ].

[182] A most grave dissension in the university of Paris, There arose in this year a most grave dissension in

the university of Paris, which Nangis wrongly referred to the

following year. Caesar Egasse du Boulay narrates it

at length in the History of the university

of Paris, tom. 3, from page 132: we shall report it

somewhat more briefly, and although it was drawn out through

several years, we shall here narrate the whole of it to the end.

Alberic in his Chronicle at this

year, page 530: A war, he says, exceedingly bad

and cruel arose at Paris at the entering in of Lent

between clerics and laymen for well-nigh nothing;

and they who were bound to extinguish and repress it

more fiercely incited it by their instigation in hatred

of the clerics, and thence are blamed the queen

herself and the lord Cardinal (of S. Angelo, the Apostolic

legate:) but as many as are the heads, so many are

the opinions. These last words indicate that the fault

was not by all thrown upon the queen and the legate,

to whom Paris adds the bishop of Paris.

But let us go on with Alberic:

After many negotiations, when they could not be wholly

brought back to peace, a few remaining

in the city, all the others went out, especially the more eminent

masters, some having returned to their own country,

some having died on the Roman journey;

at length within three years there returned whosoever

would, all the dissenting parties being pacified.

Thus briefly the contemporary author: but it is to be noted

that by the name of clerics are to be understood the academics,

as will also appear in what follows.

[183] arisen from a slight occasion, Matthew Paris narrates the cause of the dissension

more distinctly, and pursues everything more fully;

but the reader must beware lest he take his barbed sayings against

the queen and the Pontifical legate for an oracle:

for it is a constant fault of Paris that, when

he judges anything to have been less rightly done by leading

men, he magnifies it beyond measure in words, and writes down what has been

bandied about by certain malevolent persons as if

they had been approved by the common voice of almost all. This

caution therefore being premised, receive what he narrates on this matter

at this year from page 243: In the same year,

he says, on the Monday and Tuesday before Ash Wednesday,

on which days scholar-clerics are wont to give themselves

to games, certain clerics went out from the city of Paris

toward Saint-Marcel, on account of the pleasantness

of the air, that they might there apply themselves to their accustomed games.

When they had come thither, and had

for some time refreshed themselves in arranging their games, they found

there by chance excellent wine in a certain tavern, and

sweet to drink. Where, a contention having arisen between the drinking clerics

and the tavern-keepers about the price of the wine,

they began to give one another blows, and to tear their hair,

until the men of the village, running up,

freed the tavern-keepers from the hands of the clerics;

and, inflicting wounds also on the clerics who resisted,

they drove them, well and notably cudgelled, into flight.

Thus far it is doubtful which party was afflicted with the greater

wrong: for since the academics attacked their own hosts,

they ought not to have taken it ill

that help was brought to them by the neighbours:

[184] But they, mangled, returning into the city,

stirred up their fellows to their revenge. because the queen ordered the arisen sedition to be quelled by her attendants;

Who on the morrow, coming with swords and cudgels to Saint-

Marcel, and violently entering the house of a certain tavern-keeper,

breaking all the wine-vessels,

poured out the wine over the floor of the house.

And going forward through the streets, whomsoever

they found, men or women, they fiercely attacked;

and, blows being laid on, left them half alive.

But the prior of Saint-Marcel, when he had learned that so great

a wrong had been inflicted upon the men whom he

was bound to defend, laid a complaint before the Roman

legate and the bishop of Paris, who, hastening together

to the queen, to whom then the disposal of the kingdom had been

committed, begged her that

she would command such a wrong to be avenged. It was not indeed

permitted to the queen to act sluggishly here: yet I should not believe

that she acted as Paris describes her to have acted,

inasmuch as she was a woman no less prudent

than brave: But she, he says, stirred at once by womanish

insolence and by an impulse of mind, gave forthwith

orders to the provosts of the city and to certain of her freebooters,

that with all speed, going out armed

from the city, they should punish the authors of this violence,

sparing none. Nay, I should believe the mandate was

that they should quiet the tumults and take the seditious,

but not punish them without the cause being pleaded.

[185] But they went further, in that they attacked

even the innocent, and thence some innocent men were slain. wound them, kill them.

Hear Paris: But they, who were prone to

execute every cruelty, having gone out of the gates of the city

with arms, found outside the walls of the city

many clerics giving themselves to games, who in

the aforesaid violence had utterly no fault at all.

For they who set the seed-bed of the tumultuous fray

in motion were from the parts bordering upon

Flanders, whom we commonly name Picards.

But this notwithstanding, the sergeants, rushing upon those

whom they had seen unarmed and innocent, slew some,

wounded others, and, despoiling others with blows

laid on, treated them unmercifully.

But certain of them, escaping by flight,

lay hid in the vineyards and caverns. There were found

moreover among the wounded two rich clerics, and

of great authority, slain; of whom one was

by race a Fleming, and the other a Norman by nation.

It is credible that this happened because the attendants

tried to take them, and they resisted. Further,

that this slaughter of certain academics was perpetrated

chiefly by the inhabitants of Saint-Marcel,

who seem to have joined themselves to the royal attendants,

we understand from the letters of Gregory IX to the canons

of Saint-Marcel, published in du Boulay, page 144, in

which the Pontiff thus speaks: Since it is in the interest of the commonwealth

that crimes should not remain unpunished, because

facility of pardon affords an incitement to sin,

being unwilling to leave undiscussed the monstrous outrage

which the dean and certain others

of the village of Saint-Marcel at Paris are said to have perpetrated in the slaying

of scholars, we command your discretion by Apostolic

writings that you diligently inquire into the truth

concerning this; which if you find, faithfully intimate it to us by your

letters, that, being sufficiently instructed by your relation,

we may proceed thereupon as

we shall see fit to proceed according to God.

[186] But what the doctors and rectors of the university

did, The doctors, having complained, depart from Paris, these things being perpetrated, thus Paris

goes on to narrate: But the enormity of this transgression,

when it had come to the ears of the masters of the university

had come, they all met in the presence of the queen

and the legate, lectures and disputations having first been universally

suspended, urgently demanding

that justice be shown them for such a wrong. For it seemed

to them unworthy that, on so slight an occasion being got,

the transgression of certain contemptible little clerics

should redound to the prejudice of the whole

university; but that he should pay the penalty in the punishing

who had perpetrated the fault in the transgression. But

when at length justice of every kind had been denied them,

there was made a universal departure of the masters,

and a dispersion of the schools; the teaching of the doctors ceases,

and the discipline of the disciples; so that not

one famous man remained in the city. This author does not

explain what the masters asked, or what

was denied them by the queen: but we can in some measure dig it out

from the letters of the Pontiff to the bishops

of Le Mans and of Senlis and to the archdeacon

of Châlons, whom Gregory appointed arbiters of

this controversy, in which, in

Raynaldus at the year 1229, num. 55, he bids them

see to these things: That to the aforesaid masters and

scholars there be fitting satisfaction made for the damages given and

the wrongs inflicted, their accustomed liberty being restored to them,

that granted by Philip king of the Franks

of bright memory. Philip Augustus had granted, on occasion

of like tumults, privileges to the university,

by which the academics were exempted from the court of the laity,

and their security was notably provided for;

(see du Boulay from page 2.) These seem to have been revoked

as a penalty for the tumult stirred up by the

academics, since the Pontiff desires them to be restored, and since

the doctors complained, in Paris cited just now,

that It was unworthy … that … the transgression of certain

persons should redound to the prejudice of the whole

university. But since they could not obtain

that these should be renewed, by common counsel they departed,

an oath also being made not to return

to Paris unless satisfaction were obtained. Of which oath

the Pontiff, in the letter just cited: Let the study

at Paris be recalled, notwithstanding anyone's bond

of an oath, of which, out of the three companions that

it ought to have, two seem to be lacking, namely justice

and judgment, from which it seems by no means

to have proceeded that such an oath was taken. Thus

the Pontiff.

[187] to various provinces. Then there withdrew, says Paris, the famous

Englishmen, master Alan de Beccles, master

Nicholas de Farnham, master John

Blund, master Ralph de Maidstone,

master William of Durham, and many whom

it would be long to number. From these a conjecture may be made

concerning the other nations. But whither they withdrew

receive briefly: Yet the greatest part of them chose the metropolitan

city of Angers for universal

teaching, says Paris. Others

add other cities and regions. Hear Bernard

Gui, as he has lately been published among the Writers

of Italy, tom. 3, page 573: Some indeed

to Reims, some to Angers, but others into England,

others indeed to Italy, or Spain, or into other

provinces of the world, set out for the sake of study. Many

masters also and scholars came to Toulouse

and taught there. You have, reader, the dispersion

of a most flourishing university: by whose fault

it happened is not so clear, nor is it mine

to determine: harsh counsels pleased both of the contending parties,

when moderate ones would have profited more.

Certainly none of the ancients accused St. Louis in this

part; but many the queen, the legate,

and the bishop of Paris—these perhaps worthy of no

less reproof.

[188] Now let us briefly report how this dissension

was taken away, and studies recalled to Paris,

although the matter was accomplished only in the year 1231,

Gregory IX urges the restoration of the university; as the authors agree, and as appears from

the letters of the Pontiff written on this matter. Matthew

Paris records only these things: At length, by the procuring

of discreet persons, it was brought about that, certain

things being done on both sides as the time required for the faults,

peace was restored to the clergy and the citizens;

and the university of scholars recalled. The chief praise of the restored

university certain writers of his Life attribute

to St. Louis: but it cannot

be denied that a not least part of this glory

is to be attributed to Gregory IX, the Pontiff. For indeed

the Pontiff, having heard of the departure of the academics, soon wrote

various letters for the restoring of studies: he exhorted the King

and the queen to it, appointed arbiters for settling the

controversy, gravely reproved the bishop of Paris,

Because, says du Boulay,

page 136, he nourished and fostered the discords, and had thrown in

an occasion of transferring the academy elsewhere.

But at the beginning he profited little. This cause du Boulay

cited assigns: The bishop, the chancellor, and the chapter

of Paris, bearing with an ill mind that their

jurisdiction and licence had in many heads been limited by the academy,

preferred that it should be transferred elsewhere

rather than that it should command them. And so they alone

long brought delay to the recalling

and the full restitution. Thus indeed du Boulay. But truly, if,

as is fair, we wish to interpret the mind of such great men

more mildly and more rightly: they judged

that those men were rather to be compelled to return by severity than

drawn by kindness: hence they threw delay in the way of the King's clemency,

employed censures and other things,

which you will find in du Boulay at the place assigned,

but all in vain. But in what manner the matter was

at last accomplished, let us hear.

[189] Du Boulay, page 140, records these things: In the year

MCCXXXI the Parisian muses began to bloom again

after a two years' exile, and prescribes laws to it; and discipline to be recalled. Yet

the masters would not return, and apply themselves to their former

labour, before satisfaction was made them for the wrongs

inflicted. And because they believed the bishop and the chancellor

of Paris to be the chief authors of the dissension,

they asked of the supreme Pontiff that their power be restrained

within certain bounds. At the same time also

the university was reformed, and many constitutions

concerning the licences of all the faculties, lectures,

disputations, lodgings, the goods of scholars,

disturbers of the academy, and others of that sort were framed by the same

Pontiff Gregory, which thereafter obtained the force

of laws. This at least of good

flowed out of that evil. Those laws du Boulay subjoins,

from which it is easy to perceive that something was granted by the Pontiff

to the complaints of both parties. Receive an

instance: We enjoin moreover, he says, that

the bishop of Paris so chastise excesses that

the honesty of the scholars be preserved, and misdeeds not

remain unpunished: but that on occasion of the delinquent

the innocent be in no wise seized. Nay, if

a probable suspicion has arisen against anyone,

let him, honourably detained, on suitable security being given,

be dismissed, the exactions of the jailers ceasing.

But if perchance he has committed such a crime that

there be need of imprisonment, the bishop shall detain the guilty man

in prison: the chancellor being utterly forbidden to have his own

prison. It is plain that this was granted to

the complaints of the doctors. Nor is it less manifest

that those things which follow after a few are commanded at the complaints of the other party: But we more expressly forbid

that scholars go about the city armed,

and that the university defend disturbers

of the peace and of study. And those who pretend that they are scholars, nor

yet frequent the schools, nor acknowledge any

master, shall in no wise enjoy the liberty

of scholars. Thus the Pontiff, who chose to act as arbiter

rather than as judge, as he himself had forewarned

in the same place in these words: Whence, when concerning the dissension

there arisen at the instigation of the devil, enormously

disturbing the study, we heard the questions brought

to us, we judged that they should rather be diligently

laid to rest by the moderation of a provision

than by a judicial sentence, by the opinion of our

brethren.

[190] He exhorts the King to favour the academics and to renew their privileges; Besides, the Pontiff wrote various letters

that he might provide for the quiet of the academics, which

you will find in du Boulay cited. Receive, however,

what he willed the King to perform for the laying to rest of the discord:

We ask, admonish, and exhort your serenity

in the Lord, that, following the example of your

forefathers, you show

yourself favourable and kindly to the scholars, renew and observe

for them the privilege of Philip the king your grandfather

of bright memory, and cause it to be observed by others.

The taxation also of lodgings, to be faithfully made by two masters

and two burgesses chosen for this by the consent of the masters,

an oath having been taken:

or, if the burgesses shall not care to be present,

by two masters, as has been wont to be done,

grant them without difficulty, since otherwise they would be compelled

to hire lodgings too dear. And because

it is the honour of a king that, loving justice, he set himself against wrongs,

cause the amends which is said to have been ordained for the wrongs

inflicted on the scholars to be fulfilled;

so to fulfil these prayers and admonitions that you may thereby the more

abundantly merit the divine propitiation, and that we

may deservedly be able to commend your gentleness.

The holy King acquiesced in the Pontiff rightly admonishing,

and, having changed—not without great praise of modesty—the

counsel which he had at the beginning followed on the authority

of great men, he restored by his gentleness and clemency

the most flourishing university which

the headlong wrath of others had scattered.

But in what manner he carried this out let us hear.

[191] which being kindly performed by Louis, peace was restored. Nangis, in du Chesne, page 330, records these things

to our purpose: But Louis, King

of France, seeing that the study of letters and

of philosophy, through which the treasure of knowledge, which

is pre-eminent and prevails over all others, is acquired,

had withdrawn from Paris … began grievously to grieve:

and the most pious King, fearing lest so great and such a treasure

should be removed far from his kingdom, … commanding the above-said

clerics now to return, received them most clemently on their return,

and caused whatever the burgesses themselves

had before done amiss against the clerics to be speedily amended by them.

So too, nearly, others. He also renewed and confirmed the privileges

granted to the university by Philip

Augustus. Hear his words in du Boulay,

page 131: Let all, present as well as

to come, know that we have inspected the charter of

Philip our grandfather of renowned memory, formerly illustrious king of France,

in these words. Then, the diploma of Philip

being recited, which du Boulay gives from page 2,

Louis subjoins: But we approve and will all

the aforesaid, and by the authority of our seal

and by the character of our royal name noted below

we enjoin them to be confirmed. But here there occurs

an error to be noted in the year in which Louis's diploma

is set as given: Done, he says, at Fontainebleau

in the year of the Lord's Incarnation MCCXXVIII,

in the month of August, but in the 3rd year of our reign.

Hence du Boulay thought that the said privileges were confirmed by St. Louis

in the year 1228. But in the first place

the third year of the reign was only begun in the month

of November of the year 1228: and so it does not concur with

the month of August of the same year. Then I do not understand

why the Pontiff, who in various letters makes mention

of these privileges, should nowhere

signify that they had been confirmed by St. Louis, if

he had already done it in the year 1228; especially since

that would have contributed not a little to inducing Louis

to renew privileges once confirmed.

I judge therefore that an error crept into the subscription

of the diploma, and that in this year 1231 at last

the said privileges were renewed by St. Louis

and confirmed, which seem to have been abrogated

as a penalty for the tumults stirred up by the

academics. As for the rest, concerning the ordained price of lodgings I find

nothing indeed among the ancients, yet I judge

that in this part also the Pontiff was complied with.

§ XVI. Whether in the year MCCXXVIII the King had a war

with the count of Brittany? The war of Champagne begun in the year MCCXXIX,

and interrupted by a truce made.

[Present-day historians record a war waged in the year 1228 against the count of Brittany,] Being about to narrate the war waged by the magnates of France openly indeed

against Theobald count of Champagne, but secretly

against the King: and then to pursue also the wars in which Peter of Brittany

the count, aided by English resources, assailed St.

Louis, I have judged that there must be diligently examined

both the time in which these things were done,

and also how often these wars were resumed. For indeed,

that I may briefly say what I think, in this

matter the more recent authors seem to differ not a little from the ancients,

and to describe more wars than were in fact waged.

We narrated at num. 118 the secret plots of the nobles

for taking the King on the road, which we said were

detected by the count of Champagne, and eluded by

the King. The nobles did not rest here, who wished queen

Blanche altogether removed from the administration of the kingdom,

but determined to mix force with fraud,

that they might subject the King to themselves. Receive

the words of Joinville, describing these things at num. 29: It happened,

he says, that the barons of France came together into one

at Corbeil, and by common consent among themselves contrived

to bring this about, that the count of Brittany should rise

against the King: and that they might notably betray the good King,

they promised him that they would go at the King's

command, and that if he wished to send them

to war against this count of Brittany,

each of them would take with him no more than two horsemen,

so that the count might the more easily overcome the King and his mother …

As those barons promised the said

count of Brittany, so also

they performed. And I have heard from many that the count

would have overthrown and subjugated the King and his mother,

had not the divine help been at hand, which

never forsook him. For, as it were by divine permission,

in the great necessity of the good King, and in his great

straits, Theobald count of Champagne

was moved to visit the King: and in truth

he set out with three hundred horsemen altogether, exceedingly strong

of body, and they came in time—to God

be thanks. For by the succours of this count of Champagne

it behoved the count of Brittany to surrender himself to the King,

and to call upon his mercy. The good King,

who by no means sought vengeance, considered

that the victory which he had obtained was the work

of God's power and favour, who had moved the brave count

of Champagne to visit him,

and he received the count of Brittany into favour. And

then the King went safely through his region. Thus

the author, more piously than clearly.

[193] but this is shown Nothing beyond these things does Joinville record

concerning the wars waged with the count of Brittany, which, in my

opinion at least, have led the more recent authors

into error. It is therefore to be diligently noted

that Joinville was a boy or an infant while

these things were done: then, that he wrote what he had heard

or seen, nowhere, as it seems, what

he had read written by others, since he cites no one,

and himself professes in his prologue that he writes what

he had seen or heard concerning St. Louis. Hence we ought not

to wonder that of the war waged with the count of Brittany

for some years the old man had retained nothing in memory

save that the count had been overcome by the King chiefly

by the help of the count of Champagne, and was at length

granted pardon, which, being himself a Champenois, he had without doubt often

heard reported in Champagne. And so I judge that all those

erred who out of these words of Joinville

fabricated a war waged in the year 1228,

and quickly ended, because the count perceived himself unequal in strength.

For neither does Joinville narrate probable things

when understood in this sense: for if the count of Brittany

would certainly have overcome the King, had not the count of Champagne

come to the rescue with three hundred horsemen,

how is it credible that by this succour of the count of Champagne

the count of Brittany was reduced to such straits

that he could not even withdraw with his army

to safer places? How is it that

so many traitors, who were in the royal camp,

did not signify to him the coming of the Champenois in

time?

[194] to have been fabricated out of Joinville ill understood. But in vain do we ask these things: for that Joinville

speaks of the war which the King waged against the count

of Brittany from the year 1229, and which flourished chiefly in the year

1230, Joinville himself persuades us:

for otherwise he would have narrated nothing of this war,

which is not probable: then, the war being ended, he adds:

Then the King went safely through his

region, which is true after the war in Brittany

was ended, on which a peace of some years followed; not

so after the war which is feigned to have been waged in the year 1228:

for then more than at any other time the King had

to fear the traitors, and twin wars were born

in the very next year. Lastly, from

the Chronicle of Alberic, in which there is not even a word

concerning this fictitious war of the year 1228, it is altogether proved

that the same war is here reported by Joinville which

he himself reports at the year 1230, page 535, as waged against the king

of England and the count of Brittany, adding

these words: But no one faithfully helped the King

of France as did the count of Champagne, as is said.

And so the year 1228 was free of domestic wars

for St. Louis: for the war of Champagne, on which

followed the rebellion of the count of Brittany, was only

begun in the year 1229, as we shall presently prove.

[195] The war of Champagne begun in the year 1229 Alberic, who flourished at this time, and

was more exact than others in designating times,

places the first expedition of the princes into Champagne

in the year 1229 after the quinzaine of St. John.

Paris says that in the year 1230 that discord of the princes was at its height,

having doubtless been begun before.

The Chronicle of Andres, whose author was likewise contemporary

with these deeds, likewise records in the year 1229 that the count

of Flanders invaded the dominion of the count of Boulogne,

who was laying Champagne waste. And so

Nangis, who binds that war to the year 1228,

has here slipped in chronology, as often elsewhere: for

the things we have narrated concerning the peace with the Albigenses, begun

to be made toward the end of the year 1228 at Troyes, the count of Champagne

being present, also persuade us that the count of Champagne

was at that time not yet entangled in war.

These things concerning the time, which seem to me sufficiently certain

and not to be proved by more, even though some authors

they will be confirmed also from the series of things

done, to be set forth. Yet already in the year

1228 the princes were preparing themselves for war: for

the count of Boulogne, who was the standard-bearer of the faction,

fortified Calais *, a maritime borough, with a most strongly fortified castle,

and began to surround it with a most firm

wall, as the Chronicle of Andres records at the year 1228,

tom. 2 of d'Achery's Spicilegium, page 867:

so it is probable that others also fortified themselves. Receive now

the authors of this war.

[196] John of Ypres, in the Chronicle of St. Bertin,

in Martène, tom. 3 of the Anecdota, page 708,

calls the Roberteans, whose cause and authors are recounted from contemporary that is, the descendants of Robert count of Dreux,

the authors of this tumult, who, he says, drew

to themselves Philip, the King's uncle , count*

of Boulogne, promising him the kingdom

of the Franks: who, being less prudent, assented to their frivolous words,

and together they rise up against Theobald count

of Champagne. The cause that author

subjoins, and the pretext which they used, in these

words: For they imagined that, he being overcome, they could

easily obtain the kingdom, because he himself was the more powerful

of the whole kingdom, who had not consented to them;

and imputing to him the death of Louis the king lately

deceased, they rush upon him and upon his land, laying all waste with sword

and fire. William of Puylaurens,

chap. 39, likewise calls this war the movement of the Roberteans,

consenting to Philip. But no one

more accurately explains which of the nobles stood against

the count of Champagne, and which for

him, than Alberic at this year, page 532,

whose words I subjoin: Since indeed at this same time,

certain occasions having been devised, Philip count

of Boulogne, and the aforesaid count Robert

(of Braine, as he had called him, or of Dreux)

and his brother (or his brothers, among whom was the count

of Brittany, also recounted by John of Ypres), and

their kindred Enguerrand de Coucy, and Thomas

his brother, count Hugh of Saint-Pol,

and all that kindred, the count of Nevers also,

and almost all the barons and magnates of France,

were adverse to the count of Champagne; and since

the duke of Burgundy took to wife the daughter of the aforesaid count,

he became of their lot. With these he numbers

[197] Matthew Paris enumerates them in this manner

at the year 1230, page 251: writers. There had also

at this time war one against another almost all

the magnates of France, as the duke of Burgundy, the count

of Boulogne, the count of Dreux , the count of*

Mâcon , the count of Saint-Pol, the count of Bar,*

Enguerrand de Coucy , Robert de Courtenay,*

and many others, who were sworn and confederate, as

was said, to the king of England, and to the count of Brittany

Henry (he ought to have said Peter), and they brought war

upon the counts of Champagne and of Flanders.

Whether the count of La Marche was among the confederates seems

doubtful to me: him indeed John of Ypres cited

names, but Paris and Alberic pass him over.

But now who helped the count of Champagne Alberic

relates at the place assigned: Yet the count of Champagne had on his

side Ferrand count of Flanders, who inflicted

losses on the count of Boulogne; the King and

the queen of France. He had said before, page 531: Moreover

Matthew duke of Lorraine, since he had

discords against the count of Bar his uncle,

was bound to the count of Champagne by homage,

and Conrad de Rista was bound to the duke to

the prejudice of the count of Bar. With these Joinville sufficiently agrees,

who narrates these things from num. 32. But

he erred in assigning the cause of the war, when he alleges

the marriage of the count of Champagne with the daughter of the count

of Brittany hindered by the King, which happened

afterwards, as we shall prove in its place.

[198] The confederate princes lay Champagne waste, The league being thus struck on both sides, what was done

in this year Alberic briefly touches on in these

words: After the quinzaine of St. John therefore,

that is at the beginning of the month of July, the princes gathered

from this side and that with their party, and settled at Tonnerre

, and around Saint-Florentin

* they came together , having entered Champagne, namely from*

the side of Burgundy. But the count gathered his

army in the city of Troyes, where

the King and the queen his mother came to him; and although

each party spent much, yet,

by the mediation of abbots and religious persons, and of the King

himself and the queen his mother, and moreover by prayers,

they did not accomplish all the evils which they intended

to do, and thus from day to day, by giving

and taking truces, they seem to have restrained their movements

for a time. But he records more at the following year,

in which this movement broke out more grievously. Yet

what Nangis narrates concerning this war seems to have happened

in this year, although he seems to amplify the devastation

and the burning of towns, which were greater in the following

year, because he understood that these things had been done,

but was ignorant that the war afterwards broke out afresh.

He narrates the matter, page 328, in this manner:

Certain barons of France, grieving that

the count of Champagne, against the will of the counts of La Marche and

of Brittany, and against the league which he had entered into with them,

had adhered to King Louis, and had laid bare

their most wicked counsels to the King, gathered a boundless

army, and entering the land of the count

of Champagne with a heavy force, laid it waste, burning with fire

the castles, villages, hamlets, and strongholds.

And thus, destroying that land in their raging,

as far as Chaource , which is situated between*

Bar-sur-Seine , and the city*

of Troyes, nay rather between Bar and Tonnerre)

they went forward, and, besieging it, began

strongly to assail it. Here is the end of this year's

expedition into Champagne, from which I gather that those things which

Joinville narrates about this war, although he has confounded

the deeds of many years into one

narration, do not pertain to this year, but

were done in the following year, as we shall show in the same place.

[199] but the King drawing near with an army, The cause why the confederate princes withdrew

out of Champagne, besides the intercession of certain persons,

is assigned as twofold: the command of the King

hastening with an army, whom they did not yet openly dare

to resist, and the devastation of the dominion of the count of Boulogne

by the count of Flanders. Both, from

the ancient authors, I subjoin for a clearer knowledge of things:

But the count of Champagne, seeing, says

Nangis, that the tyranny of the barons had increased,

took care to send messengers in good time to King Louis his lord,

signifying to him the evils

which the barons of France were inflicting upon him, and asking

him, as his lord the King, that he would deign to defend

both himself and his land, which to his dishonour they had entered,

laying it waste.

Whence the King, considering that by the same fidelity

by which a subject is held to his lord, a lord also is held to his subject,

could not by right deny him

aid. For which cause he sent messengers to the barons,

commanding them by his letters patent

that they should no further presume in any way to harass

the count of Champagne. But, as it were with half-open ears

and half-shut eyes seeing and hearing

the royal letters, they would not withdraw

from the siege of the aforesaid town.

Which when the King heard, with bold spirit,

as was fitting, a multitude of knights, squires,

and armed attendants being gathered, taking the road,

he began to hasten against the said barons with a strong

hand and stretched-out arm with indignation of mind.

Recognizing his coming, but by no means awaiting him,

they withdrew as quickly as possible from the seat .*

Which when the King truly learned,

he returned to Paris. John of Ypres cited

agrees with Nangis, yet adding certain things not to be passed over.

Receive his words, col. 709: At length

Theobald count of Champagne, not being able to resist so great a power

of enemies, fled to the King

and his mother, as a vassal to

his lord, asking to be defended by their aid. Forthwith

the queen mother came with the King into the city of Troyes,

commanding all and each who

were making war against the count of Champagne, that they should desist

from the wars; and that if any of them wished to lay complaints

against Theobald count of Champagne,

Theobald himself was ready in all things to stand

to judgment; the King also offered himself ready

to make the fulfilment of justice concerning his vassal.

[200] The other reason, which I mentioned, John of Ypres

gives in the same place: and the count of Flanders ravaging the district of Boulogne, but it is well to describe it from the Chronicle

of Andres, whose author was altogether contemporary, and

whose relation is a little fuller, although otherwise as to

the matter they agree with one another. Tom. 2 of the Spicilegium, page 868,

has thus at the year 1229: At the same time Ferrand

count of Flanders and Hainault, a multitude of horsemen

and footmen, of carts and

wagons being gathered, before August making a crossing through Gravelines ,*

entered the land of the count of Boulogne exceedingly

in hostile fashion. For the castle of Marck

with the whole town lying beneath it he burned, the court of

Capella situated in Oye he set aflame, consuming the crops

to the very ground for the fodder of the horses; wherever

the army made passage, he faithfully exposed the houses to burning,

the men and their goods to plunder, the fruits

to devastation: he would have consumed with fire the whole castle of Calais

with its new fortification,

and in hatred of the count and his men would have laid it level with the ground,

had not, by the mediation of certain peaceable

and discreet men, his fierceness been mitigated by the price of fifteen hundred pounds

and twenty tuns of wine.

The abbey of Capella also was enormously injured for

the goods brought thither, and yet found those ungrateful

to whom it had been a protection.

Lastly, the river of the Nieuwe being crossed, he disposed to enter

and demolish the land of the count of Guînes …

but the nobles and powerful men who were in the army, kinsmen

of the count of Guînes, failing him,

his counsel being changed, leading back the army,

he returned to his own, having first received from the borough of

Wissant four hundred pounds lest it be burned

by the Flemings … But all these things, as is said,

Blanche queen of France, his compatriot,*

contrived in hatred of the counts of Boulogne and of Guînes,

because the count of Boulogne directed his line of battle

against the land of the count of Champagne, she being unwilling. He subjoins presently a like expedition of the count

of Flanders into the dominion of the count of Saint-Pol, but

too freely, not a few were intercepted and slain

by the inhabitants. Thus he: I return to John of Ypres.

[201] Philip count of Boulogne, he says at the place

assigned, col. 709, a truce being made, they abandon Champagne. seeing that if against the King's

justice and command he should carry the war further,

it would not be well safe for him, nor well honourable for him

to kick against his lord the King, whose

uncle also he was. Seeing also

his land already greatly injured by Ferrand count of Flanders,

and perceiving himself circumvented and deceived by the Roberteans,

he repented,

and, asking pardon of the King, was received into

favour; but the rest of the Roberteans, being scattered, each

returned to his own. Thus far John of Ypres, not sufficiently

distinguishing the times: for after this first

expedition peace had not yet followed with

the count of Champagne, but the war broke out afresh the following year.

And so in this year a truce only was made

with Theobald count of Champagne, as Alberic says

above, and his cause was referred to the royal

tribunal. Not so was a truce made with the King:

for they had not openly taken up arms against him.

Presently therefore we shall see the said princes with joined

forces serving the King, but with plainly diverse mind,

since some seriously pleaded Louis's cause,

and some accompanied him only at his command,

lest they should openly seem rebels. As for the rest,

the letters of the Pontiff concerning these tumults, given on the 3rd Kalends

of December, you will find in Raynaldus at

the year 1229, num. 56, by which can be confirmed

the reckoning of time given by us.

* Calais

* that is, paternal uncle

* of Dreux, de Dreux.

* of Mâcon

* Coucy

* Tonnerre

* Saint-Florentin

* that is, they joined themselves

* Chaource

* Bar-sur-Seine

* that is, from the siege

* Grevelingen, in French, Gravelines

* Blanche

§ XVII. The war against the count of Brittany, confederate with the English, stirred up toward the end of the year MCCXXIX, begun to be waged in the year MCCXXX.

The count of Brittany, joined with the English, plots open war: While the tumults just now reported are for a time interrupted

in Champagne, and the war which

was waged openly against the count, but secretly for the King's

destruction, is at rest, an open war was already being prepared

for Louis, no less grave than the preceding,

nor less perilous. This was plotting

Peter count of Brittany, joined by league with the princes who

had laid Champagne waste, although

more probably he was not present at the said devastation of Champagne,

because it seems to have been so agreed among the confederate

princes that, while they laid waste or subdued Champagne,

Peter, propped by the succour of the English,

should invade the royal dominion. Ended

was the truce which in the month of June of the year 1228

we narrated at num. 119 as covenanted by St. Louis for a year with Henry

king of England: nor rightly

did Chaize write, page 89, that in the time of the said truce help

was rendered by the English to the count of Brittany:

but he fell into error both

from the chronology of Nangis, almost everywhere erroneous for the first years

of St. Louis, and from the confused

narration of things in Joinville, who has led almost all

the French authors into various errors concerning

the first times of St. Louis, as will appear in various

places, where by the irrefragable authority of other writers

there will be disjoined those things which Joinville, out of a confused

memory of things, ill joined together. Further, that the count

of Brittany was neither aided by the English

nor brought war upon the King before the year 1229, is proved

from that very Nangis who gave the occasion of erring,

since he says that the war was brought by the count of Brittany

after the movement in Champagne, yet in the same

year, which he calls 1228, whereas he ought to have said

the following, as has been demonstrated above concerning the war of Champagne,

and as Chaize confesses. As for the rest,

that this war was only interrupted by truces,

and not broken off by a peace made, will appear

from the course of the things to be narrated, and thence it will become

manifest that those err with Chaize who feign three

or four rebellions of the count of Brittany,

whereas he waged not more than one war, but a long one,

interrupted by truces, with St. Louis,

namely after the first conspiracy,

which did not come to the shedding of blood, as we saw

in §10. Now let us set about narrating the matter itself.

[203] Henry king of England, having been taught of the conspiracy

of the French nobles, the preparations of the English for invading France; was again led into hope

of recovering the provinces lost in France.

Being therefore joined by league with Peter count

of Brittany, as also perhaps with the other confederates—

(for various writers state this, even though it be less certain

whether the solemn league confirmed by oath,

which he covenanted with the Breton, he likewise covenanted with the others)—

he prepared himself for bringing war upon Louis

in the year 1229. The huge preparation Matthew Paris

describes at the said year, page

249, in this manner: In those same days, the feast

of St. Michael being at hand, Henry king of the English gathered

at Portsmouth the whole nobility of the kingdom*

of England: namely the counts, barons, and knights,

with so great a throng of horse and foot

as none of his predecessors is believed at any

time to have gathered. Where there came also

to him from the regions of Ireland, Scotland, Wales,

and Welsh Wales so great a multitude of knights and armed men

that they were held in admiration by all.

For the king purposed, with so great a force of armed men

carried across, to recall into his own dominion the lands which his father

had lost. At length,

when the princes and marshals of the king's soldiery

had come to the ships, that they might load victuals and arms,

they found so few ships that they would not suffice

for carrying over half the army.

Which when it had come to the king's knowledge, he was

vehemently angered; and he threw the whole blame upon Hubert

de Burgh the justiciar. And in the hearing of all,

he called him an OLD TRAITOR; reproaching

him that he, as before, had procured this

failure, for five thousand marks which

he had received from the queen of the Franks, that he might hinder his purpose:

and the king, drawing his sword, as though carried away by fury,

wished to slay the justiciar.

But Ranulph earl of Chester, and others

who were present, interposing themselves, preserved him from

the peril of death. But he withdrew himself from the king's

presence, until the king's anger, being laid aside, should soften

his mind. The same Hubert de

Burgh is accused by various writers of having, corrupted by the money

of queen Blanche, hindered the endeavours of the king of England;

which let it suffice to have said: for I have not

undertaken to examine that. Let us return to Paris, who thus

goes on:

[204] Meanwhile there put in at that port Henry count of Brittany,

on whom delay is thrown, the Breton swears clientage to the Englishman: (thus by a perpetual error this author

calls Peter) a certain man bringing forth sedition in his mind,

on the VII Ides of October, who to conduct the king

was to have brought him into the land under safe conduct, as

had been agreed between them, and

confirmed by oath. But the same count with others of the army

gave the king counsel that he should defer the business

until the following Easter, because it was perilous

in the winter season to accomplish so arduous a journey. Which

being heard, the king gave leave to all to return

to their own. And the justiciar was reconciled with the king.

But the count of Brittany did homage to the king

against all men of Brittany: and the king restored

to him his whole right in England. And, five thousand marks

being given him for the guard of his land,

he sent him back into his own region. You see

from this preparation how great a war was being prepared for Louis;

but from the time at which Paris said the count of Brittany

came into England, I have gathered

above that he was more probably not present at the war of Champagne,

although it could in some manner have happened,

if, the truce being made, he betook himself in a hurried course into Brittany,

and thence into England. Further,

whatever be the case in that matter, returning from England,

and having received money, and made the fiercer by the king of England's

being about to cross the sea, he prepared himself for war;

nay, if we believe Nangis, though from what is to be said this

is less probable, he was the first to begin to harass

the King's dominion, but not with impunity, as from what follows

will become manifest.

[205] hence he is summoned by Louis, and fined: The count's bold deed was not hidden from the King,

nor did he suffer it unavenged: but he ordered

him to be summoned to Melun, that there he might render

an account of his deeds before judges assigned by the King

on the Sunday after the Lord's Nativity. Peter sent to the assembled

judges men to signify that the term

assigned for appearing was too short,

and to demand, according to the custom of the kingdom of France,

the time. He added, however, a writing in which he set forth his complaints

and the wrongs, as he calls them, inflicted upon him by the King and the queen.

But neither did the judges wait, nor

did the queen wish to show the count's writing to the nobles

of France, if the count speaks true in the letters

to be described hereafter. And in truth this was not necessary

for passing judgment against the count,

such as was passed in these assizes. For indeed, since it was established

that the count had entered into a league with the king of England,

which was not lawful for him by the treaty of Vendôme

made with the King, as we said at num. 103: it was

manifest enough that he had forfeited the right acquired by the said

treaty, and that it was lawful for the King to occupy

all things which had been granted to the count by the said treaty.

And so, since nothing was decreed in this judgment

against the count save that he had forfeited all things

which in Anjou he had received from the King by the said treaty,

there was no reason why he should afterwards complain that the term

of appearing had not been prorogued for him, and that his complaints

had not been exhibited to the princes with whom against the King

he was conspiring. These things will be confirmed

from the count's letters to be inserted in their place.

[206] and the siege of Bellême is decreed; Since therefore it had been judged that the count

could be despoiled of all he had received from the King in

the province of Anjou, nay of all that he had obtained by the league

of Vendôme, and since among these

was a fortified and not ignoble town in the Perche,

which authors call Belesinum, Belesmum, and also otherwise

Bellismum, or Bellissimum,

in French Bellême, the siege of it was decreed: although

some more recent writers have by error written that it had already been taken

in the preceding year. Let us now hear

Nangis, whose preposterous manner of narrating we shall easily correct

from what has been said. Page 328 in du Chesne

he narrates the matter thus: Since indeed, afterwards,

(that is, after the movements of the nobles in Champagne just now

reported) when no long course of days of the same year had rolled by,

Peter count of Brittany, relying on the aid

and counsel of the barons of France, came to such

pride that, rising again against his lord King

Louis, he made Henry king

of England cross the sea to his aid with a very great multitude

of Englishmen, to fight against the King of France.

And then, gathering an army according to

their strength, they entered in hostile fashion the land of the most Christian

King of the Franks, Louis. These things they had already determined to do, but

they could only carry out after those things which he subjoins

concerning the taking of Bellême, as will appear from the order of the matter:

[207] But the King, glowing with zeal for justice

for the avenging of so execrable a presumption, which is shortly stormed: and animated with fervour,

disposing first to subdue the count of Brittany, who

seemed to be the head of that malice,

speedily summoned to himself by royal edict the most robust phalanxes

of the warlike knights of France.

Hedged about and walled by these, against the aforesaid

count, that he might repel his tyranny,

he hastened as far as the castle which is called Belesinum.

But that castle the same count had received in keeping

from King Louis deceased, as has been said,

but he would not restore it,

affirming that it belonged to his jurisdiction.

Nay, it did in truth belong to the count by the league of Vendôme,

if he had not violated it. The King, straightway

girding the castle with a swift siege, stone-throwers being set up*

that cast great stones, began

strongly to storm it. Whence, a few days having rolled by,

it came about that those who within were before

most ready to defend the castle, admiring the strength

of the King's army, and seeing

that they could not long resist his power, and

that no means of escaping could come to their help from any

side, asking for the things that are of peace,

compelled by necessity, in a short time surrendered the aforesaid castle

to the royal excellence. For already

the castle, shaken by the strokes of the engines, threatened an imminent ruin

in some part of itself,

and therefore the besieged were rendered trembling and fearful

… Thus therefore, against the hope of very many,

because it seemed impregnable,

both on account of its natural situation, and on account of the strength

of the walls and towers, and on account of the valour

of the defenders, King Louis in a few days subjugated

the castle to himself by royal strength. But whatever

the defenders of the castle had offended against the royal majesty,

the King out of his renowned kindness mercifully pardoned them.

For all this

was done in the winter season, in which so vehement

a sharpness of cold had grown that, by the command

of queen Blanche the mother of the lord King, a woman

exceedingly shrewd and of penetrating wit,

who was there, no small fire was kindled round about

the horses, lest by the greatness of the cold

they should perish. Thus Nangis, but he erred when

he interposed these things about the king of England: And then the king of England

with shame and ignominy toward England

with his Englishmen, greatly fearing the King of France,

swiftly crossed the sea. For at this time

he had not yet crossed the sea.

[208] Bellême being taken, the French seem to have gone on

to occupy all the rest, Angers and other places occupied by the King. of which by

the aforesaid sentence the count of Brittany had been fined,

unless those places had already at the same time been occupied by other

military forces. Certainly Angers

was restored to the King at almost the same time with, I think,

the whole province of Anjou. For that the city

of Angers was occupied by the King in the year 1230

the Chronicle of Andres testifies, to be cited at num. 213.

Then Matthew Paris at num. 211

will so report the King's expedition, which followed the next summer,

that he seems to hint that Angers was already

then subject to Louis. Du Tillet also,

in the Collection of treaties, page 174, writes

that Angers, Bellême, and other towns were intercepted by Louis in the winter

season. Lastly

Chaize, page 126, reports Angers with other

towns as occupied in this winter, although

he had wrongly referred the occupation of Bellême to the preceding

year. But these things which have been said concerning the occupation

of Angers and Bellême are confirmed

from the medal struck concerning them, which in James

de Bie, fol. 24, thus exhibits these cities as taken.

One of the daughters, by whom the cities are signified, is marked

with a bared shoulder, because Bellême had for the great part been stripped

of its fortifications by the King's engines:

the other is entirely clothed, because Angers

was handed over to the King without battle or ruin of walls.

The year is noted as 1229, because the thing was accomplished

before the Easter of the year 1230, up to which time 1229

ran with the French. Now, the errors of Chaize and others in these matters

being passed over, let us see what in the meantime

the count of Brittany did.

[209] The count of Brittany declares war upon the King. He, as though afflicted with wrong, and made fiercer

by the league with the English, sent letters to the King, by which

he withdraws from his clientage and declares war. These letters

du Cange published in his notes to Joinville,

page 44, which for the confirmation also of what precedes I transfer

hither: To all who shall inspect these present letters,

P., duke of Brittany, count of Richmond,

greeting. We note here briefly that the title of Duke

is taken by Peter, whereas the King had called him count. I am not

ignorant that this title of duke is attributed by certain writers

to the princes of Brittany of that time: but since

for the most part I find him named count by the historians

of that time, and since the title of duke was long after

granted to the prince of Brittany by Philip the Fair,

I have hitherto called him by this name,

and shall henceforth so call him. Now let us hear the letters themselves:

Know that we send to the King of France

by T. the Templar, bearer of the present, these

present letters. The King had adjourned the count*

of Brittany to the Sunday after Christmas at Melun,

at which day the lord King himself would not be present.

The count sent thither, and commanded the King that

the term which he had set him was not competent,

because it was not of forty days; and

on this account he required another competent term

from those who were there in the King's stead to

do what they ought; and on this account the count

caused to be written all his complaints and the wrongs

which the King and his mother and his men had done him; and that writing

upon the complaints was delivered to those

who were in the King's stead. Which writing, as it

was made to be understood to the count, the queen would not have

shown to the barons and honest men of France;

nay, she caused her will to be understood by them

otherwise. The count could never have amends

for the wrongs and evils done him by the King

and his men: save this, that the King himself caused

the same count to be disseised of that which he held of him*

in Anjou, whereof he was his man; and

besieged his castle of Bellême, which likewise

he held of him, and caused his land to be destroyed,

and caused his men to be slain. These evils, with

other evils, the King did him without any default of right which

the count had committed, and without his having ever been

adjourned by the King, either before or after,

save to the said day. On account of these wrongs, and

on account of others for which the count could have

no amends, the count himself commands the King

that he holds himself no longer as his man ; nay,*

he withdraws from his homage, and in this withdrawal the count

intends a defiance, (that is, he declares war.)

Done in the year of grace MCCXXIX on the Sunday

in the octave of B. Hilary. You see, I think, reader, the arrogance

of the man, whereby he is the first of the nobles openly to declare

war: so great was his confidence in the English

and in the nobles secretly conspiring against the King.

And that this was indeed most perilous to St. Louis

we easily understand, if we consider

that scarcely any help was to be hoped for by him from the princes,

since the counts of Champagne and

of Flanders, faithful to the King, had business enough in defending themselves.

Let us see therefore what after these things was done

by both sides.

* Portsmouth

* that is, engines

* that is, had summoned

* that is, to be despoiled

* that is, vassal

§ XVIII. The prosecution of the Breton war in the year MCCXXX: the judgment against the count of Brittany.

The king of England crosses the sea with an army War being declared, on both sides with great spirits and resources

they prepared themselves for waging it strenuously.

Who were adversaries to whom is known from what precedes.

Briefly here I only advise that among

the adversaries of St. Louis are not to be numbered

those whom Raynaldus at the year 1230, num. 30,

names out of Bernard Gui, namely the counts

of Toulouse and of Champagne, nor even the count

of La Marche, who in the month of May renewed the league

with the King, as we shall see; although this man

seems to have been more intent on increasing his own power

than on rendering sincere help to the King, as

there were very many others also. Matthew Paris at the year

1230, page 251, describes the deeds of the king of England

thus: Henry king of the English at the solemnity

of Easter gathered at Reading a very copious*

army, namely of all

the nobles of the kingdom who owed him military

service, and of innumerable others from divers

regions. He, moving camp thence, at the port

of Portsmouth on the day before the Kalends of May, with all

his multitude went on board the ships. It is pleasing here

to interpose the words of Walsingham in the Ypodigma

Neustriæ at this year: In the year, he says, MCCXXX Henry king of the English crossed over into Brittany,

at the persuasion of Peter duke of Brittany, that he might demand back from

the King of the Franks the lands unjustly taken away by his father and grandfather

from himself and his forefathers.

Who on the day on which he was to board the ships, humbly visiting the poor

and the sick, and kissing lepers,

bestowed on them abundant alms. These things

I would not omit, that the reader may understand that Henry prepared himself for this expedition

with no less piety than power;

and that thence he may not doubt that like things

were likewise done by St. Louis, whose whole

life was sprinkled with these offices of piety, and who

far surpassed Henry in piety no less than in warlike glory.

But from this not unpleasant

digression I return to Paris's narration:

[211] But the king, he says, by the procuring of his sailors,

[into Brittany, where he is received by the count: against these Louis sets himself] put in in Brittany at Saint Machutus

(thus the author calls Maclovius, commonly Saint-Malo)

on the fifth of the Nones of May. Many also

of the army, not being able to follow the king, put in

in divers places: but, God procuring it,

without hurt and without diminution of their goods, all

came to the king in Brittany. But

the count of Brittany, receiving the king reverently and with

honour, delivered to him the strongholds of that region

and the castles: and many nobles of Brittany,

coming to him, did homage and swore

fealty to him. Yet Andrew de Vitré,

and a few other noble men, scorning to come to the king's

fealty, furnished their castles with provisions,

and manfully prepared themselves for battle.

But the King of the Franks, when he had learned for certain

of the coming of the king of the English, gathered

a very copious army: and, with shields and banners glittering on every side,

came to the city

of Angers. Where, having pitched camp, he there drew out

no small stay, that he might block the advance of the king

of the English into Poitou. But the king

of the English, while at the city of Nantes he still awaited

a greater number of armed men from divers parts,

the King of the Franks with his army

besieged a certain weak stronghold called Oudon,

which was scarcely four leagues distant from the city of Nantes,

and with a slight effort took

and overthrew it, and returned to the city

of Angers. Thus the English author, extenuating the things

done there by Louis.

[212] Louis with an army, and he manages the matter well. Receive therefore what in this expedition

the King did in a short time. The nobles of the kingdom being called

to arms, even those who secretly favoured

the count but did not dare to resist the King's command,

among whom the count of Champagne brought the King chief help,

as Alberic has, page 535,

judging namely that his own fortune depended

on the King's fortune; the nobles, I say, being called together,

and a most flourishing army gathered, he approaches

the parts of Brittany, either before the king of England had come thither,

or certainly at almost the same time:

for in the month of May at the castle of Clisson *

on the borders of Poitou (which is attributed to Brittany,

as Valois testifies in the Notitia Galliarum, page 147)

he renewed his league with Hugh count of La Marche,

as you will find it described in Martène,

tom. 1 of the Amplissima Collectio, from col. [ ].

Then he stormed the castle of Oudon, which Paris above

calls Hodum; as also Castrum-celsum,

commonly Champtoceaux, so called from its situation,

because it is set on a hill, in the diocese of Nantes

on the river Loire, says Valois cited,

page 134, adding that it was once famous. These things Louis did

almost in the sight of Henry, who at

Nantes sat idle with his army. Besides,

he takes care that a judgment be instituted against the count of Brittany,

by which he is stripped of the right and wardship of the county:

and he watches at once the king of England and the count of Brittany,

lest they dare to attempt anything with so great an army as

we have heard was theirs. But

these things, said in summary from contemporary authors,

must now be set forth at length.

[213] Towns taken by St. Louis, The Chronicle of the monastery of Andres in d'Achery,

tom. 2 of the Spicilegium, page 868, at the year

1230, has thus: In the same year, Satan being loosed

and raging in the kingdom of France, the princes of the kingdom

and the chief men withdraw the due league and fealty

from King Louis, still a youth,

and adhering to his mother's counsel rather than to their admonitions;

they enter a league with Henry king of the English,

and bring him with a copious army into Brittany.

On the other side King Louis, gathering a copious line of battle

from all the borders of his kingdom,

manfully draws it up, and lays out the treasure gathered by his father and grandfather

upon knights and other stipendiaries.

He invades the city of Angers with certain castles,

and taking them from the Breton count,

because he was said to be the executor of the whole treason,

though he was kinsman of the King of the Franks,

powerfully resists the army of the English, lest it should cross

the borders of Brittany. But this

author mixes the things done in the winter season

with others done in the summer. But which

castles were taken in the summer season Nangis records,

page 329, in these words: The King … a great

army being gathered … hastened the more quickly to go with royal

array as far as the castle

whose name is Oudon . Besieging it round about,*

in a short time by his strength

he stormed it. Which being taken, he led his army

to another which is named Champtoceaux

*. But those who a little before were endeavouring to defend it, seeing

the strong army of the King of France, feared

exceedingly: whence, bringing the keys of the castle, they delivered themselves

with the castle to the King's good will.

Whom, receiving them at once, whatever they had offended against him,

he pardoned them, as pious and merciful:

but fortifying the castle with his own people, he afterwards guarded it

for a long time. Lobineau, in the History of Brittany,

tom. 1, page 228, among the towns taken at this time

also numbers Ancenis *, a town of Brittany

on the Loire, nine leagues, if

we believe Baudrand, distant from Angers toward

Nantes, and cites Nangis in the margin.

But since I find that neither in Nangis nor in

any ancient author, I should not dare to affirm it:

nay rather I judge that the lord of Ancenis

with other nobles of Brittany adhered

to Louis, as Lobineau himself reports, and

we shall report in its place.

[214] The judgment which we said above was instituted against

the count of Brittany, the judgment brought against the count of Brittany, Martène, often mentioned,

published, tom. 1 of the Amplissima Collectio,

col. [ ], from a Colbertine MS., under this title: Judgment

made in the camp beside Ancenis against

the count of Brittany in the year of the Lord MCCXXX in the month

of June. And it runs thus: Walter by the grace of God

archbishop of Sens, Walter by the same grace

of Chartres, and William of Paris, bishops,

F. count of Flanders, Th. count of Champagne,

the count of Nevers, the count of Blois, the count of Chartres,

the count of Montfort, the count of Vendôme,

count Rout., Matthew of Montmorency*

constable of France, John

of Soissons, Stephen of Sancerre, the viscount

of Beaumont, and other barons and knights,

whose seals are set beneath the present writing,

to all, both present and to come,

to whom the present writing shall come, greeting

in perpetuity. We make it known that we, before

our most dear lord Louis, illustrious king of the Franks,

have judged unanimously that

Peter formerly count of Brittany, on account of those things

which he had done amiss against the same lord King, which for

the greater part were there spoken before all of us,

has by justice lost the wardship of Brittany,

and that the barons of Brittany and others who had done him

homage or fealty by reason of that

wardship, are utterly absolved and quit of that

fealty and that homage, nor are they bound to obey him

or to do anything for him that pertains

to the reason of that wardship. In testimony whereof

we have caused the present writing to be sealed with the impressions of our

seals. Done in the camp beside

Ancenis in the year MCCXXX in the month of June. Wardship

is here the same as guardianship, of which the judges pronounce that he had fallen away,

because he possessed the county

by his wife's right, into which his son ought to succeed him.

[215] leagues entered into with the nobles of Brittany against the count. This judgment being brought forth, presently certain of the magnates

of Brittany deserted the count's party,

and swore clientage and fealty to the King,

saving however the right of John, son of Peter now deposed,

who, as soon as he had attained the due age,

should administer Brittany as count. D'Argentré in

the History of Brittany, book 4, chap. 12, enumerates these

lords: Andrew of Vitré *, Ralph

of Fougères , Geoffrey of Châteaubriant , Henry

of Avaugour, Gilduin of Dol, Geoffrey

of Ancenis, Richard Marshal,

Olivier de Coetquen or Coiquen; to whom

Lobineau at the place just assigned adds Guiomar

of Léon *, and, with John of Dol,

the bishop of the same city. Yet not all

those swore clientage and fealty to Louis at the same time,

but some sooner, others later;

some in this year, others in the following. The homage

of Andrew lord of Vitré Martène gives

immediately after the said judgment against the count,

and it was made in the camp at Ancenis in the same

month of June; but the homage of Ralph lord of Fougères,

which is had in the same place at col. [ ],

in the following year in the month of March; that of Guiomar of Léon

and of Henry of Avaugour was made in the month of May

of the same year 1231, as you will find in the same place

from col. [ ]; to which there is presently subjoined also the oath of fealty

made in the month of June by a certain noble

named Tinger. The letters also

of Olivier de Coiquen, subjecting his land to the King

on the Friday before the Purification of the blessed

Virgin Mary, you will find in Lobineau,

tom. 2 of the History of Brittany, col. 402. These things at the same time

it seemed good to record in this place, although certain of them,

as I said, were accomplished later. As for the rest, the praised

d'Argentré writes that the King used the service

of William bishop of Paris for joining the said nobles

to himself, which I should not deny; but I do not judge that the bishop

was sent to them before

the judgment against the count had been brought forth: but what

pacts were made with each may be seen

at the places assigned.

[216] While Louis, deserted by the nobles, departs These things with the utmost speed, and with equal fortitude,

prudence, and success, within the space

of two months were done by Louis, a youth of sixteen

years. Nay, he seemed about to accomplish

more, had not the perfidy of most of the princes drawn him back from the midst

of his course of doing well,

who accompanied him rather for show

than that they might render the King sincere help.

But these things we shall afterwards narrate

more at large; now let it suffice to have said that the King was compelled

to withdraw thence with his army, because after the service

of forty days he was deserted by his vassals,

and they were plotting a new war in Champagne,

which at this time was more to be feared than the Breton one.

And so in the month of June he seems to have withdrawn thence,

and in the same month, in the camp at Pont-de-

Cé *, he assigned an annual pension to Raymond

viscount of Thouars, until he should have recovered the castle of Maroil,

which had been intercepted either by the Poitevins or by

the English: the charter of this donation

Martène published at col. [ ]. Now we shall leave the King

departing for a time, that we may see

what the English, to whom, Louis withdrawing,

effected with so great a preparation of theirs.

[217] Matthew Paris, having reported the departure of King Louis,

Henry is invited into Normandy, which he neglects: page 252, narrates in this manner the occasion of invading Normandy

offered to Henry king of England, and by him

neglected: At the same time

Fulk Paynel of Normandy, a noble man,*

and William his brother, leaving their castles

and lands, came to the king of the English in Brittany,

doing him fealty and homage. There came

also with them sixty knights, strenuous

and powerful men, all of whom persuaded the king

to enter Normandy in hostile fashion, in sure hope

of subjugating the land. To whose counsels the king

would gladly have acquiesced, but Hubert de Burgh did not permit

it to be done, saying that it would be perilous

by all means to attempt this. Which the aforesaid knights hearing,

they asked the king the more earnestly

that he would assign them two hundred knights of his

army, with whom they might enter Normandy;

promising him with most certain assertions that they would drive

every race of Franks out of Normandy.

Nor did Hubert the justiciar permit even this to be done,

asserting that it was not expedient for the king to deliver

his knights to death by a voluntary will. And thus

those nobles were miserably deluded, because

the King of the Franks straightway disinherited them,

powerfully turning their castles and all that was

theirs into his own rights. Truly this occasion

did not seem to be neglected, since Louis at that time

seems to have been in Champagne. Further, since Paris says that the castles

of Fulk Paynel were occupied,

it seems that here must be placed what a little

earlier Nangis sets among incidental matters, page 329,

in these words: At the same time in which the King of France

stormed the castle of Bellême, John de Vignes,

a most faithful man and most strenuous in arms,

gathering an army in Normandy, and leading it to

la Haye-Paynel, within a few days powerfully subjugated it to his lord

King Louis of France.

As for the rest, Fulk Paynel, whose castle

I think it was, seems soon to have returned into Louis's favour,

since in the year 1231, in the month of March, in

Martène, col. [ ], he made himself surety to the King

for Ralph lord of Fougères; the same

Chaize, page 135, affirms concerning his brother William.

[218] These things being thus done, says Paris, the king of the English,

by the counsel of Hubert de Burgh, He occupies Mirebeau, then returns into England: with

his army passing out of Brittany through Anjou into

Poitou, set out into Gascony,

namely his own province. Where, homages being received,

and the region disposed in security, he returned

into Poitou, where he received the homages of many.

In this riding also the king besieged

the castle of Mirebeau, and took it by the praiseworthy valour

of the English, who, repeating most bold assaults,

violently subdued those shut in, and withdrawing,

led them all away in bonds. Mirebeau, * which

was the only town Henry took in all this expedition,

is situated in the province of Poitou.

After these things Paris, having sharply touched upon the sloth of Henry,

who with so great an army, even in Louis's absence, did nothing,

describes his return thus:

At length the king of the English in the month of October, having disposed

the things necessary for the guard of that land,

left there five hundred knights and a thousand stipendiary

sergeants, over whom he set as chiefs

Ranulph William earl of Chester,

and William earl of Albemarle, with certain

other warlike men, and men picked out for the work

of Mars. And thus the king, boarding the ships,

after very many perils of the sea, put in at Portsmouth

on the VII Kalends of November; infinite money having been consumed,

and innumerable nobles either

given to death, or wasted by sickness and hunger,

or reduced to extreme poverty. The Chronicle of Andres agrees

in describing the miseries of the English,

in d'Achery, tom. 2 of the Spicilegium,

page 869: And thus the English, hemmed into a corner of Brittany,

straitened by the heat of summer, and exposed to unaccustomed foods

as well as drinks, paid the penalty

by manifold diseases and various mishaps,

and returned no more to their own;

innumerable horses having first died, and the victuals

being altogether consumed, the treasures too which they had brought

from England being spent in vain; at length the king

of the English, who had come with many, returns to his own

with few. Thus the Lord fought for Louis,

when he himself could not be present,

and was studying to establish concord among his own.

[219] The captains left by Henry make plundering raids. It remains, for the completing of the things done in this year in the said

war, that we report what was done

by Henry's commanders after his departure.

This Paris cited narrates in this manner:

After the withdrawal of the king of the English from the parts

beyond the sea, the earl of Chester and the other chiefs

of the king's soldiery, with his whole army, made

a riding through Anjou, and for fifteen days

made a stay in it: and they took the castle

of Gunner, and levelled it and burned the town.

Then they took Neuf-sur-Sarthe,

and overthrowing it, gave the town to burning.

And thus with priceless spoils

and plunder they returned into Brittany.

And not long after, having entered Normandy in hostile fashion,

they took there the castle of Pontorson, and it being levelled,

they burned the town, and without loss of goods

returned into Brittany. Thus far

Matthew Paris, with whom in this year we set an end

to the Breton war, which, resumed in the following year,

we shall narrate. And we return to St. Louis,

that we may behold him whom we have already twice this year seen

storming the cities of the enemy, now in a third expedition

repressing the enemy by his authority.

* Reading

* Clisson

* Oudon

* Champtoceaux

* Ancenis

* Ferrand

* Theobald perhaps

* of Roucy

* Vitré

* Fougères

* Châteaubriant

* Léon

* le Pont-de-Cé

* Paynel

* Mirebeau

§ XIX. The prosecution of the war in Champagne; the deeds of the King

there: the concord at length following in an assembly of the princes, where also certain things

were decreed against the Jews.

The discords of the princes and the devastations of dominions: We narrated in § XVI the things done against the count

of Champagne by the confederate princes, and the damages

inflicted upon them by the count of Flanders, after which

we said there followed, by Louis's procuring, a truce;

but that was short, minds still boiling

with anger and breathing vengeance. And so the war broke out afresh

in this year 1230, as from

Alberic and other contemporary authors is manifest.

Receive briefly from the said Alberic

at this year what damages were inflicted

on both sides: The count of Bar, he says, page 535,

(against) his nephew (namely the duke

of Lorraine, joined by league, as we said, to the count of Champagne)

immediately after the Lord's Nativity

burned seventy villages, as is said, and more.

But the duke, with the count of Champagne, and Simon

of Joinville (he was the father of John of Joinville,

whose History we shall give) and many others wrought either as much

evil or more upon the count

of Bar, and made firm against him a certain castle in the village which

is called Monastery-upon-Saulx,

which the count of Bar in the same year utterly

razed. Likewise the men of Metz, confederate with duke Matthew,

broke the bridge of Maidières against the count

of Bar; but the count of Champagne and

the count of Flanders damaged the count of Saint-Pol

in many things. These things were done before the war waged

in Brittany by Louis, or at about that time

in which Bellême was stormed by the King: from

which it seems doubtful whether Louis called his vassals

to that expedition undertaken in the winter season:

certainly they do not seem to have been present.

[221] But truly when Louis had learned that the king

of England was about to cross the sea, the confederates, deserting the king, he had called all the princes

to arms with such authority that they did not dare

to resist the King's command. And so they followed him

into Anjou, their enmities being for so long laid aside,

lest they should be punished as rebels: but, the interval

of forty days being passed, during which alone the vassals

were bound to serve the King, all those first

deserted Louis who had secretly conspired with

the count of Brittany. Further, that they had already

departed in the month of June seems to be gathered from this,

that none of those whom Matthew Paris writes departed from the King

subscribed the judgment brought against Peter the Breton,

unless one should prefer to think

that they refused to subscribe. After their

withdrawal, and the judgment brought against Peter,

the counts of Flanders and of Champagne, fearing for their dominion,

asked leave of the King to return to their own,

and obtained it; whom the King himself, all things

having first been disposed, followed with his army

about the end, as it seems, of the month of June. These things thus

set forth must now be confirmed by the authority of contemporary

writers. Matthew Paris, page 251,

describes the matter in this manner: There had also at this

time war one against another almost all the magnates

of France, as the duke of Burgundy, the count of Boulogne,

the count of Dreux, the count of Mâcon, the count

of Saint-Pol, the count of Bar, Enguerrand

de Coucy, Robert de Courtenay, and many others,

who were sworn and confederate, as was said,

to the king of England and to the count of Brittany, … they brought war

upon the counts of Champagne and of Flanders.

All of whom, leave being obtained from the King of the Franks,

the forty days' watch at the siege of Angers

being completed, returned into their own

country. Whom the King, when he could not retain

them, followed, that, if it were possible, he might recall them,

being at discord, to concord.

[222] The author of the Chronicle of St. Médard of Soissons,

who is likewise contemporary, invade Champagne from two sides, in d'Achery,

tom. 2 of the Spicilegium, from page 490, confirms these things and certain

preceding ones in these words: MCCXXX Henry

king of England with a great army of the English

into Brittany the Less against the King

of the Franks Louis, a boy, Peter, called

Mauclerc, bringing this about, crossed the sea, but profited

nothing: for many of his men having been lost by divers

kinds of diseases, he returned into England,

labouring under a quartan fever. Philip count

of Boulogne, uncle of King Louis the boy, with

Robert count of Dreux, and almost all the other barons

of the Franks, King Louis the boy

being abandoned in the land of Brittany the Less against the king

of England, and the count of Brittany, and the rest of his

enemies, with an army of certain Franks

adhering to the aforesaid King, like

cruel and impious men, moved arms against Theobald count

of Champagne, who adhered to the King,

and destroyed certain of his strongholds

that had been taken. But Damery, Cergy,

Faverolles, and certain villages and houses

of the church of the blessed Médard of Soissons they laid waste with sword

and fire, the villages and houses and strongholds

of the knights remaining untouched and entire

with all their goods. Thus that author, intent

chiefly on describing the damages inflicted on churchmen;

but the deeds of this war we shall pursue more clearly

from others.

[223] and lay waste and burn various cities: Joinville, whose sayings about this war

I said were to be recorded at this year, at num. 32

says that it was thus agreed among the princes, that most of them

should invade Brie and Champagne from the side of France,

but the duke of Burgundy should enter the part opposite

his own Burgundy, so that, most of the towns being laid waste,

they should meet at Troyes, and with joined forces assail

that metropolis of Champagne. Concerning

those who from the side of France, as Joinville speaks,

or rather of Picardy, invaded Champagne through the tract

of Rethel, these things are read

in the Chronicle of Fécamp at this year, in Labbe,

tom. 1 of the Bibliotheca, page 327: In the same year

there was made a discord between the count of Champagne

and Philip count of Boulogne, and count

Robert (of Dreux) and other nobles

of France, who crossed the Marne , and burned*

the whole villages of Épernay , of Vertus*

*, of Sézanne , and put to flight the count*

of Champagne, and on their return besieged the castles

of … and of Fismes, and took them, and the tower

of Fismes was set on fire. With these agrees Alberic,

page 535, saying: But the other princes,

united with the count of Bar, whose head was

Philip count of Boulogne, burned Épernay,

Sézanne, and Vertus, and certain

villages in Champagne, and besieged the tower of Fismes ,*

and in many places laid waste the land of Champagne

by plundering and carrying off spoils: but

the count of Champagne himself also burned his own villages for fear of them,

before they came. Concerning

the cities burned by the count himself Joinville agrees,

at num. 32, who also affirms that the three towns mentioned above,

namely Épernay in Champagne on

the Marne, Vertus in the same province on

the borders of Brie, and Sézanne in Brie, were by the same man

given to the fire; but I should rather in that matter believe other

authors, who report them as burned

by the enemy.

[224] they put count Theobald to flight; These things were accomplished by them before

the King could enter Champagne with his army,

yet not before count Theobald himself was there,

to whom spirit for defending his own was not

lacking, but strength against so many enemies was lacking.

Hear Matthew Paris, page 251, after what has been recited

from him above, thus continuing: But

when the same King could in no wise bring the nobles back

to peace, the counts entered with horses and arms

in hostile fashion the land of the count of Champagne,

and began to lay it waste with fire and sword.

But the count of Champagne, meeting the enemy

with a huge force of armed men, joined a pitched

battle in the field. But the counts, manfully resisting both him

and his columns, shut up two hundred of his knights

as captives, and

slew thirteen. Which when the count of Champagne

had learned, he deserted the field by flight,

destitute of all support of his comrades.

Whom, as he fled, the enemy fiercely pursuing, and

laying low with the edge of the sword whomsoever they reached,

did not cease until with rapid course they thrust the count himself

within the gates of the city of Paris.

Then, being unwilling to pursue him further,

returning into Champagne, they despoiled the whole of it,

levelling castles and strongholds, cutting down vines and orchards;

outside the churches they left nothing

untouched. Further, the battle here narrated

by Paris, even though the flight of count Theobald

and the pertinacity of the enemy in pursuing seem somewhat

exaggerated, is confirmed from the words of the Chronicle

of Fécamp adduced above: And they put

the count of Champagne to flight. Then so great a licence of the enemy

in overthrowing cities makes it probable

that the Count had been driven from the field. As for the rest, what

Paris subjoins about the cause of the hatred against the count

has been refuted elsewhere.

[225] All Champagne being almost laid waste, the confederate princes

drew near to the city of Troyes: they assail Troyes: whither the King hastens with an army.

but the men of Troyes, knowing of their coming,

sought help from Simon lord of Joinville,

as his son John of Joinville narrates at num. 32.

He was there in time with his men,

and defended the city so bravely that the princes,

the city being assailed to no purpose, were compelled to pass it by

and to join their camp in the meadows with

the camp of the duke of Burgundy, who, having likewise laid waste

all things where he passed, had come thither out of Burgundy.

These things in summary from Joinville's relation.

Louis in the meantime had passed from Anjou into Poitou,

where about the month of July,

as Chaize has, page 133, from an ancient instrument,

at Saint-Maixent * he confirmed to the inhabitants

of Niort *, a town of the same province, the privileges formerly granted by the English; and, having heard of the

devastation of Champagne, he was hastening with an army

to bring help. But he came into Champagne

while the confederate princes had their camp

around Troyes, and after … he knew that they

were there, says Joinville at num. 33, he made

straight for them with his men, that he might contend with them

in battle. The nobles, perceiving this,

asked him by prayer and a suppliant petition that

he would deign to withdraw himself behind his column, saying that they were

ready to join battle against the count of Champagne

and the duke of Lorraine, and all their

knights, with three hundred horsemen fewer in number

than those which he himself, the count, and the duke should have. The King

answered them that they should by no means fight with his men,

he not being present. Which when

the nobles perceived, being suddenly almost confounded, they signified to him

that they would gladly induce the queen of Cyprus

to enter a peace with Theobald count of Champagne.

[226] Here again Joinville seems by error to join

things disjoined in time: whom, reverencing him, they depart from Champagne. for that

the suit of Theobald with the queen of Cyprus was ended later

we shall show in its place: and so it is to be understood of

the peace which the princes themselves should enter with Theobald.

The author cited subjoins: To which the good

King replied to them that he would hear nothing of peace,

nor suffer the count of Champagne to hear of it,

until they had departed from the county of Champagne.

The confederate princes obeyed the King's command,

as Joinville goes on to narrate. Who to these tumults

subjoins the peace of Theobald with the queen of Cyprus:

but since the queen of Cyprus does not seem to have been

the cause of this war, and the pact of Theobald with

the queen of Cyprus is later, we subjoin the peace between Theobald

and the princes his adversaries:

for it is established that this was made in this year.

[227] About the same days, says page 252,

Matthew Paris, in the month of September, there came

together to a conference the King of the Franks and the queen

his mother, Peace made between the princes, by the King's endeavour: with the honourable men and

magnates of that kingdom, who after the death of King

Louis had had war one against another,

as is said above. Where, treating of peace,

they made firm such a concord. Now it was commonly provided

by the aforesaid nobles that the count

of Champagne, who had been the principal cause

of this discord, being signed with the cross, should undergo a pilgrimage

to the Holy Land, to serve there in arms

with a hundred knights against the enemies

of the Crucified. And besides, the King of the Franks and his mother,

having touched the most holy Gospels, swore

that they would render to each their rights, and

that they would judge all the men of that land according to right

customs and those due to each.

Chaize, page 136, from various monuments

which he cites, explains certain particulars concerning

this assembly of the kingdom, and asserts that peace was there

reconciled between the counts of Flanders and Champagne

and the count of Boulogne: then that to the count of Boulogne

almost all that he demanded was granted,

and namely a great sum of money for the devastation

inflicted on his territory by the count of Flanders;

likewise that the duke of Lorraine and the count

of Bar committed their controversy to the arbitration of the counts

of Champagne and Boulogne, to whom queen

Blanche was joined; that John count of Chalon

was reconciled to the duke of Burgundy his lord.

Thus Chaize: and so an end was set to the war

of Champagne, although the hatreds were not yet

taken away.

[228] statutes against the Jews, In this same year 1230, either in these same

assemblies, or in others, as Chaize prefers,

page 140, gathered at Melun in the month of December,

certain things again were decreed against the Jews by the King

and the princes. These statutes Alberic published

in his Chronicle, and asserts that they were made at Melun

in the month of September, in which the assembly just now mentioned

was held: d'Achery also published them, tom. 3 of the Spicilegium,

from page 606, in whom they are noted as made

in the month of December: which is the truer epoch does not

sufficiently appear. Meanwhile it has pleased me to transfer hither

the statutes themselves from d'Achery, where they are fuller: Louis

by the grace of God King of the Franks. Let all know,

present as well as to come, that we,

for the salvation of our soul, and of King Louis our father

of renowned memory, and of our

forefathers, the advantage also of our whole kingdom having been weighed

for this, of our certain will,

and by the common counsel of our barons,

have ordained that we and our barons will cause

no debts henceforth to be contracted to be held by the Jews:

nor shall anyone in our whole kingdom

be able to retain a Jew of another's lordship: and

wherever anyone shall find his own Jew,

he shall be able lawfully to seize him as his own

serf, however long a stay the Jew shall have made

under another's lordship or in another kingdom. But the debts

which until now are owed to the Jews shall be paid

at three terms, namely at the instant feast

of All Saints a third part, at the following

feast of All Saints a third part, and at

the next following feast of All Saints the remaining

third part.

[229] by the King, the nobles consenting, But concerning Christians we ordain that we,

or our barons, will cause them to have no usuries

on debts to be contracted: and by usuries

we understand whatever is beyond the principal. And these

statutes we shall keep, and cause to be kept in

our land, and our barons in their lands. And

if any barons shall be unwilling to keep this, we shall compel them

to it; to which our other barons

shall be bound to help us with their power in good faith.

And if any in the lands of the barons should be found

rebellious, we and our other barons will help to

compel the rebels to keep the aforesaid statutes.

But these things we will to be kept unimpaired in perpetuity

by us and our heirs; and our barons

likewise have granted that they and their heirs will keep this

perpetually. All subscribed in the same

form in which follows the first subscription, in this

manner: I, Philip count of Boulogne, have willed, counselled,

and sworn those things which

have been premised. The second:

I, Hugh count of La Marche, have willed, counselled,

and sworn the same. There follow Hugh Duke of Burgundy;

Theobald count of Champagne; Amalric

count of Montfort, constable of France,

lately substituted, Montmorency being deceased; Robert

de Courtenay, butler of France;

Henry count of Bar; Hugh count of Saint-Pol;

Ralph count of Eu; John count of Chalon;

Enguerrand de Coucy; William viscount

of Limoges; Archambaud of Bourbon; William of Dampierre;

Guy of Dampierre;

John of Nesle; William de

Vergy. And these things, they say, we have willed,

counselled, and sworn for the salvation of our souls

and of our forefathers.

[230] After which the King thus continues: It is moreover

added, framed at Melun. that all Jews shall show to their lords, before

the instant feast of All Saints, whatsoever letters

they have concerning their debts;

otherwise those letters shall not be valid, nor

shall the Jews be able from that time to use them for demanding their

debts. But we, that all the aforesaid may remain ratified

in perpetuity and unshaken, for their

perpetual memory and testimony, have caused our seals

to be appended to the present letters. Done at

Melun, in the year of the Lord one thousand two hundred

and thirty, in the month of December. These statutes against

usuries and other wrongs of the Jews

insinuate no middling solicitude of Louis

for rightly administering his kingdom,

and for eliminating thence all evils: especially since

they were made while the Breton war was still in force, which

was without doubt of such a kind as to seem to demand for itself alone

the King's whole care. As for the rest, to

the things done by the King in this year may be added the mandate

by which he enjoins Heraclius of Montlaur

to do homage to the bishop of Le Puy for the castle of Aubenas *,

and of Saint-Laurent

, and of Vissaux , which, he says, move from

the fief of the church of Le Puy ,*

until Alphonse the King's brother,

who, the daughter of the count of Toulouse being betrothed to him, was to

succeed to the county of Toulouse after

the death of Raymond, could himself render it by reason of his age,

as Louis declares he will do.

Twin letters of St. Louis on this matter you have

after tom. 2 of the Gallia Christiana lately reprinted, among

the instruments of the church of Le Puy, col. 233.

* la Marne

* Épernay

* Vertus

* Sézanne

* Fismes

* Saint-Maixent

* Niort.

* Aubenas

* Saint-Laurent

* Vissaux

* Le Puy

§ XX. The prosecution of the Breton war in the year 1231:

with fortifications: the canons of St. Lô translated to another church: the marriage of the count

of Champagne hindered: the rest of the year 1232.

Louis, an assembly being held and a truce to be made, We enter upon the year 1231, less turbulent indeed

than the preceding, yet not altogether

quiet for St. Louis. Henry king of England was preparing

himself to advance the war in France by a huge

exaction of moneys, and that already in the month

of January, as from Matthew Paris

you will learn at this year, page 252. Louis,

having heard these things, again called the princes together after

Easter, that he might both establish peace among the princes of his kingdom

and consult them about the Anglo-Breton war.

Alberic in his Chronicle, page 540, relates these things in these

words: Louis the young King of France

held his council at Paris on the Sunday

Jubilate (or the third after Easter) concerning the peace of the kingdom

and of the princes, and concerning the count of Brittany and

the king of England, and truces were made firm for three years.

It can be doubted with whom Alberic means the truces

were made firm; yet I suspect that he is to be understood

of the truces made with the king of England and

the count of Brittany for three years in the month of July

following, and that he means nothing else than that in

these assemblies counsel was taken concerning truces

to be made, they being urged both by the count of Dreux,

the Breton's brother, and by other princes, who could

ill see the party of the count of Brittany too much

shaken, and who at least by prayers, since otherwise they did not

dare, pleaded his cause. To this conjecture

Chaize, page 150, agrees.

[232] yet he invades Brittany; Nevertheless it is certain that the truces with the Englishman

and the Breton were not made at this time, but

later: for St. Louis is read to have entered Brittany

in the summer season with a huge column,

about to enter upon a truce in the field. Hear Matthew

Paris, describing Louis's expedition and the truces that followed,

page 253: About the same

days, he says, in the month of June, the King of the Franks

moved forward a copious army, that he might storm Armorican

Brittany. But when Henry count of Brittany and Ranulph earl of Chester,*

who in those parts commanded the soldiery of the king of the English,

had learned of his coming, they prepared an ambush for the King

as he came. And attacking from behind his carts and wagons,

which carried arms with provisions and engines,

they took all, and burning the engines

with fire, gained there sixty

horses. Then the Franks, since

they knew Brittany to be as it were impregnable, and at the same time having their weak

beginning in suspicion, by the procuring

on the part of the King of the Franks of the archbishop

of Reims and Philip count of Boulogne,

and on the part of the king of the English of the counts of Brittany

and Chester consenting in this, truces

were appointed, and confirmed by oath for three years,

between the said kings on the III Nones of July. These things

Paris, with whom agree d'Argentré in the History

of Brittany, page 230, and Lobineau, page 230.

[233] That the truces were made in the camp near Saint-Aubin-du-

Cormier *, a town of Brittany, where he grants a truce for three years: from ancient

monuments the praised Lobineau reports: he adds that they were

concluded for three years, namely from the feast of St. John

the Baptist of this year 1231 to the same feast

of the year 1234: then he recites the conditions on which

the truces were made: among which the chief are

that it should not be lawful for the count of Brittany during the time of the truces

to enter the dominion of the King or of the count of La Marche;

that seven nobles of Brittany should swear that they would

deny obedience to the count if he violated the truces;

that the count should deliver Saint-Aubin into

the hands of the count of Boulogne, who should consign it to the King

if the truces were broken by the count. But,

the count of Boulogne afterwards dying, the count of Brittany

recovered possession of this town before the end

of the truces. Certain things were added in favour

of the count of La Marche, which and others may be seen more at large

in the said Lobineau at the place assigned.

As for the rest, these truces were confirmed by oath

on both sides, and the king of England held them ratified,

and ordered them to be confirmed by oath, as may be seen

in Martène, tom. 1 of the Amplissima Collectio,

from col. [ ], where he made public the letters of the king of England

and of his ministers written on this matter.

Thus a quiet of some years was procured for St. Louis.

[234] Having therefore obtained leisure from warlike affairs,

he got a greater opportunity for pious works, he induces the abbot of St. Denis to restore the temple,

although even in the very tumult of war

he by no means passed these over. I shall not report the various journeys

which he was wont to make to places near Paris,

and even to cities and provinces a little more remote,

in which he always gave surpassing proofs

both of piety and of liberality:

because these are abundantly described in the Acts to be published below,

nor can they be brought back to a certain order

of chronology. But there occurs to be narrated in this year

the restoration of the temple of St. Denis, made by his counsel

and munificence. Nangis in his Chronicle

at the year 1231, tom. 3 of d'Achery's Spicilegium,

page 32, records the following on this matter: By the counsel

of Louis the holy King of France, and of religious

men, the monastery of St. Denis in

France is renewed under abbot Odo Clement;

for this the monks before did not dare to do

on account of the mystery of the dedication, which the same monastery

is known to have received from the Lord. With these agrees

an anonymous author, of whom I treated at num. 31,

and he adds that Gregory IX the supreme Pontiff was consulted

by St. Louis on this matter, who

ordered the temple, notwithstanding the said scruple of the dedication,

to be restored. Further, in Nangis's manner of speaking

it is to be observed that by monastery

is not to be understood the house of the monks, but

their temple, as from the dedication which

raised the scruple sufficiently shines out: and that the word

monastery is not rarely taken for a temple may be seen

in du Cange's Glossary at the same word.

[235] Michel Félibien, in the History of the abbey of St.

Denis, page 227, says that this frivolous scruple concerning

the dedication of the temple by Christ was shaken out of the abbot

by prudent men, and helps it at his own expense. and that he was induced by St.

Louis and his mother Blanche to undertake

the restoration: he adds that there is no doubt

that the holy King furnished part of the expense, because the abbey,

however rich, could not bear the expense

of so great and so magnificent a work, In which, he says, was comprised the part of the church

behind the choir, the choir, and part of the sides.

Hence almost everywhere in the choir, in the transverse cross

of the temple, nay even in the footpaces of the altars of the part

behind the choir, he testifies that the arms of Castile

are seen joined with the arms of France. Lastly, that this new

building, begun by abbot Eudes at this

time, was brought to its end under Matthew of Vendôme,

he confirms by the testimony of two authors of that time.

[236] He fortifies certain cities, and exactly compensates damages; The piety of St. Louis, as also his liberality,

shines out in the work just reported, but his exact justice

is discerned in what we shall now narrate. Abrincae,

to the inhabitants Avranches, a city of Normandy near

the borders of Brittany the Less, the holy King had fortified;

but the ditches of the castle had to be drawn through the garden

of the bishop of Avranches, who, that he might not suffer loss from

this, the most just King straightway studied to make good,

Receive part of the letters

which he gave at Paris in the month of November, and which

Martène inserted, tom. 1 of the Amplissima Collectio, col.

1254: Let all know, he says,

that we, in recompense of that damage

which our beloved and faithful William bishop

of Avranches incurs in his garden situated at*

Avranches, in which we have caused the ditches of our castle to be made

for the strengthening of the same town, have given

and assigned to him twelve pounds' worth of Tours

money, to be received by him and his

successors freely and quietly each year at

Avranches, in our provostship of Avranches,

on the very day of the feast of St. Michael, by the hand of our

provost of Avranches. In this year likewise, besides

other cities, that Angers and its castle

were increased with new fortifications by the care of St. Louis,

Chaize narrates, page 155, from the monuments of Angers,

and he adds that damages were exactly restored to all,

and namely to two parishes which were

to be demolished. From which let the reader make

of that kind: certainly by innumerable examples

of his Life we are taught that he most diligently always took care

lest his own advantages should turn to another's

disadvantage.

[237] he transfers the canons of St. Lô to a more convenient place: Further, there dwelt at that time about the said

castle the canons of St. Lô, for whose quiet,

since that place was not sufficiently convenient, he transferred them

to the church of St. Germain, depending upon the abbot

of St. Aubin of Angers, and took care that they be transferred.

This was done with the consent of the abbot of St. Aubin and of his

convent, whose letters on this matter the praised

Martène recites at col. [ ], from which I transfer

hither the following: Know that, when the dean

and chapter of the church of St. Lô of Angers could not

conveniently dwell in their own church, which is within the enclosure of the castle

of Angers, without peril to the same castle and

detriment to the divine office,

our most excellent lord Louis,

by the grace of God illustrious King of the Franks, wishing to provide

in this matter for the advantage of the whole land and for the divine offices,

transferred the said canons to our church

of St. Germain, we consenting,

to whom he had put forth his prayers on this matter;

and we have granted to him and to his successors, by

the common assent of our chapter, the same

liberties, and the same patronage of prebends

and gift, and the same power in all things in

the said church of St. Germain, both in the canons and in

other persons, which he and his forefathers have hitherto had

in the church of St. Lô. As for the rest,

the letters are noted as given in the year 1234, in the month of April:

but the migration of the canons had already preceded,

which Chaize sets in this year. To the deeds of this

year there are lastly two things to be added; namely, that to the abbot

of Auchy in Flanders, for the annual pension which

Louis VIII had once assigned him, certain lands

in the county of Hesdin were given, in Martène cited,

col. [ ]; and that the count of Ponthieu, certain

conventions being made, was reconciled to Louis,

in Chaize, page 147. But it is not worth while

to linger over such things; and so I go forward to the following

year, in which likewise not many things

come to be narrated.

[238] It must have happened in the year 1232, or certainly

toward the end of the preceding, The wife of the count of Champagne having died in the year 1231, what Joinville narrates

at num. 31 concerning the marriage of the count of Champagne

with the daughter of the count of Brittany, attempted, and hindered

by the King's authority: although not a few authors,

following the erring Joinville, have judged that this happened some

years earlier, and have said that it was

the cause of the war of Champagne, of which matter

we have already treated. Their error is manifestly shown

from the death of Agnes, wife of Theobald count of Champagne,

concerning which Alberic in his Chronicle at

the year 1231, page 540, thus writes: There died Agnes

countess of Champagne on the fifth Ides of July. But in the following

year 1232, concerning the count's new marriage

he has these things, page 541: The count of Champagne took

to wife Margaret daughter of Archambaud of

Bourbon, and for this cause incurred the hatreds of certain barons.

But truly it cannot be doubted

that the marriage which the count was meditating to enter

with the daughter of the count of Brittany was midway

between the death of his own wife and the following marriage:

and so it must be that either toward the end of the year 1231, or

in the year 1232, it was attempted, and therefore

it was not the cause of the war of Champagne already ended.

Chaize, page 153, places the deed in the year 1231:

I have preferred to refer it to the year 1232, because the matter

after the death of Agnes seems scarcely to have been able to be brought

in a few months to the point to which we shall see

it was brought. But it matters little whether it happened in this year

or in the preceding, nor is any note of time added

by which it can be made certain. Let us therefore hear

the matter itself from Joinville, whose relation

I shall here set forth in summary.

[239] The French nobles, who had deserted the cause of the count of Brittany

only under compulsion of fear, [he meditates marrying the daughter of the count of Brittany, which Louis forbids:] and with sick

eyes saw the count of Champagne adhering to the King's

party, studied to join him with the count

of Brittany. And so, Agnes the wife of Theobald

being dead, they began to treat of the marriage

of count Theobald with Yolande, daughter of Peter count of Brittany:

the condition was accepted, a day appointed

for celebrating the nuptials. The noble

woman was to be brought to the abbey of Val-Secret (although Valserre

is read by a fault in Joinville) where Theobald

should take her to wife: thither he sets out, an illustrious

company of kinsmen escorting him. The matter

meanwhile, concealed with however great care, had become known to King Louis,

who, well understanding into how great

sent to count Theobald letters written with greater

authority than elegance in this

manner: Lord Theobald of Champagne, I have understood

that thou hast contracted, and hast promised, that thou wilt take to wife the daughter of Peter

count of Brittany. Wherefore

I charge thee that, as dear to thee is whatever

thou lovest in the kingdom of France, so thou do it not.

Thou knowest well enough our reason: never have I found any

who wished to bring evil upon me worse than he. Godfrey de la Chapelle

brought these letters to the count,

when he had already departed from Château-Thierry

to be bound in marriage. But these being understood, on the testimony

of Joinville, he sought again Château-Thierry, whence he had

departed. Hence let the reader gather how great

an authority the young Louis had already got for himself.

[240] These nuptials being in this manner disturbed, and another wife

being taken by count Theobald, [hence new hatreds against Theobald, against whom a suit is stirred up concerning the county.] namely

Margaret, mentioned above out of Alberic,

it is no marvel that he incurred the hatreds of the nobles,

who, having contrived these nuptials, were plotting

to draw him away from the King's party. Hence there were recalled to memory

the rights of the queen of Cyprus over Champagne, which

now seemed given over to oblivion, and she herself was called

into France, that she might stir up a suit against Theobald.

The origin of this controversy between Theobald

and Adelaide queen of Cyprus, who were cousins,

receive briefly from Joinville, num. 30,

and Chaize from page 197. Henry surnamed

the Liberal, count of Champagne, had sons: Henry

the elder by birth, and the younger by birth Theobald,

father of the Theobald of whom we treat. Henry

the younger succeeded his father Henry in the county, and, having set out

into the Holy Land, died there, two

daughters being left, of whom the elder by birth was this woman

of whom we treat, the queen of Cyprus. To her the paternal

dominion seemed to be owed, but a defect of birth

was objected: for her father Henry had taken to wife

Isabella, daughter of Amalric king of Jerusalem,

who, having deserted her first husband Humphrey

of Toron, had married Conrad marquis

of Montferrat, and he being dead, but her first husband living,

had passed to this third marriage with Henry count

of Champagne. For which cause

that marriage was held illegitimate, and after

the death of count Henry, Adelaide his daughter being passed over,

Theobald, Henry's brother, had succeeded to the county

of Champagne, and he being dead, this Theobald,

the former's son. The kings of France had favoured these men

against the pretensions of Adelaide and her sister.

But at this time, the princes of France contriving it

out of hatred of Theobald, the suit was renewed, and

only in the year 1234 at last, by Louis's acting, was it ended,

as we shall narrate in the same place.

[241] The rest of the year 1232 given in summary. In this year likewise Louis mourned two brothers deceased,

namely John and Dagobert,

concerning whom we have already treated at num. 41: he renewed the league with

Frederick the emperor, concerning which at num.

110: he founded a Mass and canonical hours to be said daily

in a certain chapel of Nogent, in

Martène, tom. 1 of the Amplissima Collectio, col.

1259: he assigned an annual alms to the infirmary

of Paris in perpetuity, in the praised

Martène, col. [ ]. But these are but few

specimens of St. Louis's liberality, which,

because they are held consigned in lawful instruments,

I have been unwilling altogether to pass over; otherwise things far greater

than these are found so frequently in his Acts

that for the commending of his munificence

he by no means needs these.

* Peter

* Saint-Aubin-du-Cormier

* garden

§ XXI. The controversy of the King with Theobald archbishop of Rouen, and with his successor Maurice.

A grave controversy arises Besides the wars by which the French princes exercised

the young Louis, there were other controversies for him

with the bishops, which affected the pious Youth's

mind with no less trouble.

The first was with Theobald archbishop of Rouen,

begun from the year 1227, which afterwards broke out afresh with his successor

Maurice, and in this

year more probably received its end. The matter is narrated in

the Chronicle of Rouen, published by Labbe, tom. 1

of the Bibliotheca of manuscripts, and is thus

set forth at the year 1227, from page 374: In this

year, when the lord Theobald archbishop of Rouen

had wished to bring timber (or

wood fit for constructing buildings) to Rouen,

which he had caused to be made in his forest *

of Louviers, the bailiff of Val-de-Reuil *

arrested that timber; and, denunciation of this deed*

having been made to the bishop of the place, the bishop

excommunicated him. From this occasion or excommunication

the lord King of the Franks drew

the same archbishop into court before himself,

saying that he had done him wrong, because he had caused

his bailiff to be excommunicated without his being consulted

*. Likewise he complained of this, that the same

archbishop had taken the foagium of the Villeta, which

is in the parish of Louviers, whereas that foagium

pertained to himself by reason of the fief which was held

of him, and the knight who held it avowed

him as lord. That the reader may understand this accusation,

certain things occur to be noted. Foagium,

by others focagium, is a rent used chiefly

in Normandy, which is exacted by the feudal

lord for each hearth, or house, of his subjects

and tenants, says du Cange in his Glossary at this

word, and he proves it by various examples.

But Villeta, or villata, is to the same author

a gathering of several dwellings, or

a greater village. The King therefore complained that

the archbishop had exacted the said rent from

the lord of a certain greater village in the parish of

Louviers, which rent was owed not to the archbishop but to the King,

because the lord of the said village was the King's

vassal. Now let us return to the author, who thus

continues:

[243] Likewise the lord King said that the archbishop

ought not to make timber in the forest

of Louviers for the use of other manors, between the King and the archbishop of Rouen,

but only for the use of the manor of Louviers.

Manerium, says du Cange praised, is a habitation

with a certain portion of land, so called from manendo, in French

Manoir: as in our municipal customs

it is commonly taken for the chief house of a fief.

And so the reason why the King's minister detained

the archbishop's timber was without doubt

that it was being carried to Rouen: whence there will not be lacking those who

judge that the archbishop would have acted more advisedly

if he had proved that this was lawful for him

before he had proceeded to excommunication.

But let the author of the Chronicle go on: Likewise

the lord King complained of the said archbishop

because he had excommunicated the dean

and certain canons of Gournay , who are*

under his protection and of his patronage.

The King caused the same archbishop to be summoned, that

he should answer why he did not come to the exchequer

to answer and to obey the law concerning those things which

were objected against him, as the other bishops

and barons did in Normandy. But scacarium in

Normandy was the name of the supreme court, in French

Eschiquier, which sat twice in the year to

determine controversies. But let us return to the Chronicle: For these causes the archbishop was

summoned before the King at Vernon, and he appeared,

and said that he was not bound to answer

in his court concerning these matters, both because certain of them

were spiritual, and because he held nothing feudal

of him for which he should be bound to answer

in his court: at which answer the King and the queen

were greatly angered, and the archbishop withdrew

with these matters unsettled; whence the King called together

several times his barons, and consulted them what

was to be done concerning such an answer of the archbishop

of Rouen. Likewise the same archbishop was summoned,

and, the barons being present, it was asked

of him whether he would answer for any matter in

the lord King's court; and the answer was that

he had heard nothing concerning which he should be bound to answer,

because he held nothing save his own church, whereof

he held his lordship. Whence the King, being angered,

by the counsel of his barons confiscated all

the archbishop's secular possessions: whence

the archbishop, having held a conference with his bishops,

shut under interdict all the lordships and castles which the King then

had in his archbishopric,

only the cities being excepted: and thereupon

he went into exile, about to set out for the Roman court,

and, being detained by sickness at Reims, he sent to the Roman

court. But it being obtained that the legate named

Romanus, who then was coming to the French

parts, should hear the cause, the archbishop having first

been restored by the rigour of justice, the archbishop through the legate

had full restitution of movables

and immovables, with the fruits thence

received, and the timber having been brought back into the city of Rouen

by the chaplain of Val-de-Reuil,

which he himself had arrested, and restored to the archbishop,

thus the archbishop remained in peace concerning all

these complaints, to the praise of our Lord

Jesus Christ. Thus far the said Chronicle.

[244] but the Pontiff's legate restored all in full, the suit undecided: Nevertheless the controversy was rather suspended

than ended, even though Claude Fleury writes

that it was ended, in the Ecclesiastical History

at the year 1232, §16. This is proved from the very

author of the Chronicle, who at the year 1234 reports

that the goods of the archbishop, this man's successor, were again occupied

by the King for these same causes,

to which new ones also had been added. The same is manifestly proved

from the letters of the legate Romanus, which

Martène published, tom. 1 of the Amplissima Collectio, col.

1226: these therefore I shall in this place write out whole,

that it may appear in what state the controversy was left,

the censures being taken away on the one side, on the other the goods being restored

to the archbishop: Romanus, by divine mercy

Cardinal deacon of S. Angelo, legate of the Apostolic

See, to all who shall inspect the present, greeting

in the Lord. Let your whole community know that,

whereas Louis illustrious King of the Franks had caused the temporal

goods of the venerable father Th., archbishop

of Rouen, to be seized , on occasion*

of certain causes which were pending between

them, at our prayers he restored on trust the aforesaid goods,

in our presence, to the archbishop's proctors here present in the name

of the archbishop himself:

so that from this restitution on trust no right,

nor any damage or prejudice, be generated to the aforesaid King,

nor to the archbishop or the church

of Rouen. But the said archbishop shall use

his own goods. But if it should happen that

the King should wish to have back the said goods, the archbishop shall not be bound

to restore the things which he shall have used;

and then all things, both on the part of the King

and on the part of the archbishop himself, as far as concerns

the sentences of interdict and of excommunication,

shall be in that state in which they were before the interdict

was suspended by the archbishop, and the sentence of excommunication

relaxed in hope of peace,

our jurisdiction being in all things saved, namely

that by this we be not seen to approve or

disapprove the said sentences; but if the cause

be ventilated before us, we shall do what shall be just.

In testimony whereof we have caused our seal,

by the consent of the parties, to be appended to the present

letters. Given at Melun

in the year of grace one thousand two hundred and twenty-

eight, on the XII Kalends of November.

[245] The cause therefore was not terminated, but by the prudence

of the legate was suspended, a new cause of dissension having arisen, the inconveniences on either side being removed:

although it seems that it would thus easily have remained,

if new dissensions had not intervened.

Meanwhile in the year 1229, as the said Chronicle of Rouen has in the same place,

Theobald of Amiens archbishop of Rouen, on the Feast

of Saint Firminus … at the border of day

and night, happily closed his last day. To him,

when two had been elected, one yielding, there succeeded in the year

1231 Maurice bishop of Le Mans, with whom

the discord was renewed, on this occasion, as it appears,

which the praised Chronicle relates at

the year 1232: After the decease of Alice abbess

of Montivilliers, an election was celebrated in*

the same monastery, and two were elected, and

the election was represented to Maurice the archbishop,

who examined the election as he ought, and,

it being found that the form of the council had not been kept

in electing, he quashed the election made of both,*

and deprived the chapter of the right of electing for that turn,

and assigned to the same chapter as abbess

Letitia de Vonsemoncel: but she did not obtain

the abbey on account of the contradiction of the King; and

the archbishop himself excommunicated all the nuns

adhering to the King in this deed, and contradicting

the aforesaid Abbess. Behold new discords.

[246] Then in the year 1233, as the author goes on, In the month

of July the lord King Louis the younger seized

the regalia of the lord archbishop of Rouen for the causes the controversy breaks out afresh more grievously which are expressed

above in the time of Theobald the archbishop, and

for certain other causes; on account of which

the lord Maurice archbishop of Rouen put

the whole diocese of Rouen under interdict, and

the interdict began from the vigil of St. Michael, and lasted

until the feast of the holy martyrs Crispin

and Crispinian a year later. For then

his goods were restored to him with all things which

had been thence received in the intervening time. Thus

briefly this author, which things must be more explained

from elsewhere. In the first place, from the Pontiff's letters it is clear

that Maurice refused to answer before the King,

as we saw above concerning Theobald, and that thence

it was proceeded to the occupation of his goods.

Hear the Pontiff himself complaining of this matter

in Raynaldus at the year 1232, num. 26:

We have received the grave complaint of our venerable brother the archbishop

of Rouen,

that, whereas in spiritual and temporal matters he has no

judge after God save us, concerning the ancient

liberty of the church of Rouen and its

custom hitherto observed, thou, led—and would that not seduced—by

the counsels of certain men,

contrary to the custom of thy aforesaid forefathers,

who ever venerated churches and ecclesiastical men

with a pious and prompt affection,

summoning him to thy presence, hast wished

to induce him to answer under thy examination concerning that

which he had promulgated a sentence of excommunication against certain persons, and

concerning certain other articles.

And because he, fearing not only peril to his own right,

but even the subversion of ecclesiastical

liberty, refused to do this, submitting himself and

the goods of his church to the protection of the Apostolic See,

thou, being grievously moved thereby against

him, hast despoiled him of houses, villages, lands, revenues,

and possessions belonging to his church

at the pleasure of thy will, causing them

to be detained by thy ministers. These things the Pontiff, and others,

from which we understand that the archbishop's goods

were occupied because he refused to submit himself

to the King's examination.

[247] with the following archbishop: Now let us explain by what steps Maurice the archbishop

proceeded to the general interdict of his diocese.

We learn it from his letters written on this matter, which

d'Achery inserted in tom. 3 of the Spicilegium

from page 614. First,

since the church of Rouen was sacred to the blessed Virgin,

contending that this occupation of its goods turned to the Virgin's

injury, he ordered all her

images, removed from their place, to be laid in a lowlier place in the nave

of the church and to be surrounded with thorns,

warning that the same was to be done with the images of our Lord the Saviour

after fifteen days, unless he should command

otherwise. Then he interdicted the sacred rites in all the King's

chapels situated in the diocese of Rouen, unless the King

himself were present, or the queen; and moreover all

the King's ministers and their households. At length he ordered the divine offices

to cease throughout the whole diocese: And so,

he says, let no divine office be celebrated there,

let no eucharistic Sacrament be ministered there,

save the baptism of infants, and the penances

of the dying. Yet in every parish

church we permit that the priests once in

the week, the doors being shut, the interdicted excluded,

on days that are not feasts, and with lowered voice, may read to the people

the Introit, the Epistle, the Gospel, and

give the people blessed bread, and set forth to them the ecclesiastical

commands. These things were in that state

for about thirteen months, namely from the vigil of St.

Michael, or the XXVIII of September, until the XXV

of October of the following year, as the Chronicle of Rouen

narrates.

[248] but, by the care of Gregory IX, Gregory

IX the supreme Pontiff laboured more diligently than the rest

to take away this discord; we have already cited his first

letter to the King on this matter, in which, having disapproved

the occupation of the bishop's goods, he exhorts him to restore

them, subjoining these words: But if

the royal excellence proposes that it has any right in the premises

and in other matters against the same

archbishop, we shall cause the fullness of justice to be shown him.

He then signifies, says Raynaldus cited above

in the same place, that the province was given by him to the bishops of Paris

and of Senlis, that they should compel by censures

the royal administrators to restore to the archbishop what

had been occupied. Further, this letter of the Pontiff

is noted as written on the III Kalends of December in the

VI year of Gregory's Pontificate, that is of Christ 1232.

Which if the subscription be true, as becomes probable from

this, that Gregory's second letter is read as given

on the Kalends of September of the following year, so

that the first cannot be referred to the month of November of that year,

it must be that the Chronicle of Rouen

narrated the matter a year later

than it was done, and that an end was set to the controversy in the year 1233:

but this discrepancy is of less moment

than that it should be pleasing to treat it at greater length:

I return therefore to Gregory the author of peace.

[249] the suit is at length ended. To these letters to the King, drawn up in a sharper style,

the Pontiff afterwards added others milder,

given, as we have already said, on the Kalends of September

of the year 1233, in which, the piety of the preceding

kings toward the Church being praised, he exhorts Louis to follow

their footsteps, concluding the letter at last with these

words: Therefore, that our soul

may delight to bless thee, a son of benediction,

devoting thy mind to works of piety,

that he whom nature bore great may be seen also to have brought forth

a magnificent man, pursue with filial devotion our wishes

concerning reverence to mother Church,

being about so to fulfil with effectual promptitude the prayers

and admonitions which for our venerable

brother the archbishop of Rouen we repeat to thy

highness with secure confidence, that without loss

of delay there be made by thee to him and to his church

a restitution of all things taken away. Thus far Gregory,

says Raynaldus, reciting these things at the year

1233, num. 62, who by other letters solicited queen Blanche

and the royal counsellors, that

they should lead the pious King to restore what had been snatched away.

These letters seem to have had the wished-for success,

chiefly by the work of the bishops of Paris and of Senlis,

to whom the Pontiff had delegated the reconciling

of the concord. The most illustrious Angel

Manrique, tom. 3 of the Cistercian Annals at

the year 1233, chap. 3, recites two letters,

the one addressed to the bishop of Tournai and to the abbot of Pontigny,

the other to the abbot of Savigny and to the prior

of the Preaching friars of Paris,

in which Gregory enjoins that they should induce the King

to restore the goods to the archbishop, If

perchance they, the bishops of Paris and of Senlis,

should neglect to execute the Apostolic mandate within the term fixed for them.

He gave these letters

the Pontiff on the X Kalends of November of the year 1233:

and thence the praised Manrique judges that the matter is to be

ascribed to his Cistercians. But I think it more probable

that three days after these letters were written by the Pontiff,

or on the XXV of October, on the feast of the holy martyrs

Crispin and Crispinian, of the year 1233, the concord

was entered upon, by which the King took care that the goods be restored

to the archbishop, and the archbishop

took away the interdict. As for the rest, whatever in this controversy

was transacted on the King's part is to be ascribed not to him but

to his counsellors and to the queen, since

Louis had not yet by reason of age obtained the free administration

of the kingdom.

* that is, a wood

* Vau-de-Reuil

* that is, he detained

* that is, without his being forewarned

* Gournay

* that is, to be occupied

* Montivilliers

* that is, he made void

§ XXII. The controversy with the Bishop of Beauvais concerning the civil jurisdiction of that city.

The controversy of Louis with the bishop of Beauvais Not yet was the discord with the archbishop

of Rouen ended, when another with

the bishop of Beauvais received Louis, neither less

than the preceding, nor less briskly agitated. Into this

the most pious King, and surpassing cultivator of ecclesiastical

men, was led by a keen zeal for avenging

crimes. The matter an author of that time

and place, Vincent of Beauvais, narrates summarily and briefly

in the Speculum historiale, book 30, chap.

137, in these words: In the year of the Lord MCCXXXIII

there was made a dissension among the burgesses of Beauvais,

the lesser rising against the greater. Whence

several of the greater were slain. But very many

of the lesser were taken, and through divers places of the kingdom

consigned to prison, but at the last were ransomed

for a great sum of money. For Milo,

bishop of the same city, was held suspect as though he favoured the lesser

in this deed. But King Louis

as a superior judge applied an avenging hand,

and for this the bishopric was for several

years under interdict. But the aforesaid bishop Milo,

setting out for Rome, died on the journey.

And his successor Geoffrey too, pressing the same cause

against the King, passed few and evil days,

that is, days full of affliction, in the bishopric; whom

succeeding, Robert composed peace with the King,

and thus absolved the diocese from the interdict.

These things are to be set forth a little more at large: but a few things

first concerning the time when the controversy was begun.

[251] had its beginning in the year 1233, The most illustrious Spondanus, in his Continuation

of the Annals of Baronius at the year 1231, num. 8,

writes that in that same year the first council on this matter was celebrated

at Saint-Quentin: whom, together

with Hémeré, who writes the same in Augusta Viromanduorum

illustrata, page 220, our Gabriel

Cossart refutes, tom. XI of the Councils,

col. 445, in the following words: But that

both Spondanus and Hémeré should assign this council to the year

MCCXXXI seems little probable:

since in the instrument of the inquisition made on this matter

in the year MCCXXXV, published by Louvet in the History

of Beauvais, all the witnesses say that the sedition*

of Beauvais, which gave occasion to these councils,

happened in the year MCCXXXII. How can these

things be reconciled? By no means certainly, unless we say

that some followed the Roman reckoning of the year, others

the Gallican: for in the Gauls (where the beginning of years

was drawn from the feast of the Incarnation, or of Easter)

the year MCCXXXI was still running at the time

of this council, which must have been celebrated

a little after the King entered Beauvais,

that he might demand penalties from the seditious: which

we learn from the inquisition, of which I made mention before, was done on the day before

the Purification of the B. Virgin. Thus

Cossart rightly indeed disapproves the year 1231,

but does not rightly assign the year of the sedition of Beauvais

and of the first council on that matter. For besides

Nangis in his Chronicle at the year 1233, and Vincent

of Beauvais already cited, Alberic also in his

Chronicle, page 543, marks the year 1233; by whose

opinion it altogether seems we must stand,

both because the two latter flourished at this time,

and because their sayings agree with

the instrument cited by Cossart: for indeed since the sedition

happened before the Easter of the year 1233, there was still

running in France the year 1232, which the French

witnesses designate in the said inquisition. This

reckoning of time will be confirmed from the letter of the archbishop

of Reims, to be recited after a few things.

[252] but not in the year 1231: Another thing, says Cossart, it occurs to wonder at,

that in that inquisition there is no mention of this council

of Saint-Quentin, in which nevertheless an accurate

and most minute narration of all things is made by the witnesses:

but the beginning is at once drawn from that of Noyon.

Hence that first council in this cause would be held suspect by me,

were it not fortified by the credit of the Sirmondian

sheets excerpted from the archive of Reims. But, whatever be the case with those sheets,

that the council which in this cause is said to have first been

gathered at Saint-Quentin is utterly fictitious,

the letters presently to be recited prove: for in them

not only is that council omitted, but it is sufficiently

shown that the bishop of Beauvais first set forth his complaints

against the King in the council of Noyon.

That therefore a council was celebrated at Saint-Quentin

in the year 1231, as Marlot also signifies in the Metropolis

of Reims, tom. 2, page 515, I do not gainsay:

but that this controversy was treated in it, that alone I deny. Now let us hear on what

occasion this contention arose.

[253] because the King punishes the seditious of Beauvais in his own name, Marlot just now praised sets it forth thus:

Meanwhile, the King having set out for Beauvais, that he might take

penalties of certain seditious men who, a tumult arising, had

out of envy slain a citizen of Creil ,

because he had been appointed mayor of the city by the King,

with twenty jurors who were to be

his help, Milo of Nanteuil bishop of Beauvais

as a suppliant asked of him that the penalty be exacted by his own

officers, that the episcopal right might remain unhurt

and unimpaired. The King, using his supreme

power, could not be bent by prayers. But,

because the bishop had failed in his part in detaining

the authors of the sedition, he ordered that this be done in his own name,

and did other things concerning which we shall presently hear

the bishop complaining. For what after these things

followed in this year 1233 is narrated in a letter

of Henry archbishop of Reims written in the same year

on the Sunday before the Lord's Nativity, which

Martène published, tom. 1 of the Anecdota, from col.

975, and which I shall for the greater part weave into this place,

yet made clear by certain observations,

because, being written by a party contrary to Louis,

it is apt to generate a sinister suspicion concerning his deed.

Thus therefore it has, after a brief preface:

[254] In the past … first week of Lent

there was set forth to us, the bishop accuses the King in the council; and to the whole provincial council

gathered at Noyon , on the part*

of the bishop and church of Beauvais, a grave complaint

against the lord King, namely

that, whereas the bishop of Beauvais and his

predecessors in the city of Beauvais , and over*

each and all the men of the city,

have all jurisdiction, as appears from

the charter of Louis of good memory, formerly king*

of the Franks, and he himself and his predecessors had used it publicly and

manifestly, by themselves and

by their bailiffs, hitherto peacefully and quietly; the lord

King about the feast of the Purification of the blessed

Virgin lately past, on occasion of a certain

misdeed perpetrated there by certain men of the city,

coming to the city of Beauvais with many communes,

although the same bishop was ready to cause the same misdeed to be punished by

his bailiffs according to the quality of the crime;

after many supplications and admonitions made to the same

lord King by the bishop himself, that the same

King should not despoil the bishop and his church of the justice and jurisdiction

more fully pertaining to him, and which

he had hitherto peacefully possessed; caused fifteen hundred

and more men of the city to be taken, and

banished others, caused houses to be pulled down, confiscated the chattels **

of the bishop's men , despoiling the same bishop*

of jurisdiction and justice; and there,

remaining for five days, he asked that his expenses of five

days, up to eight hundred Parisian pounds,

be paid by the same bishop. And although

the bishop asked for a short day, as in a matter

grave and utterly unheard of, that he might treat concerning this with his

chapter, yet the same lord King,

refusing to do this, despoiled the same bishop of the city,

of the revenues and proceeds belonging to that church,

a few movables excepted:

wherefore the same bishop asked for himself

and his church, from us and the whole council, that

we would take care to apply counsel concerning these things.

[255] These complaints of the bishop against the King,

exaggerated, but the King asserts that this controversy is to be treated in his court: as happens in like cases, in a sharp style, ought not

so to occupy the reader's mind that he does not attend

equally to the reasons which impelled the King

to proceed with so great severity, and to remit nothing

of his right. For neither did he judge that he had usurped the bishop's

rights—without doubt in good

faith, and perhaps with reason no less good. Hear St.

Louis speaking of his cause in a letter

to the dean and chapter of the church of Laon,

in Marlot's Metropolis of Reims, tom. 2,

page 517: That the bishop, he says, of Beauvais

holds in barony, and in fief of liege homage of

us, what he has at Beauvais, and

that he is thereby a peer of France, we believe is not

hidden from you, and that very few are ignorant of it: as concerns

that Beauvais deed, indeed, where a diabolical rage

so horribly boiled up into a slaughter of men, and

would have boiled up more horribly, and to the damage of the town, and

more detestably and immeasurably to that of persons, had we not,

the Lord providing, applied a royal remedy—

in what manner it was proceeded, and how concerning

that deed, of which if the bishop himself be inculpated,

God knows, we bore ourselves toward him, and

how at the beginning, and afterwards most frequently in

our court, we offered him law, as

we ought, and by those by whom we ought, to be done without all

subterfuge, we would wish all and

each of you to know the whole in order, point by point.

Hence we gather three things: first, that the King, as supreme

Lord, restrained and punished the seditious at Beauvais,

because, as he certainly contended, the bishop

had omitted to do this. Secondly, he seems

to have treated the bishop so severely in exacting

expenses because he was himself suspect in the deed, and therefore

did not deserve favour. Thirdly, and chiefly,

that the King did not decline to answer for his deed

before the judges of his court, but declined to render

an account of his deed before the bishops, because

it was a question of the temporal jurisdiction of the city of Beauvais,

concerning which it was not for the bishops to judge.

These things being observed, let us return to the letter of the archbishop

of Reims, from which we shall learn what in

the council of Noyon was decreed on this matter:

[256] bishops are sent to admonish the King: Whence, he says, we, a diligent conference being held,

although the deed was notorious, yet three

of our bishops, namely the bishops of Soissons, of Laon,

and of Châlons, by the authority of the council,

were sent to the lord King and to the city of Beauvais,

that they might both announce to the King himself that they were coming

to the city of Beauvais, to inquire

out of abundance concerning the justice, and the use, and the spoliation

of the bishop of Beauvais, a certain day being set forth, and that there

they might inquire diligently concerning all things

they were sent. Who, having called those who were on the King's part

in the city, and the citizens then

administering in the commune, faithfully fulfilling

the mandate laid upon them, brought back the inquisition to us and to the council

gathered at Laon about the Sunday on which*

is sung Lætare Jerusalem,

under their own seals. We have here

the second council on this matter, three weeks

after the first, gathered at Laon. But what

was done there the letter presently subjoins thus:

[257] admonitions are repeated in vain: the bishops Whence, attending to the evidence of the matter, and nonetheless

considering the report of the bishops,

we saw that the lord King had, in all the aforesaid,

despoiled the bishop and the church of Beauvais

against justice: on account of which three bishops

were sent to admonish the lord King

on the part of the council, that he would deign to restore the bishop and

the church: which he, being admonished,

refused to do. Namely, because he had never subjected himself

to the judgment of bishops, nor did he acknowledge them competent judges

in this controversy.

But let the author of the letter go on: But when

afterwards it had been several times entreated of the same lord King by us

ourselves that he would have mercy on the said church,

we admonished him by the authority of the council,

and caused him to be admonished again and again,

that he would restore the above-said bishop and church:

which when he was unwilling to do, at length

in the council afterwards gathered at the city of Senlis (behold the third council) between*

me the archbishop and the co-suffragans of the church of Reims,

it was agreed and firmly

promised by each of the bishops that if the lord

King should not have restored the same bishop and church

before the vintages lately past, from that time

the province should be interdicted. And thereupon, as we were

there, we approached the lord King, and all

admonished him that he would deign to restore the same bishop and

church: and when he would hear neither admonitions

nor any supplications:

[258] At length in the council (the fourth in this cause)

gathered at Saint-Quentin ,* interdict the whole province from the sacred rites:

those present—of Soissons, of Châlons, of Noyon,

of Tournai, of Arras, of Beauvais,

of Thérouanne (and three others, namely of Amiens,

of Senlis, and of Cambrai, being excused by letter,

and that of Laon being absent, who

had gone to the Roman court to procure his own business)

—all and each firmly promised

that unless the lord King should amend himself toward the church

of Beauvais after the octave of All Saints,

an interdict should be laid in the province of Reims;

giving to me the archbishop power,

by the authority of the whole council, of dictating the form

of the interdict, and that, according to the form dictated by me,

they at my mandate should lay the interdict in their dioceses

and cause it to be observed, as

I should lay the interdict in my diocese.

And when in the meantime several days had been

accepted by the lord King and the same bishop for treating of

peace, at length at Beaumont on*

the morrow of St. Martin in winter there were present

I, and the bishops of Soissons, of Châlons, of Senlis,

and of Cambrai, where, a conference

being held on peace on both sides, at length it could

not come forth. Whence, a conference being held with the said brethren

who were there, because the King had not amended himself

toward the bishop and church of Beauvais,

out of the power which I had by the authority of the council,

laying an interdict in my diocese,

by the aforesaid authority I commanded each of the suffragans

of the church of Reims that they should lay an interdict. The form

of the interdict the curious reader will find there; I,

that being omitted, go on with the letter:

[259] All of whom, laying the interdict, except

him of Noyon, but some resist the interdict, who, led by his own will,

coming against his promise, would not obey the mandate

made to him, laid that interdict

at my mandate—granted me by them by the authority of the council—

by their own authority, kept it,

and enjoined it to be observed in their dioceses.

But because the chapters of the cathedral

churches of the province of Reims had appealed to the Apostolic See

against the interdict, certain causes being expressed,

I caused a council to be convoked

at Saint-Quentin on the Sunday before

the Lord's Nativity; (which was the fifth in this cause,

and from it these letters were written) and there, when I hoped

to treat concerning the punishment of the chapters and of the bishop of Noyon,

certain of our co-bishops,

although they had laid and kept the interdict,

and had enjoined it to be observed by their subjects,

began to press for the retraction of the interdict,

although the letters of your Sanctity

directed to them, from which they ought unanimously to have been made stronger

for preserving the right and justice of the church,

had been exhibited and read through in the same place,

pretending certain occasions.

[260] Which the bishop of Beauvais perceiving beforehand,

before us and the council, and it is taken away, the Beauvais bishop resisting. lest the interdict laid for

himself and his church, and observed by them,

should be revoked or relaxed with no satisfaction

or restitution made to himself and his church by the lord King,

appealed to the Apostolic See,

putting himself and his church, and the interdict laid for his

church, and the state in which the business was,

under the protection of the lord Pope.

Yet the bishop of Châlons, after the appeal

of the Beauvais bishop, for himself and for the bishops of Amiens, of Senlis,

and of Arras, at the pleasure of his own will

proposed before us and the co-bishops

that they should relax the aforesaid interdict:

and lest on this account I should proceed against them

in anything, he broke forth into the voice of an appeal,

the appeal before made by the bishop of Beauvais being spurned:

and since certain other bishops adhered to us,

placed amid these straits, we, after many conferences with them,

whether now by a tempering of the interdict, or in another way, could*

bring them to unity, at length,

overcome by their insistence, we relaxed the said interdict.

[261] The King pleads his cause, We heard above that the cathedral chapters

would not admit the interdict. Hence St. Louis

gave thanks to the chapter of Laon by the letter

begun to be recited above, in which after

the words already cited he thus expresses his mind concerning this interdict: Whence we wonder very greatly

that the suffragans of the province of Reims,

we failing in no point of law, have acquiesced in so great a malice of certain men

against us, that, to our prejudice

and the kingdom's, precipitating the sentence

of their interdict, they have thus wrongly proceeded against us and

our right. And would that

with how great zeal, with how great affection some of them

are moved in this deed, you had well attended, each and

all. In which nevertheless you, who are led by a sounder

counsel, have not thought fit to oppress our rights,

but have borne yourselves favourable to the royal right, and

contrary to their wrongs; from which you

and your churches ought deservedly to have obtained the royal favour.

We ask therefore your whole community,

and in the love in which you are held to us and to the kingdom,

we exhort you, that you constantly and manfully

hold that way of preserving the royal rights on which

you have begun to walk … knowing that we for this

deed are preparing provident and discreet messengers

to be sent forthwith on this account to the Roman court,

lest this malice proceed to so great

a detriment of our kingdom as certain men have conceived against

us. Done at Compiègne in the year

of the Lord one thousand two hundred and thirty-three,

in the month of December. Thus far Louis. From

which you may perceive that the King complained no less

that his rights were injured by the bishops, than they

complained that this was done by the King. Louis's reasoning

can be reduced to this. The civil jurisdiction of Beauvais

is a matter of the feudal kingdom: but a suit concerning a feudal

matter ought to be pleaded before the lord of the fief:

since therefore I have not refused to render an account in

the court of the kingdom, the bishops do me wrong who

have arrogated to themselves the judgment of that matter.

[262] which is carried to the Pontiff: certain things are observed Further, as the King says that he will send his messengers

to Rome as soon as possible, so the bishops also

commend their cause to Gregory the Pontiff

in these words: Whence we humbly

entreat your Sanctity that, compassionating with fatherly

affection the desolation of the church of Beauvais, which in our parts is manifest,

you would deign salutarily to provide

with a speedy remedy, knowing for certain

that the oppression of the said church cannot

be succoured save by the supreme remedy of your Sanctity.

Done at Saint-Quentin on the Sunday

before the Lord's Nativity, in the year of the Lord MCCXXXIII.

Thus the archbishop of Reims to the Pontiff.

Further, I have judged that these two letters were to be recited,

because the history of the whole controversy shines out from them

more than from the other instruments hitherto

brought forward. But lest any be led into error

by certain words of the letter which seem to signify more

than they in truth signify, those words

must be a little more accurately set forth. At num. 254

the bishop is said to have had all jurisdiction

in the city of Beauvais. That is true, and was declared

by Louis VII in a charter which

Antoine Loisel published in the Monuments of the country, city,

&c., of Beauvais, page 275: yet

not without some restriction. Receive the king's words:

We therefore sanction, out of the excellence of the royal majesty,

that complaints shall always be brought to the bishop,

and that none be so presumptuous as to intrude himself

upon the right of the bishop and of the church, namely upon the doing

of justice, at Beauvais, so long as

it does not rest with the bishop that it be done. But if

perchance it should rest with him, which be far from us, then the citizens

themselves shall have leave to do it to their fellow-citizens:

because it is better that it then be done by them, than

not be done at all. Since therefore the King is said

to have come to Beauvais in the same place with many communes,

upon whom it lay to punish the guilty at Beauvais, the bishop

not doing it, scarcely a doubt is left

but that they implored the King's help, because they perceived

that they lacked strength for repressing and punishing

the seditious.

[263] Then in the same num. 254 the bishop is said

to have been ready to punish the seditious. concerning the archbishop's letter:

But he only showed himself ready when the King

was coming to perform it in his place: nor did

Louis apply his hand before, an inquisition having been made,

his council had declared that the bishop

had failed in his part, because he had not ordered the guilty

to be apprehended, as Chaize reports, page 170.

Here therefore was the knot of the controversy: whether

the bishop had truly failed in his office, which the King

contended, but he denied. And this controversy

Louis said was to be examined in the secular court,

not in a council of bishops.

Thirdly, where Louis is said to have despoiled the bishop

of jurisdiction. It is not so to be understood as

Raynaldus wrongly understood it at the year

of Christ 1234, num. 12, as if St. Louis had stripped the bishop

of jurisdiction and of the lordship of the city in perpetuity:

but only that he had not left him free jurisdiction

and faculty for punishing in his own name

the authors of the past sedition.

Likewise the words a little lower, in which

the King is said to have despoiled the bishop of the city, I would not have you

take, as Raynaldus took them at the year

1236, num. 37, as if he had cast the bishop out of the city;

for that is openly false: for the bishop

freely came to the city as often as it

pleased him. But understand that the city was

kept by a royal garrison for a time; namely until, certain goods

of the bishop of less moment being sold,

and the revenues of the bishopric received, there was paid

the sum of money which for the gistum, as they call it,

or the expenses of five days, the King had exacted,

and which the bishop refused to pay. Whence the bishops,

in the admonition made to the King, in Hardouin,

tom. 7 of the Councils, col. 200, exact nothing from him

save that he restore to the bishop the justice, or right of punishing

those seditious men, and make good the damages,

recall those sent into exile, restore the captives,

and likewise refund the regalia, or the sum exacted under the name of gistum:

but not that he restore the bishop to the city, or the lordship

of the city to the bishop.

[264] At num. 258 and 259 it is reported how

the interdict was revoked: which narration

I have judged must be supplemented from the inquisition made on this

matter in the year 1235, why the interdict was revoked, is set forth. in the said Hardouin,

col. 198, where the eighth witness narrates these things:

On the following Monday or Tuesday there were

gathered all the bishops and the chapters: and there rose up

M. Simon de Arcy (dean of Amiens)

and proposed on the part of the chapters, as he said,

in full council the aforesaid causes, and

certain others: among which was that the business

of Beauvais, at the time of the mandate made by the archbishop

for laying the interdict, had been carried to

the court: and he said that the archbishop ought no further to intrude

himself into the council.

Hence we have that the suit was at least begun to be examined

in the King's court: but what was there done

I do not find. Yet I suspect that it profited

the royal cause not a little, and that most of the bishops

were thence better instructed about the whole matter:

certainly the same witness after a few things thus continues:

Likewise he says that Simon de Arcy appealed

for the chapters of the cathedral churches of the province

of Reims at Saint-Quentin, where a provincial council

was gathered on the Sunday

next before the feast of the Lord's Nativity: where the suffragans

of the archbishop of Reims, except the archbishop,

the bishop of Soissons, and him of Cambrai,

said that they had ill laid the interdict

in their dioceses: and that they preferred to revoke it

by themselves rather than that it be revoked by a superior. And

the bishop of Châlons for himself and for others said

that they would revoke the interdict: and lest

the archbishop, in his own name or by the authority of the council,

should proceed against them in any matter, he appealed

for himself and for others to the lord Pope.

Thus far concerning those things which in the year 1233 were transacted about this

controversy, which it has seemed good to set forth more at length,

both because hitherto I have not found them

set forth accurately enough, and chiefly because

some have written on this matter certain things little honourable to St. Louis.

Now we shall more briefly describe

in what manner at length the controversy was ended.

[265] The Pontiff assigns an arbiter for composing the suit Each party had sent its messengers to the Pontiff,

as we saw above. It is well therefore

to hear what the Pontiff, after receiving so sharp

letters of the bishops against Louis, and hearing the King's

messengers, judged should be done in this matter, and written back

to the King: that from this too there may in some measure

shine out what the Pontiff judged of this whole controversy

and of the King's deed. The letter

Odorico Raynaldus recites for the greater part at

the year 1234, num. 12, in which, the piety of the kings

of France being praised, he extols Louis, the successor of these no less

in devotion than in kingdom, with wondrous

praises, and at length exhorts him to peace

with the church of Beauvais in these words:

Since tranquillity is desirable for every kingdom,

by which both peoples prosper and the royal honour is kept,

take care to incline the gentleness of thy mind

to making concord with the church of Beauvais,

whereby the mercy which has grown up with thee

may shine out more clearly and more conspicuously.

For we have thought fit to depute as mediator between thee and

the said church our beloved son master P. de*

Colmieu, our chaplain, provost of the church

of St. Omer , a man of noted probity and*

of tried circumspection, whom we know to be a zealot of thine honour,

faithful to thee and devoted, and

of whose prudence and industry the royal highness has

full knowledge;

acquiescing in whose counsels thou mayest clemently open the door

of thy accustomed benevolence to peace, embracing it

and ecclesiastical liberty, from which the throne of the kingdom

receives more firmness, more splendour, as a most Christian

King, so that in thee there may seem prepared

for the churches an antidote of piety, &c.

Given at the Lateran on the VIII Ides of April in the VIII year of our

Pontificate, that is of Christ 1234. Thus Gregory,

that most keen champion otherwise of ecclesiastical liberty,

calls rather upon the King's mercy for the bishop

than complains that the bishop's rights were injured.

[266] But now what the arbiter of peace appointed by the Pontiff,

Peter de Colmieu, which was at last composed. accomplished,

is not clear. But it is established that peace had not yet followed,

and that Milo bishop of Beauvais, having set out for Rome,

died on the journey. His death

Alberic with others writes, in his Chronicle at the year

1234, page 554, in these words: Milo bishop of Beauvais

dies at Camerino, a city of Italy:

after whom Geoffrey is elected bishop. The contention did not have

its end with Milo, being renewed by his successor;

but neither did he accomplish anything, save that he

interdicted his subjects from the use of the sacred rites. But the death

of Geoffrey and his successor Alberic records at the year

1236 in this manner: There died the bishop

of Beauvais, after whom Robert the dean becomes bishop.

Of whom the Gallia Christiana of the Sainte-Marthe

brothers, among the bishops of Beauvais, page

396, among other things has these: Robert de Cressonsart

… at last entered concord and peace with

St. Louis, and revoked the anathema promulgated by his predecessors

upon the diocese, and with the King himself

composed concerning the gista and other rights which

he claimed for himself from all time. He then subjoins the royal

diploma by which Louis composed with the bishop

concerning the right of gistum. As for the rest, from the letters of Gregory,

in Luke Wadding after tom. 1 of the Annals

of the Minors, in the Regesto of the Pontiffs from page 32, I conjecture

that the concord grew together in the year 1237. For the interdict

which, as he says in a letter to the King,

had been laid again too hastily and abruptly,

the Pontiff suspended for eight months for the end

of entering into peace and concord, says Wadding out of a letter

to the bishop of Beauvais and his chapter:

we can therefore deservedly suspect that

within those eight months the concord was established. And so,

since the said letters of the Pontiff were written

in the month of September of the year 1236, the peace seems to be referred

to the following year, unless toward the end

of the year 1236 it had already been sanctioned, which is less

probable. The discord therefore which had long flourished while Louis

was set under wardship was, he being admitted

to the reins of the kingdom, shortly extinguished: nor shall we afterwards see

suits with the bishops so long-lasting.

* Creil

* Noyon

* Beauvais

* VII

* that is, he had relegated into exile

* that is, movable goods

* that is, of vassals

* Laon

* Senlis

* Saint-Quentin

* Beaumont-sur-Oise

perhaps cum nec*

* Peter

* Saint-Omer

§ XXIII. The rest of the year 1233: in the year 1234, certain princes

having died, the concord between the count of Champagne and the queen

of Cyprus made by the King's mediation: certain other things pertaining to the year 1234.

How much St. Louis wished the rights of churches unhurt

and unimpaired, St. Louis restores the rights of the church of Brioude: the letters of Archambaud

lord of Bourbon, and the King's procurator in Auvergne,

given in this very year 1233 in the month of June, testify,

and published after tom. 2 of the Gallia Christiana most lately reprinted, among the instruments from col. 137:

for indeed from these letters we learn that a certain

serviens, as they then called them, had been appointed

by the aforesaid royal procurator in the town of Brioude *

in the time of Louis VIII, which the men of Brioude

complained was contrary to the privileges of their church.

The matter being discussed, the complaints of the men of Brioude were found

to be true, and Louis VIII ordered the serviens to be removed.

But, his death intervening,

the royal procurator put off doing it.

Recourse therefore is had to St. Louis. But the King

himself, says the procurator, moved by royal kindness,

and by the debt both of justice and of equity willing that his father's mandate

be held ratified and firm, and that the church

of Brioude with its possessions be preserved in that

liberty in which it had remained in times

past, enjoined me by living voice, and also

directed his letters patent upon this, that according

to the aforesaid inquisition I should remove the aforesaid serviens

from the town of Brioude, and should preserve the church

of Brioude with its possessions in the aforesaid

liberty … Done in the year MCCXXXIII,

in the month of June. Thus he who yielded neither to threats

nor to terrors, where he judged that unjust things and things contrary

to his right were being sought, gave ready hands

to justice when the equity of the matter was found out.

[268] he grieves at the lost sacred nail, Likewise the piety with which he pursued sacred

relics the holy King in this year, as often at other times, notably declared

in the loss and finding of

the sacred nail which the church of St. Denis in France

keeps as a most precious treasure. The thing happened

in the year 1233, from the Chronicle of Alberic at the same

year, page 543, although Nangis referred it after the French manner

to the year 1232, because it was accomplished before

Easter. Further, the praised Nangis

in du Chesne, page 330, narrates the deed in this manner:

In the following year the most holy nail of the Lord,

one of those by which the Lord's body is said to have been

fixed to the cross, which from the time of Charles

the Bald, king of France and Roman emperor,

remained by his gift in the same church of St. Denis,

fell out of its vessel while it was given

to the people to kiss; and thus it was lost

among the multitude of those kissing it, on the third Kalends

of March; but on the first day of the following April, many

miracles disclosing it, being found, it was brought to the aforesaid

church with joy and great exultation on the

holy day of Good Friday. Of the grief and compassion at the loss of this most holy nail,

which befell King

Louis and his mother the queen, and many,

I think it must not be omitted. But hearing,

the King and the queen his mother, that so most precious a treasure

had been lost in their kingdom, they grieved

vehemently, saying that nothing at all could have been

announced to them whereby they could or ought

to be more grievously troubled. But the most illustrious and pious young

King Louis is said at length to have exclaimed, for the greatness of his grief,

that he would rather that the best

city of his kingdom had utterly perished by a gaping of the earth.

[269] and rejoices at it being found, and venerates it: Who straightway sends eloquent and most learned men

from his own side, who should lighten with good and consoling words

the grief and weeping

of the abbot and convent of St. Denis, whom he had heard

to be inconsolably saddened.

He himself also wished to come in his own

person, but the discreet consideration of his men

did not permit it. Who forthwith orders it to be cried

by the voice of a herald through the streets of the city of Paris

that if anyone should find the Lord's nail, he should quickly restore it,

and, being secure of his life, should receive

a hundred pounds from the royal treasury. To these things the author subjoins certain matters concerning

the grief of the whole people, which do not pertain to Louis.

This whole history from an ancient MS.

Michel Félibien narrates more fully in the History of the abbey

of St. Denis from page 228 to 232,

where, after he had set forth how the sacred nail was brought back

to the temple of St. Denis, he subjoins concerning St.

Louis that after some days he came

to the abbey of St. Denis, that he might testify his joy

at the sacred nail being found, and might venerate it

with his illustrious company. These things suffice

for the surpassing observance of the Saint toward sacred Relics

to be declared: but more circumstances of the history

the curious reader will find in the author

assigned.

[270] Alberic in this year in his Chronicle, page 543,

writes these things concerning St. Louis: he obtains the castle of Mauléon. The land of Mauléon

in the same year, Savaric being dead, he obtained. This

Savaric had been zealous for the party of the king of England, as

we saw at num. 93. But concerning Mauléon, or Malus

Leo, Adrien de Valois writes these things in the Notitia

Galliarum, page 314: There is in Poitou and in the diocese

of Maillezais the castle Malus Leo, called by some

by a contracted name Malleo, commonly

Mauleon, famous for an ancient monastery of monks

following the rule of St. Augustine, who have

their own abbot. There is another castle also Malus

Leo or Malleo in the valley of Soule among the Novempopulani,

likewise named Mauleon:

whose lord was he who was also surnamed

from that castle, Savaric de Mauléon, whom Peter

the monk records in chapter LVI of the book on the Albigensian war,

and in chapter LXVI asserts to have been an enemy

of the Church, seneschal of the king of England.

Thus he, by whose opinion St. Louis obtained this latter castle

in this year. But this

cannot be proved to me, since Savaric de Malus-Leo,

of whom frequent mention is made in various little works of ancient

authors in Martène,

tom. 5 of the Amplissima Collectio, is in the same place, col. 879,

and again col. 882, called a Poitevin, and I find him

both seneschal of Poitou and everywhere mentioned among the Poitevins.

Whence I judge that Alberic must be understood of the former castle,

for this reason also, that the second is situated in the further

parts of Gascony, which the English at this time

held. In this year likewise Louis received

the homage of Walter of Avesnes count of Blois

for a twin fief, as is had in Martène,

tom. 1 of the Anecdota, col. 974. Hence let us pass to the following

year.

[271] There still hung undecided the controversy concerning

the county of Champagne between count Theobald

and his cousin the queen of Cyprus, The count of Champagne enters peace with the queen of Cyprus whose beginnings

we set forth at num. 240. Since a defect of birth

was objected to the queen, the matter had been carried to the Pontiff.

But the Pontiff, as Raynaldus reports at

the year 1233, num. 62, appointed that first

the question concerning her birth should be discussed before the tribunal of the Church,

and ordered her at least by the work of proctors

to present herself at Rome. But the queen

of Cyprus does not seem to have greatly desired an examination of this kind,

because she did not hope it would profit her,

so that she would easily have desisted, had not the hatreds

of certain princes against Theobald stood in the way,

which being taken out of the midst, the matter in this year

1234 was composed. Receive what Alberic writes on this matter

in his Chronicle at the said year, page

550, but sprinkled with faults by the vice of the copyists:

Since there was hitherto, he says, a rivalry and envy

and the greatest discord of the barons of France against

the count of Champagne, it happened in this winter that three

died, namely the archbishop of Lyons,

Philip count of Boulogne the King's uncle,

(who) at St. Denis was joined to his forefathers,

and count Robert (of Dreux)

brother of the archbishop of Reims … (and

of Peter count of Brittany), who was buried on the Sunday ESTO

MIHI. Who, being taken out of the midst , obtained*

to make peace with the queen of Cyprus, who, at the instigation of these men,

and with their bringing counsel together with help,

was moving a calumny against her cousin

the count of Champagne.

[272] who, a price mediating, cedes her right; But on what conditions the concord was

established, and the queen of Cyprus ceded any right whatever over the county

of Champagne, Theobald or his posterity living,

the praised Alberic presently reports in these words: Whence she had forty thousand pounds

at once for debts and expenses, and two

thousand in each year. With these Joinville agrees exactly

at num. 33, adding that those two thousand,

to be paid yearly, were assigned in lands and rents;

the remaining forty thousand paid by the King

for the count, fiefs being bought with this money,

which will presently be recited from an authentic instrument.

Du Cange in his observations on Joinville,

page 46, recites the letters of St. Louis in which

the conditions of the peace are contained, which from him

I transfer hither: To her most excellent and most dear lord

Louis, by the grace of God King of the Franks,

A. , by the same grace Q. of Cyprus, greeting and

her sincere love. We entreat your excellence,

and require you, that to the letters written below

you cause your seal to be appended. Louis

by the grace of God King of the Franks: Let all know

who shall inspect the present page, that

the noble lady Elipdis queen of Cyprus, having been placed*

in our presence, quitclaimed to our most dear kinsman

and faithful Theobald count palatine of Champagne

and Brie all the right which she had,

or said she had, in the counties of Champagne

and Brie, and in their appurtenances, and

divested herself of that same right into our hand.*

And we at the petition of the said queen invested

with that same right our beloved and faithful Archambaud

of Bourbon in the name of the said count,

saving this, that if the said count should die without

an heir descending from him in the matrimonial line,

the above-said things should not stand in the way of the said queen, because she could

claim the said counties as she could before,

nor on account of the things written above should her right be diminished

or increased. We have also promised that when

the assizes of two thousand pounds' worth of land shall be*

made to the said queen, we shall cause all things, as they are contained

in the charter delivered to the said queen, to be written

for the said count, and sealed, and delivered to the said

count; and, all these above-said things being sealed

and delivered to the said count, the present letters

shall be restored to us. Done in the year of grace MCCXXXVI,

in the month of September. Thus Louis reconciled a concord

most useful to his kingdom.

[273] hence Louis buys certain fiefs of the count: But now that the fiefs which the count of Champagne

delivered to Louis on account of the forty

thousand pounds paid were not given only in pledge,

as Alberic at the year 1236, page

556, wrote out of the opinion of certain men at that time,

but were in truth sold, as Joinville has

at num. 34, the letters of Theobald himself prove,

which du Cange subjoined to the preceding, drawn up in these

words: I, Theobald count palatine of Champagne and

Brie, make known, &c., that I

have sold to my most dear lord Louis, illustrious King of the Franks,

for XL thousand pounds of Tours,

of which the same lord King has fully

satisfied me, my fiefs of the county of Chartres with*

its appurtenances, of the county of Blois with its appurtenances,*

of the county of Sancerre with its appurtenances,*

and of the viscounty of Châteaudun

* with its appurtenances, and all the rights which I had in

the aforesaid, both in fiefs and in domains

by reason of the aforesaid fiefs, to the same

lord King and his heirs to be had in perpetuity

and held, there being retained for me that which I have

in the county of the Perche in fiefs and domains,

which moves from the fief of Chartres, and which the count

of Chartres ought to hold of the lord King.

In testimony whereof I have strengthened the present letters with the protection of my

seal. Done in the year of the Lord's Incarnation

MCCXXXIV, in the month of September. This sale

the queen of Cyprus also held ratified, by letters recited in

du Cange at the place assigned.

[274] Besides the peace already mentioned, the movement of the remaining

princes against the count of Champagne, after

the death of Philip count of Boulogne, the remaining adversaries also reconciled to the count of Champagne. whom with a vain

hope of the kingdom they had not ceased to allure, plainly fell away.

William of Puylaurens testifies this in

his Chronicle, chap. 39, in these words: The movement also of the Roberts,

consenting to Philip the count aspiring

to the kingdom, is extinguished by the natural death of the same

Philip. Certainly Hugh duke of Burgundy, among the more powerful

adversaries of the count of Champagne, bound himself by oath

to make good the damages inflicted on the count,

being compelled thereto by the King, to whom also he again swears

faith, and assigns sureties for the sum of money on which

it had been agreed. Which things, more fully reported, the reader will find

in the Charter of the aforesaid count in Martène,

tom. 1 of the Amplissima Collectio, from col.

1262. Likewise after the death of Philip count of Boulogne,

when Matilda the wife of the deceased had a controversy concerning the inheritance

with her daughter Joanna and with the King

himself, it was amicably composed by Louis,

as we have from the letters of the agreement of countess

Matilda in the said Martène from

col. [ ]; but they are faultily noted as written in the year

1230, since from them it is clear that they were drawn up

after the death of count Philip.

[275] Against the wrongs of the Jews, who were burdensome to Christians in France

by usuries and frauds, He appoints laws against the Jews, and takes care of certain other matters: some statutes had already been made both by St. Louis

and by the preceding kings, by which

decreed against the same in this year by St. Louis

Martène brings forward, tom. 1 of the Anecdota,

col. 984: by which a third part of the debts is remitted

to Christians; it is provided that Christians be not taken

for the debts of Jews, nor for the same be compelled to sell

their inheritances; that it be not lawful for Jews to take

pledges from Christians. Lastly it is severely forbidden

to the royal ministers that they take gifts for

procuring the execution of these things: It is enjoined

also to the bailiffs that they presume to take nothing

for faithfully fulfilling the above-said things, as

they hold the lord King dear, and as they love

their own bodies, their lands, and all their movables. Louis in this year likewise confirmed

the foundation of the monastery of B. Mary of Beauvoir *, which

Robert de Courtenay * and his wife Matilda founded for nuns

of the Cistercian Order near

Meung *: as the most recent editors

of the Gallia Christiana have, tom. 2, col. 218. Gregory

the Pontiff had written in the past year to St. Louis

concerning the wrongs inflicted on the abbot and monks of St. Valery

*, and the various sacrileges there perpetrated by the citizens,

exhorting the King that he would take care that those sacrileges

be expiated by due punishment. The letter

see in the praised Martène from col. 978:

where also at col. 982 you will find the sentence passed

by Geoffrey bishop of Beauvais and Theobald

archdeacon of Amiens against the Mayor, the aldermen,

and the jurors of the commune of St. Valery, for the wrongs

inflicted on the monks and the profanations by them

perpetrated, so that the Pontiff's will was satisfied.

[276] at his asking, the marquisate of Provence restored to the count of Toulouse: Odorico Raynaldus at this year

1234, num. 15, brings forward a letter of St. Louis to

Gregory IX the Pontiff (another he had exhibited

at num. 61 of the year 1233), by which the holy King again asks

the Pontiff that he would deign to restore to Raymond count of Toulouse

the dominion of the former count

of Toulouse situated beyond the Rhone, which

by the treaty of Paris Raymond had abdicated in perpetuity.

But in this letter he alleges chiefly

two reasons for moving the Pontiff. The first

was that Raymond's only daughter, heir of her father's dominion,

was to be joined in marriage with Alphonse the King's

brother. The other he expresses in these words:

Considering also that, as we have learned from the testimony

of the prelates of those parts, in

searching out heretics, and in punishing those searched out to the honour

of God and of the holy Church, he has borne himself

vigilantly, faithfully, and devoutly. From which reason we learn

that Raymond, who from time to time had been admonished both by the Pontiff

and by the King to show himself more diligent

in extirpating heresy, showed himself

at this time such in that matter as to satisfy the King.

Further, Louis had already for some years asked

of Gregory the same favour for Raymond which

he demands by this letter. But the Pontiff had answered

in the year 1232 that he would not restore that dominion

to Raymond, lest heresy should again

grow strong in those parts, which he teaches must be feared

for many reasons, as from the letters themselves

the reader will understand in d'Achery, tom. 3

of the Spicilegium, from page 604. Receive a few words

of the Pontiff: But since the conversion of that land is

still so recent and tender that from a sudden change

it might easily incur a relapse; and the languors of a relapse

are wont sometimes to be graver than the former;

it must be guarded against with accurate solicitude

lest the disease which so grievously stained the Church

of Christ should be able to flow back to her corruption.

Thus the Pontiff to St. Louis's earlier prayers.

But the later ones seem not to have lacked effect,

since in the following year Raymond swore clientage

to Frederick the emperor for the March

of Provence, by which name the said dominion, situated

in the empire, was at that time understood. This

Godfrey the Monk writes in his Annals at the year

1235.

[277] the foundation of the convent of the Minors at Paris. Wadding, tom. 1 of the Annals of the Minors

at the year 1234, num. 16, writes the following in this year

to our purpose: Louis the holy

King of the French, out of his inmost affection toward the Franciscans …

in this year purchased at great cost from the abbot and monks

of St. Germain, to whom the property belonged,

the ground and place which

they inhabited from their entry into the city …

The letters of the sale and purchase, fortified with the royal seal,

are kept with the same monks, given

in this year, in the month of April. And that this whole business of sale,

purchase, and grant

might stand the more firmly, the judgment of Gregory the Pontiff

intervened. To these things the same author subjoins the various

enlargements of the said monastery, and the interrupted work of the temple,

concerning which we shall treat in its place. Concerning this

foundation likewise the reader may consult Gerard

du Bois in the History of the church of Paris,

tom. 2, page 330.

* Brioude

perhaps, Quibus de medio factis*

* Alice

* queen

* everywhere Alice

* that is, he stripped himself

* that is, an assignment of rents

* Chartres

* Blois

* Sancerre

* Châteaudun

* Beauvoir

* Courtenay

* Mehun

* Saint-Valery

§ XXIV. The pious exercises of the Saint: his marriage: discords laid to rest.

St. Louis was at this time, according

to our chronology, twenty years of age: The Saint abstains altogether from games, But having become

twenty years old, says the anonymous monk of St.

Denis in du Chesne, page 396, all sports being dismissed,

playing neither with dogs nor with birds, precious apparel

being dismissed, he used plain things. The curious reader will ask

with what then the holy King occupied himself, when

rest was granted him from the graver affairs of the kingdom.

I answer that from the second Life it is manifest

that he was occupied for a great part of the day

and night with various prayers and with reciting the canonical hours:

but since these things are abundantly described there, it is not pleasing

to repeat them in this place. Receive therefore from the said

anonymous author what the holy King seems to have substituted

for honest relaxations of the mind: Because indeed,

he says, according to the saying of a certain wise man,

nothing so separates the mind of a wise man from the love of the world,

nothing so strengthens the soul against temptations,

nothing so rouses and helps a man to

a good work, as the study of sacred letters;

this holy King Louis, attending to what

we have premised above—that a King, according to the Lord's precept, should read

all his days in the book of the Law—assiduously

applied himself to sacred reading; for he had

a glossed Bible, and the originals of the blessed Augustine

and of other Saints, and other sacred books,

in which he read and many times

caused to be read before him in that middle time between dinner and

the midday sleep, and many times through the sleeping-time

until vespers, unless he were occupied with graver matters.

(But Louis was wont to take this short sleep

after the None prayers had been recited after dinner, because,

being accustomed to rise to Matins by night, he felt

it necessary for him.)

[279] At the aforesaid times also he caused certain religious

to be called to him, and studiously gives himself to pious exercises. or other honest

men, with whom he spoke concerning God, concerning the Saints

and their acts, and sometimes concerning the histories

of sacred Scripture, and concerning the lives of the Fathers: he willingly had

with him also at table prelates, or other

clerics, with whom he spoke of God at

table in place of the reading which is had in the convents

of religious: also every day, Compline being said

by the chaplains in the chapel, he returned to his chamber

, and then one wax candle of great

size was lighted, and while it lasted, he read

in the Bible or in another sacred book: for indeed

toward God's holy word, as being that which was

of God, he was of such devotion, of such reverence,

that many times in the chapels of the religious he heard a sermon,

and in the schools of certain men a lecture on sacred Scripture,

humbly sitting below, others sitting

on benches and in higher places.

These things he concerning the pious exercises of St. Louis,

which in the Acts to be published below are confirmed

in various places. Nay, far more things, and no less illustrious,

can be added to these: both those which piously feed

the mind, such as are the above-said; and also

those which at the same time exercise the body, such as are the various

ministries frequently bestowed on Religious, the poor, the sick, and others,

from which the pious humility of the holy King

and his immense charity shine out: but

these things the studious reader will find abundantly narrated in the Acts.

[280] It is well here to examine in what way are to be understood

the things which Geoffrey of Beaulieu writes Whether there was a report about Louis's incontinence?

in the Life, num. 6: Nor must it be passed over, he says,

concerning a certain religious who had heard from false reporters

that this lord King before his marriage

had concubines with whom

he sometimes sinned, his mother being conscious of it or dissembling.

Which when that religious with much

wonder, as though reproving her, had said to the lady queen,

she humbly excused herself and her Son

for this falsehood … This I heard from the mouth of the

lord King himself. These words authors have everywhere so understood,

as if a report about Louis's incontinence

had been spread abroad and had wandered through the royal court.

But if the aforesaid words are to be understood

in this manner, those writers of the Life manifestly contradict themselves,

of whose credit and authority

we cannot doubt. For indeed the author

of the second Life, written with the highest fidelity from the Acts

of the canonization, at num. 135, concerning the chastity and the entire

report of St. Louis in that regard, writes the following:

All was purity in the holy King:

nor ever in the time of his adolescence, nor

in the time of his youth, nor at any time

could those who in the said times were with him,

and long conversed with him, see

or perceive that the blessed King had any familiarity

or suspect conversation with

any woman other than his own: never did they hear it said

of his incontinence, or that his report was injured by a word in this

regard. Thus the author, to whom Geoffrey's writings,

whom he frequently cites, were not unknown.

I judge therefore that Geoffrey means nothing else than

that the credulity of that good Religious was deluded by

the wantonness of certain men, and that he with greater zeal

than prudence narrated seriously to the queen what

he had heard in jest; and therefore that a report of the King's incontinence

was not spread abroad. Thus you may easily reconcile both

writers.

[281] He takes to wife Margaret, These things concerning the character of the holy Youth having been narrated

in a not unpleasant digression, the order of time

demands that we report his nuptials. William

of Nangis in du Chesne, page 331, narrates these things

concerning them: In the year of the Lord MCCXXXIV, of the reign of Louis

King of France the VIII, but of his own age the XIX,

the same King, desiring that someone should come forth of the fruit of his body

who after him might sit on the throne of his kingdom,

not for the cause of lust, but of offspring

to be desired, thought to take a wife. And then he sent

Walter archbishop of Sens, and the lord

John of Nesle his knight, to

the count of Provence, a man strenuous in arms,

simple, upright, and fearing God: charging

him that he should not delay to send to him his young daughter Margaret,

whom the King himself wished to take to wife.

Which being heard, the aforesaid

count rejoiced greatly, and on the faith of the messengers

gladly handed over his daughter, whom from the rudiments of infancy he had instructed according

to the Gospel, and had taught to fear

the Lord. And thus, leave being received

from her parents, the royal messengers brought to Louis the most excellent King

the maiden Margaret, fair of face, but fairer in faith,

fearing the Lord, adorned with good morals,

more bountiful than all the women of her time.

Whom the King, a few days having rolled by, taking to himself as lawful wife at

the city of Sens,

caused to be anointed as lady and queen of the Franks by Walter

archbishop of the city of Sens, and to be solemnly crowned

with the royal diadem. Thus

Nangis, with whom other contemporary authors everywhere agree,

both as to the time of the marriage and as to

the circumstances reported by him: yet a few things

which he passed over must be supplied from elsewhere.

[282] St. Louis was a kinsman of Margaret

in the fourth degree, a dispensation having first been sought from the Pontiff so that there was need of a Pontifical

dispensation for contracting the marriage.

The holy King sought this dispensation,

and Gregory the Pontiff granted it when sought, by letters

given on the IV Nones of January of this year, which

Odorico Raynaldus recites at the year 1234,

num. 16. From these, further, we understand by how pious

For although the surpassing endowments of Margaret, both of body

and of soul, could also have impelled the King,

and without doubt did impel him,

yet he raised his mind higher, and had before his eyes the preservation of the faith

in the parts of Toulouse.

Receive the words of the Pontiff which teach this:

Since therefore it has been treated concerning a marriage to be contracted between

thee and our beloved daughter, a noble lady, … born

of our beloved son the noble man the count of Provence;

because the said noblewoman touches thee in the fourth line of consanguinity,

thou didst not think it fit to proceed to

the consummation of that marriage

before thou shouldst have recourse upon this to the Roman

Church thy mother, humbly entreating us by messengers

that, since nothing works more to the preservation

of that land for which so much blood

has been shed, we would deign to apply a salutary

counsel.

[283] Although therefore nothing else more than necessity

induces a dispenser to a dispensation; and obtained:

yet considering that urgent necessity and

evident utility demand it, since from this the business

of peace and of the faith, for which there has been labour with much sweat

and sweat with much labour, would prosper,

and the aforesaid land, which once, as deserted and

pathless, mourned and languished, thorns and nettles filling it,

and now seems to have breathed again from its straits,

of whose relapse there is fear, may better be able

to be preserved, a diligent deliberation having been had with our

brethren, by their counsel we grant to the royal

serenity by the authority of the present, disposing

that thou mayest be able to contract with the said noblewoman, if thou wilt,

an impediment of this kind notwithstanding.

The land for which so much blood was shed

is no other than the dominion of the count of Toulouse,

and the provinces neighbouring it, in which the heresy

of the Albigenses had raged, of which they were not yet wholly

purged; toward containing which in their duty it could

conduce much if by a close league with

the count of Provence the King of France should be joined. These things

concerning St. Louis's pious intention in his marriage, who ever

burned with a most ardent zeal for preserving and propagating

the faith.

[284] As concerns the other circumstances of the marriage: the time and place of the nuptials, and of the queen's coronation: the time Vincent of Beauvais designates in

the Speculum, book 30, chap. 137, in these words: In the year of the Lord

MCCXXXIV Louis King of France took

a wife, namely Margaret, daughter of the count of Provence,

about the Sunday of the Ascension, who at Sens

was crowned, and came to Paris about the Octave

of the Ascension. That the coronation was accomplished on the twenty-eighth of May

Félibien writes in the History of the abbey

of St. Denis, page 233, which was in that year

the Sunday before the Ascension of the Lord: but the nuptials

Chaize, page 188, has as celebrated on the preceding day,

or the XXVII of May.

That both ceremonies were performed at Sens by Walter archbishop

of Sens, authors everywhere relate. But at the anointing

of the queen there was present Odo Clement abbot

of St. Denis with episcopal ornaments,

as the ancient Chronicle of the same abbey has

in d'Achery, tom. 2 of the Spicilegium,

page 496. But with the aforesaid there do not agree the things which

we read written by the Sainte-Marthe brothers, tom. 3

of the Gallia Christiana, page 586, under John of Montlaur

bishop of Maguelonne: From the episcopal registers, they say,

it is established that he (John

the bishop) performed the sacred rites in the temple of B. Mary

de Tabulis, while the solemnity of the nuptials of St. Louis

with Margaret, daughter of Raymond Berengar

count of Provence, was celebrated on the Kalends of November,

James king of Aragon being present. Someone

might judge that these things are to be understood of a marriage

contracted by a proctor. But not even that

do I think probable, since, besides the consent of the authors,

an ancient coin also teaches that the marriage

was contracted in the city of Sens. Of this coin

one side has the effigy of the King; but the other

thus represents the marriage, in

James de Bie, fol. 24.

[285] [various works of virtue exercised at the nuptials: certain things noted concerning the cross] The splendour befitting the time in which

these things were performed Chaize reports, page 189,

whom the curious reader may consult. The said author

adds from MSS. that certain men at that time

were given knighthood by Louis, and that certain suffering from scrofula

were touched by him after the manner of the kings of France.

Further, to the custom of certain other kings

of touching sick people of this kind Louis's piety added something

which it will not be beside the point here to describe from Nangis: In touching the infirmities

which are commonly called sodellæ , upon

the curing of which the Lord conferred on the kings of France

a singular grace, the pious King willed to observe this manner

beyond the other kings. For whereas

the other kings his predecessors, touching only

the place of the disease, uttered the words appropriated to this

and accustomed—which words indeed

are holy and catholic—and were not wont to make

any sign of the cross: he, beyond

the custom of the others, added this, that in saying

the words over the place of the disease he impressed the seal

of the holy cross, that the ensuing cure might be attributed to the power

of the cross rather than to the royal dignity.

[286] applied in touching those with scrofula. Thus he in du Chesne, page 369: and

the same things Geoffrey has at num. 54. William

de Peyrat in the Antiquities of the chapel of the king

of France, page 815, accuses of error both authors

cited, and proves that Robert and Louis

VI, kings of France, in touching those with scrofula

used the sign of the cross, and therefore that St. Louis

was not the first who used it.

But I should believe that some kings before St. Louis

omitted it, and that by him it was again applied, which

is enough to excuse our authors: for neither

do they say that the sign of the cross had been used by no king ever

before Louis in this ceremony.

But to the preceding Chaize subjoins that so great

was the King's beneficence that for a certain man who

had lost his horse in the dense crowd he took care that the loss

be made good. Nor indeed must it be passed over

that the pious King, an emulator of Tobias, with the queen

his wife applied himself to prayer for three nights,

before he proceeded to the use of marriage, as

the second Life narrates at num. 134. From this so

holy a wedlock the posterity born have hitherto obtained the kingdom

of France, and obtain it to this day, most flourishing in the amplitude

of wealth and of provinces.

[287] That I may briefly touch on some things concerning the kindred

of queen Margaret: Margaret's sisters, dowry, &c.: a suit Raymond Berengar count of Provence

had at that time four daughters,

who were afterwards as many queens.

The eldest by birth was Margaret, Louis's consort;

the second Eleanor, afterwards married to Henry king of England;

the third Sanchia, whom Richard, Henry's

brother, afterwards king of the Romans, joined to himself in wedlock;

the fourth Beatrice, who fell as wife to Charles, Louis's

youngest brother, afterwards obtaining the kingdom of Sicily.

That Raymond Berengar promised twenty thousand pounds

for his daughter's dowry Chaize writes, page 180:

and this sum he reduces to nearly four hundred thousand pounds

of present-day money. But Louis for the cause

of the nuptials granted his wife the city of Le Mans,

and a twin castle in the Perche, as

his letters teach, tom. 1 of the Anecdota

of Martène: but these he afterwards, out of love for Margaret, exchanged

and increased. Further, by these most auspicious

nuptials a twin discord was, if not extinguished,

certainly laid to rest. The one was between the count of Toulouse

and the count of Provence, on account of the defence of the men of Marseille

undertaken by the count of Toulouse, whom the count of Provence

was plotting to subject. See

on this matter Chaize, book 3, num. 14. Each

committed the controversy to the judgment of Louis and

of his mother, from the instruments in the praised

Chaize, page 187: yet this concord

was not firm: for afterwards they returned to wars.

[288] The other controversy was between Louis himself

and James king of Aragon, twin discords laid to rest on occasion of the nuptials. which,

that Raymond Berengar, St. Louis's father-in-law, should study to compose,

Gregory the Pontiff exhorts him.

The Pontiff's letters to the said count of Provence

Raynaldus recites at the year

of Christ 1234, num. 17, from which receive the matter:

Since, as has been reported to us for certain, between

our most dear sons in Christ the illustrious kings of France and

of Aragon, concerning the lordship of the land

of Carcassonne and of other neighbouring lands,

matter of discord has arisen, and from this

greater perils of wars are feared to emerge,

we have thought fit attentively to ask thy nobility

and to admonish it, charging thee by Apostolic writings

that, for the reverence of the Apostolic

See and of us, personally approaching the aforesaid kings,

thou study to bring back their minds to peace,

and, according to the prudence given

thee by the Lord, to lay to rest by an amicable

composition the discord arisen between them. Raynaldus subjoins to the letter:

That the count of Provence bestowed his pains happily

upon extinguishing that controversy, the issue of the matter

teaches, since those movements did not break out into open

war. But that the suit was not altogether extinguished at this

time, we shall see through the course of this commentary;

the war however was hindered,

and the controversy itself after many years

amicably composed, as we shall narrate in its place.

* that is, a bedchamber