[Dana Carleton Munro, The Middle Ages, 395-1272 (New York: The Century Company, 1921), pp. 176-192]
The kingdom of Charles the Bald. By the treaty of Verdun in 843 Charles the Bald received all of the West Frankish kingdom, extending from the North Sea to the river Ebro in the southwest and to the Mediterranean Sea in the southeast. On the west it was bounded by the Atlantic Ocean; on the south it had some protection from the thoBald, Pyrenees; but on the east there was no such natural boundary. 843-881 Not only was there a constant temptation to make conquests from the territory of Lotharingia, from which there were also attacks, but there were invasions from the south by the Saracens, and raids all along the western coast by the Northmen. To add to the difficulties of the ruler, there was no unity in the kingdom. Brittany and Aquitaine became vassal kingdoms, and thus over half of Charles' territories were taken away from his direct control. Even in what was left he had comparatively little power because of the rapid development of feudalism. Charles tried in vain to check his rebellious vassals by sending out missi and requiring all freemen to take an oath of fidelity to him as king. His capitularies show that he had the same exalted ideas of his power as Charles the Great. But the circumstances rendered most of his capitularies null and void and compelled him constantly to treat with his own vassals and make concessions to them. At times it was the invasion, or danger of invasion, by his brother, Lewis the German, with whom his vassals were plotting; at other times it was the incursions of the Northmen who were a constant menace and with whom occasionally the disaffected nobles united. In spite of their disloyalty and lack of obedience, Charles was unable to punish his counts or to deprive them of their offices, which they regarded as theirs by hereditary rights
Capitulary of Siersey. When Charles was preparing for his expedition to Italy in 877, he summoned his nobles to Kiersey and asked from them guarantees of their own loyalty and also against usurpations by his son, whom he was leaving as regent. The nobles acted with great outward respect, but refused to give their advice upon every vital point which the king raised. Finally the king was compelled to act without the advice of his own vassals and promulgated the i famous "capitulary of Kiersey," which he intended as a check upon his son's power. By it he allowed his son to make only temporary appointments of successors to any counts who might die during his absence, reserving the regular appointment for himself. But he recognized clearly the hereditary right of a son to succeed his father as count and, moreover, ordered that all the bishops, abbots, counts, and other tenants in chief should observe the same rule with regard to their vassals. [Before this matter was understood, it was assumed that Charles by this decree introduced the right of hereditary succession in fiefs; instead of initiating the custom, the capitulary expressly recognizes that it was already established].
Carolingians and Robertians. No king for centuries would be able to regain what Charles had lost, either in the territory actually under his control or in the power which he was able to exercise. Little, of course, could be done by Louis "the Stammerer," the son of Charles, who ruled only two years, or by his sons, Louis and Carloman, who divided the kingdom between them, but had to purchase the consent of their vassals by concessions of privileges. Then ensued the disastrous reign of Charles the Fat. After his abdication the nobles set aside the hereditary claims of Charles, the posthumous son of Louis the Stammerer, who was only about nine years old, and chose Eudes, count of Paris, son and heir of Robert the Strong. He had been the hero in the defense of Paris in 886, and now "in beauty, size, physical strength and wisdom outshone all others."
Eudes, 888-898. With Eudes king and his brother Robert holding the county of Paris, Anjou, Touraine, and Blois, there seemed little place left for Charles the Simple. But there were still enemies of the Robertians and partizans of the Carolingians, and among them were the archbishop of Reims, the duke of Aquitaine, the count of Flanders and other important noblemen, both lay and ecclesiastical. When Eudes, although successful at first, proved unable to defend the kingdom against the Northmen, a rebellion broke out. The archbishop of Reims crowned Charles in 893 while Eudes was absent on an expedition in Aquitaine. Both parties looked to Germany for aid. Arnulf, who succeeded Charles the Fat in Germany, had recognized Eudes at the time of his election. but in 894 was won over to aid Charles. A civil war lasted until 897, when Eudes gave a portion of the kingdom to his rival and probably promised him the succession.
Charles the Simple 898-923. At all events, when he died, January 1, 898, Charles was unanimously chosen king. Robert, the brother of Eudes, who had received, in addition to the lands enumerated above, the great abbey of St. Martin of Tours and other benefices, was the most powerful man in France, but he made no objection to the election of Charles. The strife between the Carolingians and the Robertians seemed at an end, but was to continue after a brief intermission to be the chief feature in the history of France until 987.
Cession of Normandy. Their temporary concord probably was due to the dangers from the Northmen, who plundered impartially the lands of the king and of the great duke, burning the latter's abbey of St. Martin in 9o3. Seven years later Rollo laid siege to Chartres. Robert and others rushed to its aid; with the bishop, bearing the sacred relic, the Virgin's chemise, they attacked and routed the heathen. Charles seized the occasion to make a treaty with the invaders, at Saint-Clair-sur-Epte, by which the Northmen agreed to become Christians and received part of the land which later be came known as Normandy. They were also allowed to ravage glolnandy Brittany without hindrance from the king. This treaty freed the rest of the kingdom from the raids of the Northmen and also proved of real advantage to the land ceded to them. They had long before been in practical possession of the country around Rouen and between that city and the coast, and had sacked and harried it. Now they protected it and founded monasteries in their zeal for their new religion. The neighbors long referred to the ruler as "the duke of the pirates," but the land flourished under his stern and just rule. Towns sprang up or were rebuilt, and later songs told of the ideal conditions of peace and honesty which prevailed throughout the land. Undoubtedly the songs exaggerated the blessings of the Norman rule; but probably property was more secure in this land of the pirates than anywhere else in the French possessions. In addition to becoming enthusiastic, if sometimes peculiar, Christians, the Northmen also became Frenchmen, and in the later Middle Ages they were the main agents in the spread of the French language and civilization. Although this grant of Normandy had been caused by the difficulties in which the king was involved, it was the greatest accomplishment of Charles, whom his contemporaries characterized as the "Stupid," or the "Simple."
Charles King of Lorraine. This name, however, seems unjust to him in many respects, and he was possibly the ablest king of France during the period between 878 and 987. At all events, he made the only great addition to French territory which was secured during this period. Lorraine, which seemed destined to be a bone of contention between Germany and France, had always been strongly devoted to the Carolingians and still retained memories of Charlemagne, whose favorite residences had been within its boundaries. When the German nobles elected Conrad, the duke of Franconia, as king, those in Lorraine preferred Charles and proclaimed him their king. This was in the same year as the successful treaty with Rollo. Freed from the "fury of the Northmen," Charles was able to take possession of his new kingdom, where he preferred to live, rather than in France. He was able to defend Lorraine against Conrad, and the latter's successor was obliged to recognize Charles as its king. But probablv his preference for the new kingdom led to his downfall in the old; the French noblemen were alienated by his partiality for Lorraine, and especially for a low-born favorite from that land who was given great power and many monasteries. They revolted in 922 and chose Robert king.
Rudolf, 923-936. The decisive battle was fought the following year near Soissons. Robert perished in the fight, but victory was snatched from the grasp of Charles by fresh bands under the leadership of Hugh, Robert's son. The latter, however, instead of seeking the kingship for himself, supported his brother-in-law, Rudolf of Burgundy, who was elected by the rebellious faction. Charles might still have overcome the rebel barons, but he was betrayed by one whom he trusted and was held prisoner until his death eight years later. His wife, the daughter of the king of England, fled with her two-year-old son, Louis, across the sea to seek refuge at her father's court. Rudolf was thus freed from his rivals but was not master of the kingdom. Lorraine was definitely lost, the Normans were opposed to him, and it was only after the death of Charles that Rudolf won a victory which removed the Norman peril; not until after the death of Rollo did his successor, William Longsword, do homage to King Rudolf. The Hungarians ravaged portions of France more than once in the first ten years of the reign. The nobles in the south refused to acknowledge Rudolf until after his victory over the Normans. Some of his own partizans deserted him. In fact. while the second half of his reign was less unfortunate than the first, Rudolf was never free from anxieties and enmities. In spite of some successes, the net result of his reign was a diminution of the royal domain and the increase of the power of the duke of Normandy, his strongest vassal.
The Last Carolingians. After Rudolf's death three Carolingians were kings, but they owed their office less to their own strength and following than to the prudence of the head of the Robertian house. The latter was Hugh, called the Great, son of Robert and brother-in-law of Rudolf, and also uncle of Louis d'Outre-Mer, whom he summoned from his refuge in England to be king of France.
Louis IV, d'Outre-Mer, 936-954. The latter was both able and proud. He chafed at the power and guardianship of Hugh, and the two soon became enemies and continued so as long as they lived. The king, without great territorial possessions, was the less powerful of the two, especially because Hugh was allied with Otto the Great of Germany, who invaded France in 94O. Five years later Louis was captured and held prisoner by Hugh for a year. Then he owed his release mainly to the fact that he had gained the support of Otto the Great, whose sister he had married. How little power he really had may be judged from the humiliating scene in 948 when he was reduced to pleading his cause before an assembly of bishops, mainly from Germany and presided over by Otto the Great. He told them that he had only one city, Laon, and that this had been taken away from him by the trickery of Hugh the Great. "It was the only city in which I could shut myself up, the only one in which I could take shelter with my wife and children; what was to be done? I preferred life to the possession of the city; I yielded it and gained my freedom. Now shorn of my property, I beg the counsel of all. If the duke dares to deny what I say, I defy him to single combat." Moved by this appeal, Otto and the bishops compelled Hugh to give back the city and to do homage to his king.
Lothair, 954-986. Louis owed such power as he possessed to the support given him by Otto and the church. When he died in 954, his son Lothair was elected without opposition, as Hugh did not covet the kingship. The newly elected king was only thirteen, and Hugh was the all-powerful regent until his death in 956. Then Lothair fell under the dominion of Otto and his churchmen, especially Otto's brother, Bruno, the archbishop of Cologne, who gave the chief benefice in France, the archbishopric of Reims, to a bishop of Lorraine. As long as Otto the Great lived, Lothair was verv submissive: he had to be. When Otto II succeeded Lothair attempted to be independent and even to conquer Lorraine. He did get possession of Aachen, or Aix-la-Chapelle, but had to retire in three days, as he was without provisions. In turn Otto invaded France and pitched his camp at Montmartre, which is now a part of Paris. In turn he was compelled to retreat. Lothair was now anxious for peace, and the two kings made an alliance, Otto promising support against Hugh Capet, the son of Hugh the Great and the hereditary enemy of the Carolingians. When Otto died in 983 and was succeeded by an infant of three years, Lothair supported the rebels in Germanv with some success. This aroused the partizans of the Ottos in France, especially the archbishop of Reims and his schoolmaster, Gerbert who began to plot to substitute Hugh Capet as king. In the midst of their intrigues, Lothair died, in 986, and left as his heir a youth of nineteen who had already been consecrated as his associate in 979, but who ruled as king for only a little over a year after his father died.
Loss of the Royal Income. The last Carolingians were weak because they had parted with practically all of the royal domain. Income and army, the two main requisites for a strong kingship, depended almost wholly upon the possession of a great fief and the kings had none. In fact, when we study the conditions, we are surprised at the strength, not the weakness, of these kings. For their officials and vassals had been granted or had usurped the royal prerogatives and rights in their fiefs. The income of the early Carolingians had been derived mainly from their estates or what would now be called crown lands; these had been lost to the crown, partly by grants to buy or reward support of the king; partly by usurpation by the king's servants. Gifts from the nobles, lay and ecclesiastical, tribute from the free men, plunder from successful warfare, had all contributed to the revenues of Charles the Great; but his weaker descendants could not exact gifts or tribute and seldom won booty. Twothirds of the fines levied in the courts of justice had belonged to the king, but the tenants in chief had received immunities or usurped the right of administering justice and kept all the fees. Tolls for the use of bridges or roads and various custom duties had formerly been levied by the kings; all of these had passed to the vassals and many new ones had been exacted. Even the right of minting money, a considerable source of revenue in the Middle Ages, was now shared by the king with many of his vassals. Bishops had frequently been granted the privilege of coining money and the counts and dukes had usurped the right, so that before the close of the tenth century there was a bewildering variety of coins in use in France, and a large proportion of these did not bear the effigy or name of the king.
No Royal Army. He was unable to prevent the usurpations of his royal power, because he had no effective army. For greater ease in administration Charlemagne had made each count responsible for the levying and equipment of troops in his county and thereby the royal government had ceased to have direct relations with the great body of the fighting class. With the decline of the royal power the counts had become the real commanders of the troops from their counties and led them to the king's army or not, just as they thought best for their own interests. If they did obey the royal summons, the custom was becoming more and more fixed that they owed the military service for only forty days; in such a period of time little could be accomplished. This was especially true because of the changes in warfare due to the rapid increase in the number of castles. Almost every feudal lord had one or more castles to which he retreated for protection when threatened by danger. If the king wished to reduce a rebellious vassal to submission, he was almost always obliged to capture the castle in which the vassal had taken refuge. There were relatively few battles, but many long sieges. Because of the lack of effective siege-machinery a castle had to be taken by surprise or else reduced by starvation; for the latter a period of forty days was rarely long enough. And when the king had captured a castle and burned it, as was the usual custom, it was very easy for the rebellious vassal to build another, for wood was the almost universal material used in building both the castles and the surrounding walls. Consequently even when the king was successful, there were few lasting advantages gained, as the king had no regular army with which he could follow up a victory. In the period of the last Carolingian kings, feudalism had apparently won a definite triumph over the monarchy, which seemed to be restricted to a feudal suzerainty.
Election of Hugh, 987. France was saved from being permanently parceled out among a large number of feudal lords, constantly at strife with one another, by the activities and service of the Capetian rulers during several centuries. But no one could have imagined that any such result would follow the transfer of the crown to Hugh Capet, in 987. He was a great feudal lord, holding the duchy of France; his brother was the duke of Burgundy; the dukes of Normandy and Aquitaine had married his sisters. He was shrewd, energetic, prudent, able. He had gradually attached to his own cause all the leading members of the clergy. When Lothair died, Hugh had been able to win the support of his widow, so that when Louis died, the Capetian was in a very strong position. On the other hand, the only representative of the Carolingian house, the duke of Lorraine, was in open strife with the widow of Lothair, and being a vassal of Otto, was not looked upon with f avor by many of the French nobles. An electoral assembly met at Senlis. The archbishop of Reims took the lead in the discussion, saying, "We are not ignorant that Charles had some partizans who pretend that he ought to have the throne by right of birth. We reply that the throne is not acquired by hereditary right; no one ought to be raised to it who is not distinguished both by noble birth and wisdom." Thus the archbishop of Reims insisted upon the elective character of the French monarchy. The new house whose founder he was championing would later have to struggle against this theory of election. But at this time it profited Hugh Capet, who was unanimously elected as "king of the Aquitanians, of the Bretons, of the Danes, of the Goths, of the Spaniards and Gascons, and of the Gauls." Of course, in the above enumeration the Danes referred to lived in Normandy, and the Spaniards, Goths, and Gascons in the south of what is now France.
The First Four Capetians: Hugh, 987-996. The first kings accomplished comparatively little. Hugh occupied the throne for only nine years and was successful in maintaining himself against the Carolingian claimant. He is a somewhat enigmatic personality; he seems to have been unable or unwilling to act energetically, and to have preferred cunning to valor, but, after he became king, his character appears in a more favorable light. No satisfactory description has been preserved of his personal appearance or habits.
Robert, 996-1031. Of his son, Robert II, on the contrary, full descriptions are extant, which represent him as a man of attractive appearance, excellent manners, good education, and remarkable piety. He had been a pupil of Gerbert and had imbibed from him a love of books a good knowledge of music, and an interest in theological studies. His biographers enlarge upon his charity, humility, purity, and piety, and describe miracles wrought in his honor. At the same time he was well trained in military science and showed himself an able commander when he was willing to undertake an expedition; e. g. he conquered the county of Burgundy after more than ten years of fighting. In spite of his piety he fell under the papal censure, because of an "incestuous" marriage. His firstwife had been Rosala, or Susanne, of Flanders, who had been married before he was born, but now as the widow of the count of Flanders brought him an attractive dowry. This politic marriage lasted only a year; then Robert repudiated the bride and kept the dowry, Montreuil-sur-Mer. A few years later Robert, then twenty-three years of age, fell violently in love with Bertha, the wife of Eudes, count of Chartres, Tours, and Blois. She was about seven years older than Robert and was the mother of five children, but she aroused such a passion in the heart of the devout prince that he disregarded the wishes of his parents and braved the anathema of the church in order to possess her. Her husband died opportunely and complaisant bishops celebrated the marriage, in spite of the impediments which made such a union "incestuous" in the eyes of the pope. For Robert had been the godfather of one of Bertha's children and thus held a spiritual relationship to her which was incompatible with marriage; and, in addition, Bertha and Robert had the same great-grandfather and consequently, according to canon law, were related in the third degree. But Robert kept Bertha, and even when, after years of strife, he had yielded and married another wife, he still remained attached to Bertha and she had great influence.
Henry, 1031-1060. But she had given the king no heir and consequently her successor's son, Henry, ruled after Robert. No contemporary described Henry's appearance or character; some chroniclers stated that he was a "valiant and active warrior," but this commonplace throws no light upon his personality. His relations with the papacy and with Normandy will be discussed later; in spite of his long reign and constant wars, there is nothing else important enough to record here, unless it is his marriage with Anne, daughter of the grand-duke Jaroslav, which marked the first alliance between France and Russia and caused Henry's son and successor to bear the Byzantine or Greek name of Philip.
Philip, 1060-1108. The latter, who ruled for almost half a century, has the sorriest reputation of these early Capetians. But this is due mainly to his troubles with the church, which will be recounted later, as will his relations with Normandy and his territorial acquisitions. Aside from these topics there is little to be said of his reign; his character might be defended, in part, against the harsh criticism of the clerks who wrote the history, if it were worthwhile. These first four rulers of the new house were important mainly in laying a foundation for the future greatness of their line, and even in this respect they achieved comparatively little.
Weakness of the Early Capetians. of the They were weak both in feudal possessions and royal authority. When Hugh the Great died in 956 Hugh Capet had inherited from him the counties of Paris, Orleans, Senlis, and Capetians Dreux, and in addition was the lay abbot of St. Martin's at Tours and of St. Germain des Pres, on the bank of the Seine in what is now a part of Paris. From these extensive holdings he granted many fiefs in order to gain adherents against the Carolingians, and he was compelled to allow his more important vassals to become practically independent, for fear lest they might transfer their allegiance to the king. Consequently, when he himself became king, he held only a comparatively small amount of land under his own immediate control and this land was scattered in what are now ten or a dozen departments of modern France. The Capetian was no longer one of the greatest landholders in the kingdom, and several of those who had elected him had greater resources. He had succeeded Carolingians who had suffered the power to pass into the hands of the feudal lords and church dignitaries, a process in which Hugh himself had been active. How was he to mend the work and to build up his authority in opposition to both feudalism and the church? As king he inherited very little power. He was not able to make laws which were even nominally binding, for local customs had superseded national laws. Even for his own fiefs he could not make any ordinance without the consent of his vassals. These conditions controlled the activity of all the early Capetians. Henry seems to have had the least actual power of any of them, and in his reign his feudal vassals were practically independent. Philip began deliberately to strengthen his position by adding to the royal domain which had been "reduced to almost nothing by the carelessness of his predecessors." No opportunity was lost and his acquisitions were numerous and widely scattered. This poliev was to be followed with great effect by his successors. But Philip's own weakness is well illustrated by the value he set upon his acquisition of Montlhery, a castle only a few miles from Paris, which he finally captured toward the end of his reign. "Guard this tower carefully," he said to his heir, "it has made me old before my time; the wickedness and perfidy of those who held it have never left me a moment of rest." Thus this "glorious king" had trembled before the power of a robber baron. Theoretically the monarch still had the same prestige as the early Carolingians, and almost everywhere in France charters were still dated by the year of his reign. As a matter of fact his authority was restricted by the power of his great vassals and by the church.
The Great Fiefs. In studying a map of France for any date in the eleventh century the great number of independent fiefs is the striking feature; but if a map for another date is taken, the change in the numbers and extent of the fiefs is the most noticeable fact; for there was no stability and a map can be accurate, if at all, only for a given moment in that century. But certain great fiefs stand out and were constant factors, although with frequent changes in boundaries and power. First were the duchies: Normandy, which will be discussed in the following paragraph; Burgundy, which was usually in the possession of one of the Capetians, either the brother of the king or the king himself; Aquitaine, the largest of all the fiefs; Brittany, which in its isolation seems scarcely a part of the kingdom and long remained a sad, desolate, rude land, its inhabitants preserving their old customs, costumes, and characteristics. Then there were the great counties: Flanders, with its advantageous position for commerce; Blois and Champagne, which made it difficult for the king to add to his domain on the south or east, as Flanders and Normandy did on the north and west; Anjou, which was so strong through its rich lands in the valley of the Loire; Toulouse and Barcelona, in the far south, with idioms, customs, and civilization far different from those in the north. In the south too was the duchy of Gascony, not really a part of the kingdom until its annexation in the middle of the eleventh century swelled the power of Aquitaine. Within the confines of the royal domain, or the duchies, or the counties, were a third great class of feudatories: the bishops who were also counts. The episcopal city was frequently under the authority of the bishop, and the kings found it expedient to favor him as a possible check to the power of the count. Sometimes the kings went farther and gave a whole county to a bishop in whose election they had a voice and sometimes a determining part. Thus the Carolingians had given to the archbishop the county of Reims and to the bishop the county of Langres. The Capetians were equally liberal, or politic, and granted counties to the bishops of Laon, Beauvais, Chalons, and Noyon. These bishop-counts later became the six ecclesiastical peers of France. In addition, other bishops, e. g. of Paris, and many abbots were given lands and feudal power, partly from piety, partly from custom, but also at times as a deliberate policy in order to build up a rival to the local feudatory.
Relations with Normandy. The most important vassal was the duke of Normandy. His land had prospered in the tenth century and he had become more and more valuable as an ally of the French king and more and more dangerous as a potential enemy. For he controlled the lower course of the Seine and thus could prevent any commerce by this river. But the Norman dukes long remained faithful vassals of the Capetians. Richard the Fearless, the son and successor of William Longsword, had married Emma, the daughter of Hugh the Great. Richard II, surnamed the Good, helped King Robert in his conquest of Burgundy. His grandson, Robert the Devil, sided with Henry I in his war against his mother and brother at the beginning of his reign and contributed in no small degree to the king's success. When he started on the pilgrimage to the Holy Land, from which he never returned, Robert asked Henry to recognize his bastard, William, the son of the tanner's daughter of Falaise. At the time of his father's death, in 1O35, William was about eight years old, and until he reached his majority he was protected by the king against rebels among his own vassals. A decisive battle at Val-des-Dunes, near Caen, was fought in 1O47 and won for William by the assistance and personal prowess of the king. But William's ability, ambition, and constantly increasing power soon led to a change in the king's attitude, and from this time on the Capetians usually did all in their power to weaken the dukes of Normandy. They encouraged rebellious vassals in Normandy, aided the dukes' sons in revolts, and occasionally fought battles themselves. Henry was twice defeated by William and each time had to make an unfavorable peace. William's power was increased by his marriage with Matilda, daughter of the count of Flanders, and by successful wars, especially by the conquest of England. The last took place during the minority of Philip, when Baldwin of Flanders, William's father-in-law, was regent of the kingdom, and the latter did nothing to hinder this undertaking which was fraught with so much potential danger to the French monarchy. When Philip took the government into his own hands, he did all that he could to embarrass the successive dukes, but with little success, except on one occasion when he received a considerable bribe from William the Conqueror on condition that he should no longer assist the latter's son, Robert Curthose, in his rebellion. The struggle with the powerful dukes, who were usually also kings of England, was a legacy which would determine many lines of Capetian policy for the next hundred years.
The Two Sicilies. Moreover, while the kings remained at home, comparatively powerless, the great nobles were adding to their power by conquest abroad. In Spain, for example, the Normans, Aquitanians, and others won glory and booty in fighting against the Mussulmans. In Italy and Sicily the Normans acquired in about sixty years ( 1O16-1O78) a great extent of territory which was to become in the following century the kingdom of the Two Sicilies. In 1O16 some Normans returning from a pilgrimage to the Holy Land stopped at Salerno, where they were begged by the people to assist them against the Saracens, who were attacking them. The Normans soon won the victory and were urged to remain. The rich gifts and offers of the Salernitans did not tempt the pilgrims, who said that they had fought only "for the love of God "; but the news which they carried home led many adventurers to seek their fortunes in southern Italy. There the diversity among the inhabitants, Greeks, Italians, Lombards, and Saracens, made it easy for the Normans to secure a foothold. Soon little bands were holding strong positions from which they plundered indiscrimin,ately both infidel and Christian. The latter made reprisals and killed many of the Normans, but more flocked to the scene of booty. The most famous of the leaders were the three sons of Tancred of Hauteville, William Bras-de-fer, Roger and Robert Guiscard. The last made himself very formidable. He was "a blond Hercules, a model of manly beauty, with eyes flashing fire." At first from his rocky eyrie he plundered the passers by, thus getting weapons and supplies. Then he made raids, driving off flocks and herds, and holding prisoners for ransom. By these means and by the accession of other adventurers, he became strong enough to capture castles and cities, to conquer Campania, Apulia, and Calabria. Pope Leo IX became alarmed and put himself at the head of an army of Italians and Germans to crush the adventurer. But at Civitate, in 1O53, he was completely defeated and fell into the hands of the Normans. The latter professed sorrow and begged him to lay upon them a penance "equal to the sin they had committed" in warring against him. Thus began the association between the papacy and the Normans of southern Italy. In 1O59 the pope Nicholas II recognized Robert as duke of the lands which he had conquered or might conquer, the latter became the pope's vassal and promised him support. Sicily was soon conquered from the Saracens; on the main land the important cities of Amalfi (1O73) and Naples (1O78) were acquired. The attack on the Byzantine Empire by Robert Guiscard will be described in a later chapter.
Policy of Early Capetians. What chance had the Capetians against such vassals? Hugh, the first of the line, was only a feudal lord who had received the title of king without any material accession of power to enable him to support his regal estate. But he and his successors used their position as kings to make their feudal overlordships more effective; and at the same time their suzerainty, to make the royalty more powerful. They seem to have had a dim conception of the double role they filled and the possibilities it contained. The policy of the Capetian house for the next three hundred years might be summed up as the realization of the union of the anointed kingship and the feudal overlordship. The support of the clergy was absolutely essential and they were usually able to secure it, even at times when they were in opposition to the papacy. The monarchy was elective, but each king had his own son crowned during his own life-time when he was able to dictate the election. By great good fortune each king had a son to succeed him, for a period of over three centuries. Moreover there were only two minorities and in most cases each monarch ruled for a long term of years. From 987 to 1314 there were only eleven kings, so that the average length of the reigns was almost thirty years. They avoided as far as possible placing authority in the hands of powerful nobles and chose as their agents men of humble birth who would be obedient to them The officials were generally selected from the members of the clergy who, because of the vow of celibacy, could not found families which might become a source of danger.
Early Relations with the Church. Hugh, as already noted, was lay abbot of great monastic foundations. He was always generous to the church, and in his coronation oath had promised to maintain the canonical privileges of the clergy and to defend them as far as was in his power. But he got into trouble with the papacy by degrading the archbishop of Reims, who had been in rebellion against him, and substituting Gerbert. The pope refused to recognize his right to depose an archbishop; Hugh kept the archbishop a prisoner and forbade his bishops to go to Rome or to papal councils and most of his bishops supported him. Robert was a pupil of Gerbert, loved theological studies, and was noted for his charity, purity, and piety, but he chose his own bishops and, if necessary, used force to seat his candidate, when the canonical electors were recalcitrant. The pope allowed him to do this. When he made his uncanonical marriage with Bertha, he attempted to win the pope's consent by giving up Gerbert, releasing the former archbishop and restoring to him his see. But the pope excommunicated him; and he had to make his submission, at least in form. Later he showed his piety by burning heretics at Orleans. Both Hugh and Robert, in spite of their high-handed procedure, were favorable to the reform of the clergy.
Reforms: Institution of Peace. Cluny was engaged in a valiant attempt to reform the lives of the monks and the conditions in the monasteries. Both Hugh and Robert aided in this. The clergy also wanted to place some checks upon the constant feudal wars which were devastating the land, and in particular injuring the property of the church; after various attempts they inaugurated the Peace of God, which was received enthusiastically by the masses. An idea of its purport may be gathered from some of the provisions of the oath which Robert was asked to swear in 1O23: viz., that he would not attack members of the clergy who did not carry weapons; that he would not carry off ox, cow or any other beast of burden; that he would not seize a peasant man or woman or merchants, or take away their property; that in war he would not destroy or burn houses or vineyards. Every one who took the oath was expected to become a member of the league to enforce the peace, and to aid the clergy, merchants, and peasants against oppressors. To supplement this protection accorded to certain classes, the church added the Truce of God, which should prevent all fighting at certain times. This was first instituted in 1O27 for the bishopric of Elne, [On the Mediterranean, close to Spain] where all fighting was interdicted from the ninth hour on Saturday till the first hour on Monday. The idea spread in the south of France and in 1O41, from a council held at Nice, several bishops and the abbot of Cluny wrote to the clergy of Italy, asking them to adopt the Truce from Wednesday evening till Monday morning. "Thursday was sacred because of the ascension of Christ, Friday because of the passion, Saturday because of the adoration at the tomb, Sunday because of the resurrection." Soon whole sections of the year were added: Advent until the Octave of Epiphany, from Septuagesima Sunday till the Octave of Easter, the week of Pentecost, the fasts of the four seasons, all the festivals of the Virgin, of St. John the Baptist, St. Martin, and others. The French king favored these institutions of peace, but they had very little success, as the new ideals were contrary to the whole tenor of feudal life, and there was no power strong enough to enforce the decrees of either the Peace of God or the Truce of God.
Celibacy; Against Simony and Lay Investiture. The kings were no less favorable to the attempts of the church to reform its own members, by enforcing celibacy for all secular as well as for the regular clergy. But this met with a determined resistance from many of the canons and priests and some of the bishops who had wives and children. Their opposition was reinforced when the church attempted also to check simony and thus interfered with the income of the kings and great nobles. The decree against lay investiture added to the strength of the opposition, but there was no great struggle in France such as there was in Germany. King Henry's unsuccessful opposition to the holding of a council at Reims has already been noted. Philip's later opposition to the pope was of little more avail, although he was supported by many of the bishops. In particular, after his marriage with Bertrada of Montfort, he was weakened by his excommunication and by the general knowledge that it was deserved. But he practised simony openly and unblushingly. On one occasion an unsuccessful candidate for a bishopric reproached Philip for having sold the office to his rival. Philip advised him to have his rival degraded for simony and then perhaps he might get the office. But finally after much turmoil in many parts of France, when Paschal II became pope, Philip showed himself ready to compromise and be reconciled with the pope. He did penance and outwardly gave signs of submission and the pope appeared satisfied. The king no longer gave the investiture with the ring and the staff, and no longer received feudal homage from the bishops. But he still had the faithful support of the bishops in his dominion, who still took the oath of fidelity, and he was on excellent terms with the pope.
Mobility of the Population. The real interest of the history of France in the eleventh century is not to be found in the policies of the kings, but in the activities of the various classes of the population. Something has been said about the expeditions of the nobles outside of France. Those who remained in the country were very frequently to be found on the highway: going to the court of their suzerain to render homage, obeying the summons to war, or attempting to avenge some injury or to increase their fortunec by attacking their neighbors. Private warfare was general, and caused great suffering to the peasants. The members of the clergy were also compelled to travel: the bishop to the churches in his diocese, the priests to receive instructions from their bishops, members of all ranks to attend the frequent councils. Some were obliged to go to Rome to prosecute appeals or answer for their conduct to the papal curia, many went to some one or other of the schools in France to improve their education. The merchants were constantly traveling, both within the country and to other lands far and near. Medieval trade was conducted by men who went in person to the place where they could secure their wares, and then carried these from place to place until they had succeeded in disposing of them. The agricultural peasants felt the impetus to leave their homes when they were oppressed bv the ravages which accompanied the private wars; then, in the hope of improving their condition or of escaping starvation, some fled to the growing towns. Others sought to better themselves by going to the villes neuves, or new cities, of which more will be said later. Men of all classes undertook pilgrimages to the shrine of some saint, to Rome, or even to the Holy Land. The mobilitv of the population was much greater than has been generally supposed and opportunity for advancement lay open to any one, even the son of a serf, provided he had ability.
Gerbert. The career of Gerbert, although his was a very exceptional one, shows what was possible. He was born just before the middle of the tenth century, the son of a poor peasant. His natural ability came to the attention of the monks and secured his entrance to their school at Aurillac, where he soon distinguished himself. Some years later the duke of the Spanish March happened to come to Aurillac on a pilgrimage and was induced by the abbot to take Gerbert back with him to study. The latter spent about three years in Spain acquiring the mathematical knowledge which was later to make him such a well-known character in legend. Then an opportunity offered for a visit to Rome, where he attracted the attention of the pope, who sang his praises to the emperor Otto I. Gerbert was persuaded to accept a position as teacher in the imperial court and consequently did not return to Spain. But he was insatiable in his search for knowledge, and after a single year asked the emperor's permission to go to Reims to study philosophy. There his learning won him favor in the eyes of the archbishop, who appointed him master of the cathedral school. During the next ten years students flocked to hear him, and Gerbert's reputation spread far and wide. It reached the ears of Otric, a noted teacher at Magdeburg, who sent one of his pupils to attend Gerbert's courses. From the report of the pupil, Otric thought that Gerbert was mistaken in some points of metaphysics, and he hastened to expose the error of his famous rival. Otto II, who knew Gerbert well, brought the two scholars together and arranged a debate between them. The main points in their debate have been preserved in the writings of one of Gerbert's disciples. It was held in the presence of the emperor and his attendants, who listened all day to the scholastic arguments which are now difficult to understand. Gerbert won their applause, his ideas were approved, and his fame increased. A little later Otto gave him the abbey of Bobbio, and he became a vassal of the emperor. Unfortunately he found the discipline in the monastery very lax, and much of the property dissipated. His attempts to restore order and to recover the abbey's property aroused opposition and involved him in difficulties which compelled him to ask help from the emperor. When the latter died and was succeeded by a mere infant, Gerbert found himself in such straits that he was obliged to return to Reims and again take up his duties as schoolmaster; but he retained the title of abbot of Bobbio. His residence there had lasted less than a year.
Gerbert, Politician and Pope. Gerbert now devoted much of his attention to politics. He worked assiduously in the interest of the child Otto III, whose vassal he was. Together with his archbishop, he strove to thwart the attempts of King Lothair to obtain Lorraine, and secured the aid, or at least the neutrality, of Hugh Capet. After the death of Lothair and his son Louis, Gerbert was the main factor in bringing about the election of Hugh. He became the tutor of the latter's son and successor, Robert. He was elected archbishop of Reims, but his election was of doubtful legality, as the former archbishop had been deposed without the pope's sanction. Consequently Gerbert found himself involved in a struggle to maintain his position, and the struggle was mixed up with the politics of France, Germany and the papacy. After the death of Hugh, Gerbert's position was no longer tenable, and he withdrew to the court of Otto III, who rewarded his past loyalty and future support, first by giving him the archbishopric of Ravenna, and then by making him pope in 999. He took the name of Sylvester II and labored to build up the power of the papacy and also of the Empire. He and Otto had magnificent dreams of what might be done by a pope and an emperor working together, but death removed both within a very few years, Otto in 1O02 and Sylvester in 1O03. A curious fatality seized upon the memory of the latter; his conduct as pope had been exemplary, but he became known in legend as a wizard; even the more kindly disposed thought of him as too much devoted to profane learning, and the name of Sylvester came to have an unsavory reputation, so that it has always been shunned by later popes, with the single exception of Sylvester III, who took the name before the legend had become established. As a matter of fact, it was by his learning that Gerbert had become prominent and has remained famous both in history and legend. He constructed globes and other apparatus for his students, and was able to solve problems which are now simple enough, but then were regarded as insoluble except by occult aid. He excelled in each branch of medieval learning, and his pupils, although with less skill and knowledge, handed down his teachings to succeeding generations. Education in France, Germany, and Italy was deeply indebted to the peasant boy, the master politician, the pope.