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St. Louis, and about to publish in Latin speech the writings concerning them, partly already published, partly wholly unpublished, or made public only in the ancient Gallic tongue, I have judged that the reader must be forewarned about the writers of the Acts, so that he may understand at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 a royal garrison occupied his chief strongholds.

[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 a new house was built for the said canons; 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. a town in the province of Poitou, according to 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 a little more remote do not agree about that time: 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 a little before the count of Bar.

[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 a less happy one, because, while the Flemings plundered 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, a term of forty days; namely that he might thus draw out 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, a garrison being left to guard the borders, 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, a more convenient occasion of making progress now seemed offered, 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: a three years' truce: the temple of St. Denis restored: cities increased 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, a sum of money being assigned to be received each year. 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 a conjecture concerning the equity and justice of Louis in other works 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 a ruin of the kingdom these nuptials were being prepared, straightway 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 a bridle might be thrown upon their injustice. Others again 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 a reason moved Louis proceeded to this marriage.

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 that is, scrofula, in French escrouelles § XXV. The war, the three years of truce being ended, renewed with Peter count of Brittany and the English: the count's submission after new truces, and his peace with the King: when did he cede the county of Brittany to his son? Louis attacks Brittany, The truces which in the year 1231 St. Louis had covenanted for three years

with Henry king of England and Peter count of Brittany had their end in this year at the feast of St. John the Baptist: Gregory the Pontiff had indeed exhorted both kings to renew the truces and at length to establish peace: but since Peter the Breton, a man who knew not how to rest, had from time to time violated the truces by ravaging the dominions of the Breton nobles who were joined to Louis by league, as is narrated in Chaize, page 191, the prudent King well perceived that a stable peace was not to be hoped for by him unless the count were subdued. Therefore, calling to arms his client princes and others, he enrolls a huge army, and, the truces being ended, enters Brittany. But what he there accomplished the Chronicle of St. Florent reports summarily in Martène, tom. 5 of the Amplissima Collectio, col. [ ]: King Louis, it says, fought against Peter count of Brittany, and took Châteaubriant , and the castle of Oudon , and Champtoceaux was restored to him by the said count while the same King was in the siege of it, and he laid waste all the count's land about those places, and set fire to the villages and burned them. These things there; but there is an error of one year in the time, in that these things, as well as the King's nuptials, are affixed to the year 1235, whereas they were accomplished in the year 1234, as Alberic in his Chronicle has, page 551, likewise briefly touching on the matter in these words: Afterwards the aforesaid King had war against Peter the count, brother of that Robert (of Dreux) who had lately died; whom, when he had subjected him to himself not without some detriment, hostages and strongholds being received, and a composition of peace being made, he brought to Paris. These things they in very few words: from which nevertheless there are in some measure confirmed and augmented those things which Matthew Paris writes, narrating the matter more fully and more distinctly, whose text I subjoin to these.

[290] he loses certain warlike baggage: At the year 1234, page 278, the said author thus speaks of the deeds on both sides: In the same year, the Nativity of St. John being at hand, at which time the truces in Brittany between the kings of the Franks and of the English were to expire, the king of the English sent to the count of Brittany LX knights, and two thousand Welshmen, who should fortify the weaker places of that land. But the King of the Franks, the truces being run out, gathered a copious army from all his forces, and hemmed in with a siege a certain castle of the count of Brittany. The knights indeed of the king of the English and the Welsh, meeting the French as they came, slew the horses of certain of their enemies, making many footmen out of horsemen; attacking the pack-animals, the wagons, and the vehicles in which victuals and arms were carried, they took them, seized horses and spoils; and, inflicting on them no small damages, without hurt to themselves returned to their own. This without doubt is the detriment which Alberic confesses was received.

[291] But the King of the Franks, disturbed by the damage inflicted on him, he lays Brittany waste, then grants truces. his warlike columns being more prudently divided, divided his whole army, exceedingly numerous, into three legions, so that to the least of the three the count of Brittany would scarcely seem able to resist with all his forces brought together. Fiercely rising up by invading Brittany on every side, after the manner of a lion which, when it is hurt, rages more bitterly against the rebel, he afflicted the Bretons with a heavy crushing. But the count, being set in a strait, demanding truces until the feast of All Saints under such a form, obtained them: that he should know in the meantime whether the king of the English, to whom he was confederate, would bodily come to his succour. For obtaining these truces indeed, under such a form he delivered to the King of the Franks three excellent castles: that if the king of the English within the said term should not come bodily to the freeing of his land, he then should resign wholly to the King of the Franks the whole land of Brittany, with the castles and forces. These truces seem to have been made in the month of August: for the count's instrument, concerning which Lobineau in the History of Brittany, tom. 1, page 233, or book 7, num. CXI, is noted in that month, in which also he promises that he will commit his controversies with the Breton nobles to the judgment of the King and of the queen mother, and assigns sureties for the security of keeping the truces. These truces being covenanted, the King returned to Paris, and at that time reconciled a concord between Theobald count of Champagne and his cousin the queen of Cyprus, as we narrated above. But to Paris I return:

[292] But the truces being in this manner confirmed, the count of Brittany sent back into England the knights of the king of England and the Welsh: The count, since the king of England would not cross the sea, by whom the king was forewarned that he should no longer pour out the treasures of the kingdom for the defence of the count of Brittany, because, now turned into a crooked bow, he entered a league with the King of the Franks, that, an evasion being made from the king of the English, he might come to his peace, awaiting nothing save that he might have drained the treasures of England. For the count himself, a small space of time having elapsed afterwards, coming into England, suggested to the king that for the truces to be obtained from the King of the Franks he had poured out whatever he had in gold or silver, asking that restitution be made him of XV thousand marks, which he had consumed for the defence of his land and the honour of the king of the English. To these things the king answered and said that the truces were not obtained or confirmed through him, adding moreover that for the defence of Brittany the treasures of England were not sufficient, which he had already proved through three years, nor did he wish to be any longer uselessly wearied with such laborious expenses. But if the count of Brittany should believe this to suffice, he himself would send four earls of England with as many knights and armed men as should suffice for the defence of that land against the King of the Franks.

[293] The count of Brittany, hearing these things, withdrew angry from the king, submits himself to Louis, and obtains peace; and, crossing into his own land, forthwith

fled to the King of the Franks; namely to Paris, where the league of peace was sanctioned. Further, what Paris subjoins concerning the habit in which the count approached the King, and the King's sayings to the count, seem rather to be imputed to the author's wrath than to be embraced with certain faith. Yet I shall subjoin his words, that each may judge of them at his own pleasure: And that he might palliate under some form or other the treason, he says, done against the king, he came to the King of the Franks bearing a noose on his neck, and, acknowledging himself a traitor, restored to him the whole of Brittany, with the strongholds and castles. To whom the King of the Franks is said to have answered: Although, most wicked traitor, thou hast deserved a most base death, yet I shall spare thy nobility, that thou mayest live, and I shall give Brittany to thy son for his life, so that after his death the kings of the Franks may be heirs of that land. As he foists upon the King words alien from his gentleness, so Paris manifestly wanders in the history at this place: for neither was Brittany at this time utterly snatched from count Peter, much less given to his son only for his life, so that the kings of France should succeed to it, as will presently be said at greater length from the count's letters. Now let us hear from Paris what business he had with the king of England after these things:

[294] but he is despoiled by the Englishman of the county of Richmond: But the count, despoiled of all his goods as a traitor, by intermediaries restored to the king of the English his homage, which he had formerly done him. And the king took into his hand all the rights of the count of Brittany in England (namely the county of Richmond)

and the honours belonging to him. But the count, seeing his evils multiplied upon him, wasting away in himself for grief and gnashing his teeth, prepared ambushes by sea for merchants and others doing works upon the waters (according to his surname, namely Mauclerc), and applied himself to injurious plunderings, being made an execrable pirate. What he here records, Paris being the more angered against the count of Brittany, concerning excursions undertaken by sea against the English, perhaps must be referred to later times: for I do not read elsewhere that this was done at this time; but that it was done afterwards in another war against the English we shall relate later. It remains now that we briefly narrate on what conditions St. Louis granted the count peace.

[295] the conditions on which peace was granted the count. The letters of Peter duke of Brittany—for this is the title I read in them—Lobineau published in French in the History of Brittany, tom. 1, page 233, from which we have the following. He swears clientage to King Louis and to his mother Blanche against all men whatsoever: he promises that he will not enter a league, nor permit that his son or his daughter enter one, with the king of England and his brother Richard, or with any enemy of the King; but that he will always adhere to the King and his mother he pledges. Besides, he cedes to the King in perpetuity various castles before obtained by him; and also whatever he had obtained from him in the province of Anjou and of Le Mans, so that neither he himself nor his heirs could ever demand them back. These things are in the count's letters. But for the King's security he consigned to him three castles, which I think are the same as those before reported by Paris, and these Louis could keep for three years after the following Easter, namely beyond the time in which the son ought to succeed Peter in the county. To these things William of Puylaurens, chap. 39, adds another condition in the following words: The count, the county being delivered to his son, the mother's heir, had to go beyond the sea, to stay there five years. It is probable either that the cross was taken by the count himself, that he might obtain fairer conditions of peace, or that the King granted him peace on that condition also: certainly he took the cross, and undertook the journey beyond the sea after some years with other princes of France. But the county he handed over to his son as the lawful heir of his mother, for neither did Peter administer Brittany by any other right than that of his wife.

[296] But from what has been said it is proved that Paris erred in saying that the count of Brittany was despoiled of all things by the King: why and when Peter ceded the county to his son for indeed he went on administering Brittany until his son John should have come to the lawful age at which he could administer it by himself: but he came to that age in the year 1237, as appears from his letters in Lobineau, tom. 2, col. 335, in which, confirming his father's composition with some nobles of Brittany, he thus speaks: John duke of Brittany, count of Richmond, &c. That all these things which are expressed above may obtain perpetual force, we, being established in the lawful age and it having been proved before our most excellent lord Louis, by the grace of God King of the Franks, and having been received by him as his man, have granted this composition … In the year of the Lord MCCXXXVII, in the month of November. At that time therefore Peter laid down the administration of Brittany together with the very title also of count or duke. But before he laid down the administration of Brittany he had to defend himself before the royal tribunal, the nobles accusing him. Concerning which accusations, and the issue of the matter, let the reader consult the praised Lobineau in the History of Brittany, tom. 1, pages 234 and 235: for I must go forward to the following year.

Châteaubriant Oudon § XXVI. In the year 1235 certain exactions abrogated: the nuptials of Frederick with the sister of the king of England, and the plottings for joining arms against Louis: nuptials hindered by the King: the tumults of Reims composed. Certain exactions forbidden: In the year 1235 St. Louis exchanged certain goods with Simon de Poissy, and granted him in fief a certain castle in Normandy which he calls Nomerville, with fields and other revenues, as may be seen in his charter on this matter in Martène, tom. 1 of the Amplissima Collectio, col. [ ]. At this time the poor of Melun, and others carrying their little wares to Melun to sell, complained that they were burdened by the royal ministers with certain exactions which those men called by the specious name of bounties, as if they were rendered gratuitously. But the matter being brought to the holy King, in this year he utterly remits those exactions for the future, and forbids his ministers to exact them. The charter of Louis on this matter the praised Martène gives at col. [ ], from which, as a testimony of the King's exact justice and just mercy, I cull the following: But we, he says, wishing mercifully to provide for the same men concerning exactions of this kind, which are called bounties, because we feared and doubted lest they should be exacted unjustly, for the salvation of our soul … remit altogether and in perpetuity to the aforesaid men, and quitclaim, exactions or services of this kind, which are commonly called bounties … Done at the Hospital

of Corbeil in the year of the Lord MCCXXXV, in the month of April. The pious reader may notice that the charter was given in a hospital; for the houses of the poor and of the sick the holy King frequently visited, and heaped with benefits, out of his immense piety and mercy toward any wretched persons whatsoever.

[298] In this year Frederick the emperor, joined by league long since with St. Louis, but not knowing how to keep his leagues as holily as Louis kept them, Frederick the emperor, having married the sister of the king of England, took to wife the daughter of Henry king of England, Isabella, or Elizabeth, and wished to join arms with the Englishman against the kingdom of France, if we believe Matthew Paris reporting these things. For indeed, the emperor's nuptials having been reported with great pomp of words, page 285, he subjoins these things: The emperor therefore sent to the king of the English three leopards … with other precious gifts … To whom also against the King of the Franks he promised ready counsel and opportune help—he who detains his rights violently and unjustly, chiefly to the ruin of king Louis and the damnation of his soul. Who, being about to die, manifestly confessed that he had sinned inexpiably against the king of the English by retaining his rights, and afterwards, when he should be in England, that he would restore his land: all which the King of the Franks dissembles not to know, following a womanish counsel rather than the rule of justice, setting behind him the fear of the Lord of vengeances. These things Paris, angered after his manner. Truly I should greatly wonder that a man not altogether unlearned should so forget himself as here to describe, by a marvellous metamorphosis, the same man whom now he calls most holy, now most just, as though he were unjust and forgetful of the fear of the Lord, did I not know that vomitings of this kind are frequent and familiar to a bilious man. But, these dregs being dismissed, which need no refutation, let us return to our purpose.

[299] treats concerning arms to be joined with him against Louis: More concerning the joining of arms against Louis, offered by the emperor to the king of the English, Paris records at the following year in these words: Messengers … directed by the emperor to the king coming, brought him charges with letters; namely that the lord king should not delay to send to the emperor himself his brother Richard earl of Cornwall; that he, whose circumspect prudence fame had widely proclaimed, might serve in arms against the King of the Franks: because the lord emperor would apply all the imperial forces to his help; and this so abundantly that the king of the English would not only recover his rights beyond the sea, but, all things being restored, would widen his ancient borders on every side. But the king hearing, together with the magnates gathered there, deliberation having first been had, they answered that it was neither safe nor advisable to send one so tender in age out of the kingdom and to expose him to the doubtful chances and perils of war: since he is proved the only and manifest heir of the king and of the kingdom; and the hope of all, after the king, is reposed in his bosom … But if it should please the imperial excellence to choose another, whom he would, strenuous and noble, and to call to this one of the greater men of the kingdom, then, obeying his charges, the king and all his friends and subjects would not dissemble to pour out whatever help they could. But the messengers, hearing these things, returned to their lord, to report what they had heard. That the English plead the tender age of Richard seems frivolous: since he himself had already for ten years served in arms in France: but so many endeavours already made thereupon, and blunted by the surpassing prudence and fortitude of St. Louis, seem to have made them the more sluggish to attempt the thing anew; although they had not yet cast away all hope, as will appear afterwards. As for the rest, these counsels lacked effect, the emperor being not long after entangled in other wars.

[200] the nuptials of the king of England hindered by Louis In the same year 1235, in which the emperor's nuptials were made to the peril of the kingdom of France, another marriage the king of England was plotting, likewise perilous to Louis: but Henry's counsels the holy King dispelled by his skilful prudence. We have this from the said Paris, page 285: At the same time, he says, by the procuring of Walter bishop of Carlisle , king Henry III, by the interposition of the Pontiff's faith, with an oath betrothed to himself the daughter of the count of Worcester (of Ponthieu ). But afterwards, his mind and counsel being changed, on account of certain threatenings of the King of the Franks, he leapt back from his purpose, lest the father should be disinherited. The matter Odorico Raynaldus confirmed from the Pontifical letters at the year 1236, num. 49, from whom also the fault is corrected of Worcester substituted for Ponthieu in

Paris, which is otherwise manifest, since nothing concerning the county of Worcester pertained to Louis. Hear therefore Raynaldus:

And whereas Henry had pledged by oath that he would marry Joanna, daughter of the count of Ponthieu, but afterwards had found her joined to himself by a double bond of kinship, and had taken Eleanor daughter of the count of Provence, the Pontiff, the cause being known, ordered the king to be absolved of the oath given. Chaize, page 205, citing these authors, narrates that the marriage, by the procuring of the bishop named above, was entered upon: yet from these nothing can be gathered save that a pact concerning the entering upon a marriage, or a betrothal, was concluded. As concerns the daughter of the count of Provence, whom, Joanna being left, Henry married in the following year, Louis took care that she be honourably conducted through France, as the same Paris has, page 276. These things being narrated, we are recalled to suits and to dissensions born of dissensions, while the ecclesiastical princes in France keenly protect their jurisdiction, but the secular ones on the contrary labour that their rights be not diminished.

[301] Marlot in the Metropolis of Reims, tom. 2, page 318, or book 3, chap. 31, narrates this discord at length, A discord stirred up at Reims, whose relation I shall contract into fewer words, and shall try to illustrate from elsewhere: The discord, he says, between the King and the bishops of the province of Reims increasing, concerning which I treated in §22,

the popular magistrates, having got an occasion of utterly shaking off the yoke of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, broke forth through some cities of Belgium into so great boldness that they left no stone unturned whereby they might bring to its issue the thing long coveted. The men of Reims bore themselves not sluggishly, or more peaceably, in this troubled state of the province, and, as men desirous of new things, craftily stood on the King's side: thus they expel from the city Thomas de Beaumez, provost of the chief church, stirring tumults under a show of protecting the liberty of the clerics. The old sheets add that at that time also there blazed up a grave feud between the aldermen of Reims and the chapter, because the aldermen had pledged the rents to be received from the citizens, without consulting the archbishop, who claimed a tenth part for himself (as also other temporal lords) of every assize which should be made in his ban.

[302] For this cause not only did the archbishop complain and intervene by an inhibition published from the pulpit through the parishes of the city; the citizens drive the clergy with the archbishop out of the city: but the chapter also, as though bringing succour to the archbishop, gave out that the citizens of Reims had no right of community, perhaps because the charter of William makes no mention of this. Quarrels growing strong, the chapter, a commission having been obtained from the holy Apostolic See which should rescind the judgments of the aldermen, announces a day to them. This rumour being spread through the city, the citizens, turned into fury, pulled down the houses of the canons, harassed them with wrongs, drove them all outside the city, of whom one part withdrew to Pont-Faverger, the other and greater to Cormicy, and it concludes that they must never return into the city until full satisfaction be made them for the wrongs. Not content with these things, the citizens—for their anger had boiled up beyond what can be told, because the clerics, their natural judges, studied to abolish communes more ancient—likewise expel the archbishop, invade the temporal revenues, storm the castle of the Porte de Mars, slay certain of his household; for which

they are struck with anathema by the archbishop. To these things the author subjoins a letter of the Pontiff, by which the said damages are described, and the excommunication laid against the citizens is ordered to be promulgated through the diocese not only of Reims, but through the neighbouring dioceses also.

[303] hence the bishops, a council being held, But before these letters of the Pontiff, the bishops of the province of Reims on the feast of St. Mary Magdalene came together to a council at Saint-Quentin, and turned their arms chiefly against the King, although I judge that all the aforesaid displeased the King no less than they displeased the bishops themselves. This council we have published both in Labbe, tom. XI, from col. 501, and in Hardouin, tom. 7, from col. 257, in which a supplication was decreed to be made to the King upon certain articles in which the bishops complained that ecclesiastical liberty was injured. That the matter may shine out, receive part of the supplication from Hardouin's edition, col. 259: In the year of the Lord MCCXXXV, on the Octave of the blessed Mary Magdalene, there were at Melun the lord of Reims, of Soissons, of Laon, of Châlons, of Noyon, of Senlis, and of Thérouanne, bishops, with the messengers of the cathedral chapters of the province of Reims, who then were present there, and they entreated on the part of the council the lord King under this form:

[304] They entreat the King that, without cognizance of the cause, The whole council of the province of Reims entreats for the church of Reims and the archbishop that the lord King lend his aid in amending the excesses of the citizens of Reims, which are notorious and evident to him, expressed at Arras: for which also they are excommunicated, denounced through the province of Reims. Concerning the excommunication, namely, the lord King ought to believe the archbishop, since he uttered the said sentences against the citizens of Reims by ecclesiastical authority: nor upon this ought the lord King to make any inquisition. About this point the controversy stuck: for neither did the King favour the seditious citizens, nor refuse to compel them to render satisfaction to the archbishop: but he wished to take cognizance of the matter, as we shall see was afterwards done.

[305] he compel the citizens to satisfaction: Likewise the council entreats that the lord King compel not the archbishop of Reims to answer concerning homicide, or another crime touching his own person, to the citizens of Reims in his court, since they are subject to his justice and his faithful men: nor even concerning anything else, since he has not been in default: nor let the lord King reckon him in default if he take not a day before him against them, since he has been in no default toward them, and since they themselves are excommunicate. Likewise the council entreats that the banishment made by the lord King of Thomas de Beaumez, canon of Reims and subdeacon, he revoke in the same manner in which it was made. These two things at length the bishops obtained: for the bishop was not compelled to plead his cause in the King's court, and Thomas de Beaumez seems to have been recalled from exile, who in the council celebrated at Saint-Quentin in the year 1239, in Hardouin, col. 325, is called Provost of the church of Reims, whereas here he is called only a canon, so that afterwards he seems to have been promoted to that dignity; and hence Marlot cited above comes to be corrected, who both calls him provost already then, and says he was expelled by the citizens, whereas here he is said to have been relegated by royal command, which I do not judge was done save by a previous judgment.

[306] Now, the remaining articles of the supplication being omitted, concerning which the King was not afterwards admonished, they admonish him deliberating on that matter, perhaps because he cleared himself of them at once, I shall subjoin what followed after this supplication: But the supplication being made in the aforesaid manner,

the lord King said that upon this he would take counsel: and counsel being taken, he answered that he wished to have fuller counsel thereupon, and upon this he assigned a day for the morrow of the quinzaine of the Assumption of the blessed Mary at Melun. Which

being heard, the lord King and the said bishops, with the aforesaid messengers of the chapters, withdrew apart, and, counsel being taken, agreed in this, that they should take that day; but upon the two first articles, namely concerning the business of the church of Reims and of the archbishop, and the banishment of Thomas de Beaumez, canon of Reims, they should admonish the lord King. And going out before the lord King, upon those two they admonished him on the part of the council, and took the aforesaid day for hearing the answer of the lord King. But what the King's answer was I do not find in the ancient authors: but a second admonition, various bishops being present, was made in the month of September At Saint-Denis concerning the business of the church of Reims and of the archbishop, and concerning the banishment of Thomas de Beaumez, and that by the authority of the council which was held at Compiègne in the month of August, and which in Hardouin is subjoined to the preceding, together with the second admonition.

[307] The third admonition is not there set down, but that it was made and to compel him by an interdict is not doubtful. But there are subjoined at col. 261 the acts of the council of Senlis, which the archbishop of Reims had convoked on the Tuesday before the feast of St. Martin, that a good and competent penalty, without delay, might be ordained and appointed against the lord King, if he should not obey the admonitions made to him upon the business of the archbishop and church of Reims. No further mention is here made by the bishops of the exile of Thomas de Beaumez, so that that cause seems already then to have been ended, as also the other was shortly to be ended, so that it is a wonder that the bishops did not act more moderately, and that they blazed out even against those who judged that it should be acted more moderately, although those were equal in number to the former, or even superior, if the cathedral chapters be counted. Ten bishops in all were gathered, five of them, namely those of Laon, of Noyon, of Amiens, of Arras, and of Senlis, with all the cathedral chapters except those of Reims and of Beauvais, judged that nothing should be decreed concerning an interdict, but only that in the Cathedral churches and in the chapels of the bishops it should be celebrated with lowered voice.

[308] But truly the archbishop, whose cause was being pleaded, with the remaining four bishops, thinking that something more severe should be decreed not only against the King, they plot: but against the dissenting bishops also, thus decree: We the archbishop, together with the remaining bishops, namely of Soissons, of Châlons, of Cambrai, and of Thérouanne, considering that the said bishops did not do what they had promised and ought; have ordained and appointed this penalty. Since the lord King has not obeyed the admonitions made to him, we interdict his whole lordship situated in the province of Reims: yet so that there be exhibited there the viaticum and baptism. From now we excommunicate all bishops who shall not have observed this penalty, and caused it to be observed in their dioceses, published it, and caused it to be published, on the morrow

of the blessed Andrew, which we fix beforehand for publishing the said penalty: but all others from now we excommunicate and suspend who shall not have observed the said penalty from the said term of publication fixed beforehand. From what has been said correct Claude Fleury, Ecclesiastical History, tom. 17, page 124, or book 80, §53, where he wrongly says that the archbishop pronounced the interdict by the counsel of his suffragans, as if all had consented. As for the rest, it is not established for me from the monuments which I have hitherto seen whether the interdict was in fact promulgated and kept, or whether, either by the intercession of the other bishops, or by a hope of peace shining out, its promulgation was passed over.

[309] but, the cause being partly known by the King, But it is certain that the cause after these things was shortly terminated, and indeed in such a manner that neither does the liberty of the church seem to have suffered anything, nor the authority of the King, who had been unwilling to compel the men of Reims to satisfaction save when the cause was known, to have been in any way diminished: nay rather in the same manner, I think, in which the holy King did not refuse from the beginning to terminate the suit. For indeed Louis, having heard both parties, ordained certain temporal rights, the cognizance of which pertained to him as supreme lord, and ordered the citizens to make good certain damages. Then he committed the cognizance of all the rest to two ecclesiastical men, namely to the abbot of St. Denis, and to Peter de Colmieu provost of Saint-Omer, that they should inquire concerning the damages inflicted on both sides, and should take care that restitution be made: that the excommunications also should be examined before them, and that due satisfaction should be made for those justly laid, none for those laid unjustly. All these things, more fully set forth, the reader will find in the royal letters, given in the month of January of the following year (yet the year 1235 being there noted according to the French custom of that time), which we have in the Gallia Christiana, tom. 1, page 525.

[310] partly by churchmen delegated by him, the suit is terminated. The aforesaid things are confirmed from the letters of those delegated by the King, published in the same Gallia Christiana from page 526, whose beginning I subjoin: To all who shall inspect the present letters, Odo by the grace of God abbot of B. Denis, Peter de Colmieu provost of Saint-Omer, greeting in the Lord. Let your whole community know that, whereas we by the mandate of the lord King came to Reims for amends to be made to the archbishop, by our counsel, concerning the wrongs, excommunications, and all forfeitures which had happened between the citizens of Reims and the archbishop from the time of the dissension moved between them, and for the damages open and hidden, when they should be proved, to be restored to the said archbishop by the said citizens, so that we should be willing to proceed with the said archbishop according to the form of the King's letters, the judicial order upon the premises being kept: it pleased the lord archbishop and the citizens of Reims to submit themselves to our high and low ordinance and disposition upon the aforesaid: and each of the citizens swore to keep and hold inviolably what we should ordain and dispose for the aforesaid; and those who had not sworn will take care to stand to the commands of the Church, and to keep what is ordained by us, both in money and in other satisfaction; the aforesaid archbishop likewise promising to keep and hold our ordinance or disposition inviolably. But we, on account of

the rancours and hatreds which could be stirred up between the archbishop and the burgesses, whose lord he is, out of the proposing of the wrongs which were said to have been inflicted, and of the excommunications made, and because a strict cognizance of the aforesaid could burden the mind, consented to their will, receiving upon ourselves the ordaining of all the aforesaid between the parties. Then these arbiters so composed the matter that they took care that the damages inflicted on the archbishop be restored, and that the citizens be absolved from the excommunication, the satisfaction of some going before, but not so of others. These things were done at the beginning of the month of February of the year 1236: and thus that suit was ended, in which the greatest moderation of the King appears, who, although he stoutly protected the rights of the kingdom, yet, after so many and so keen proceedings of the bishops, seems to have been of the same mind for defending the rights of the Church, and for taking care that the damages inflicted should be made good.

Carlisle Ponthieu § XXVII. The conspiracy of the French nobles against churchmen and their judgments: what St. Louis did in this matter.

The suits reported above, by which churchmen exercised the constancy of the young Louis, The plottings of the nobles against churchmen: could not bring it about that the most moderate Prince should attempt to diminish their rights, or consent to those plotting it: but not the same was the moderation of the nobles of the kingdom, whence another controversy arose, and the authority of the bishops was brought into peril. The matter Chaize sets forth, page 210, nearly in this manner. The nobles of France were gathered at Saint-Denis, the King being present, as Chaize will have it, which nevertheless from what is to be said seems uncertain. They wrote there a lengthy letter to the supreme Pontiff, in which they set forth their complaints against the prelates, especially that they made nothing of the civil tribunals, and drew all things to ecclesiastical judgments. They asked therefore the Pontiff that he would take care that his own rights and those of the kingdom be preserved, even as they themselves wished the lawful rights of the Church to be preserved. They added lastly that if that disturbance of right should remain, neither they nor the King would suffer it. To these letters their seals and names there added twenty-six of the chief nobles of the kingdom, among whom were the duke of Burgundy, the counts of Brittany, of La Marche, and of Champagne, who had already obtained the kingdom of Navarre. Yet neither the King's name nor his seal was appended to the letters, from which I suspect that the nobles did this without the King, he perhaps dissembling. That these letters were written in the month of September of the year 1235 Fleury asserts in the Ecclesiastical History, book 80, chap. 53. Whence they seem not to have lacked effect; for a concord shortly followed, and an end was set to the tumults of Reims and of Beauvais. But that the said suits were ended at the exhorting of Gregory the Pontiff I suspect from the words of Odorico Raynaldus at the year 1236, num. 37, where he writes these things: Besides, he enjoined the bishop and chapter of Beauvais, and those of Reims, of Soissons,

and other prelates, that, the dignity of the Church being saved, they should show themselves ready for peace to be contracted with the King of France.

[312] that Louis consented to which by a law passed, These things the nobles of the kingdom did without the King; but some judge that more was done by the King, which must diligently be discussed in this place. The first, so far as appears, Odorico Raynaldus, seeming to himself to have dug it out from the Pontiff's letters, wrote that a law was passed by St. Louis, concerning which at the year 1236, num. 31, he thus speaks: Louis, suborned by the counsel of the nobles and by the arts of politicians, had passed a law more unjust against the authority of the prelates, by which he had forbidden that subjects summoned to the tribunals of churchmen to plead their cause should appear, and if for contumacy they were fixed with censures, that the goods of those who had inflicted them, or had caused them to be inflicted, should be occupied by the court's officers, until they were revoked and dissolved. But lest the ecclesiastical dignity and authority, exceedingly depressed by that law, should grow obsolete, Gregory, incited by zeal for protecting it, by most grave letters set before King Louis the examples of Charlemagne, of Theodosius, and of Valentinian the emperors, who had so exalted the authority of the bishops, and yet had not obscured the splendour of their own majesty, but had increased it;

he admonished him to rescind the laws published by himself and the nobles which fought against ecclesiastical liberty: lastly he objected the sentence passed by Honorius, by which the makers of laws of this kind entangled themselves in the noose of anathema. These things he, subjoining presently Gregory's letters, by which he was led into that opinion: nor does he say whether the law was ever revoked.

[313] and never revoked, Chaize, page 211, the same letters of the Pontiff being cited from Raynaldus, narrates the same things concerning the law of Louis and the endeavour of the Pontiff that it should be revoked: and at last, page 212, subjoins in French these words: Yet I do not see that all these things (the Pontiff's plottings) had effect; but only that after eleven years the same decree was renewed. De Choisy, page 45, says: The King ordered it to be put into execution, nay, after some years he renewed it. Claude Fleury, Ecclesiastical History, book 80, §53, the same things being reported from the same source, subjoins in French these words: Nevertheless the holy King did not revoke his decree. Thus those authors, in this consonant with one another, that they think the aforesaid law was passed by St. Louis; but disagreeing in this, that Raynaldus only keeps silence concerning the revocation, while the others rashly determine that it was not revoked. That I may briefly say what, all things considered, is my opinion on this matter: I think it uncertain whether the said law was ever passed by St. Louis; on the contrary I judge it sufficiently certain that it was not received in use; so that either it was not passed, or, if it was passed, it was quickly revoked.

[314] some will have from the Pontiff's letters, That it is uncertain whether the said law was ever passed by St. Louis I shall have sufficiently proved, if I show that it is not certainly proved from Gregory's letters, since there is no other foundation of a law's having been passed. Let us hear therefore the words of the Pontiff, from which the said authors gather it: But behold, he says at num. 34, we have heard and grieve that thou, most dear son, and the barons of the kingdom, using the counsel of evil men, desiring to reduce into servitude the Church, which regenerated you from the womb of sanctification into sons, and unceasingly offers the immaculate Lamb to God the Father for your salvation, as though you would now be called sons not of the free woman, but of the bondwoman; nay, endeavouring miserably to enslave the Spouse of the eternal King, who freed you from perpetual servitude, have—AS IS SAID—by a common statute, or rather destitution against the liberty of the Church, established that men of your right be not bound to answer in an ecclesiastical court to churchmen, or to the men of churchmen, or to others: nay rather, if an ecclesiastical judge shall have passed against them for contumacy a sentence of excommunication, he be compelled

to relax a sentence of this kind by the occupation of his own goods, or of those at whose instance they were excommunicated, in contempt of the keys of the Church, against which the powers of hell cannot prevail. These are the words of the Pontifical letter, from which they gather that a law was passed: but the letter was given at Viterbo on the XV Kalends of March of the year 1236.

[315] I confess that I should understand the letter as the writers cited understand it, which do not prove it: if nothing from elsewhere stood in the way. But since not only does there stand in the way the silence of all the ancients, but we are also about to produce an authority not to be despised, by which it is denied in express words that a law of this kind was ever passed by St. Louis; I judge that it must be examined more exactly whether the Pontiff's words altogether prove it; lest we embrace doubtful things for certain, and the same befall us that befell certain writers who affirmed that the body of St. Louis was translated to Paris, being led into error by similar letters of Boniface VIII, as we shall report at §94. Let us weigh therefore the Pontiff's words: By a common statute, he says, … as is said, you have established that, &c. These words, as is said, declare that it was not certainly established for the Pontiff that a law had been passed: and therefore from his words it cannot certainly be inferred that a law was decreed, much less promulgated.

But now if a law had been passed, if it had been promulgated, we cannot doubt that the prelates of France would have signified it by a report in no wise doubtful to Gregory the Pontiff, so that he would not have had to insert into his letters those words, as is said. Then, as Gregory's words do not prove that the law itself was decreed, so much less do they prove that that law was decreed by Louis: for the nobles of the kingdom could, just as they wrote the letters reported above without the King, so have fabricated a decree of this kind without the King: for that they did this in the year 1247 we shall see in §44, when St. Louis not only did not consent to them, but even resisted them. But, you will say, the Pontiff thought a law was decreed, and that decreed by the common counsel of the nobles and of the King. I answer that neither is affirmed for certain by the Pontiff: but that he could have been deceived in the first from a report perhaps spread through France, and from the threats of the nobles which the prelates of France wrote to him; but as to the second that an error could much more easily creep in, because the nobles boasted that the King consented with them, while he in the meantime thought he should dissemble. You see,

I think, learned reader, that the law of which we treat rests upon a foundation utterly uncertain and ambiguous.

[316] But now there are not a few things which persuade that the law was never decreed. although many things stand against the law, In the first place the silence of the authors, especially of Matthew Paris, who mentions the interdict of Reims and of Beauvais at the year 1236, and uttered not a word about this law: and yet the same Paris did not keep silence about a like plotting of the nobles made in the year 1247. Secondly, the favours in this same year shown by Gregory to Louis, which with certain others the praised Raynaldus reports at num. 45 in these words: To nourish also the King's piety, since Gregory knew him to be notably affected toward divine things, he granted by an Apostolic diploma that when there was a cessation of the sacred rites he might be able to be present at the divine mysteries; and he forbade that anyone should strike his chapels with an ecclesiastical interdict. The letters by which he exempts the royal chapels from the bishops' interdict, and by which Gregory praises Louis's observance toward the Roman See, we have in du Chesne, tom. 5, page 861, and they are noted as given in the same year 1236 in the month of November. Hence it is manifest that Gregory was better taught of the holy King's mind, either because the King advised him that a law of this kind had not been decreed by him, or because he, if it was ever passed, straightway at Gregory's prayers abrogated it. For neither was Gregory of so unjust a mind toward the prelates that he would also have snatched away from those whom he complained were being reduced into servitude by a law of this kind the very arms by which alone they could protect their liberty. Nay, that this law, if it was passed, was shortly abolished, the adversaries ought to have confessed, if they had wished to reconcile the things done at this time with those which they report as done in the year 1247. Fleury may be seen, book 82, num. 55, and Chaize, book 6, num. 18, where they narrate a conspiracy of certain nobles against churchmen, that they might snatch from them this very power of judging concerning civil matters. But truly so great an effort was not then needed, if that law had already at this time been passed, and not afterwards abrogated: for neither was Louis so negligent in urging his own laws that a law which he had been unwilling to revoke at so many threats of the Pontiff he should of his own accord have suffered to fall away; nor, if the King's carelessness had been so great, would the nobles of the kingdom have neglected the matter, accustomed as they were keenly to defend their rights against churchmen. These reasons seem of such a kind that the proposing of the law is uncertain, but the abrogation of the law certain, if it was passed: which by irrefragable authority I shall now confirm.

[317] from which it is certainly proved, Philip of Valois reigning in France, in the year 1329 there was a famous disputation concerning the liberties of the Gallican church, appointed by the king himself, concerning which the most illustrious Spondanus may be consulted at the said year from num. XI. Against the churchmen there acted Peter de Cuignières the royal advocate; but the cause of the churchmen, with the bishop-elect of Sens, was pleaded by Peter Bertrand bishop of Autun, afterwards raised to the cardinal's purple, who also afterwards wrote out the disputation, which we have in the Bibliotheca Patrum from the edition of Marguerin de la Bigne of the year 1575, tom. 5, from col. 881, from which I shall cite it, although it is had in other editions also. Besides some abuses which do not make to our purpose, the aim which the royal advocate had proposed to himself was that churchmen should be excluded from judgments concerning civil matters, as appears from his words, col. 883: Secondly, he said, that there ought to be a division of spiritual and temporal things, so that spiritual things should pertain to the prelates, and temporal to the king and the barons. Which he afterwards endeavoured to prove. But on the contrary Bertrand undertook to prove by many arguments that churchmen are not to be excluded from temporal jurisdiction; and among other reasons which do not concern us, he brings forward the law of Theodosius the emperor, to which the adversaries will have it that a contrary law was framed by St. Louis, and he asserts that it was confirmed by St. Louis, and that the plottings of the nobles were repressed by him. But let us hear the words of that most learned man, uttered in the most august assembly of princes before the king, a whole century not yet having rolled by from the time in which we are engaged.

[318] that that law, if it was ever passed, At col. 899 he thus speaks: Besides, Theodosius the emperor framed such a law: Whosoever having a suit, whether he be plaintiff or defendant; whether from the beginning of the suit, or the courses of times having run; whether when it goes worse, or when sentence has begun to be executed: if he shall have chosen the judgment of the prelate of the most sacred see, let it forthwith without any hesitation cease: if the other party gainsay, let it be brought to the judgment of the bishops with the pleading of the litigants. Which law afterwards Charlemagne, who was king of France, thus confirmed: “We will and enjoin, &c.” This very law of Theodosius the Pontiff objected against the law which he thought had been framed by Louis. Then, the adversary's objections being refuted, and other reasons adduced, the bishop thus continues, col.

900: Lastly this is proved from the privilege granted,

both by Charlemagne …, as was said

before: and by St. Louis, and by

Philip your uncle: and by Louis

and Philip your kinsmen, kings

of France: which privileges we have ready to hand. At length, a lengthy disputation being interposed, at col. 903 he thus infers: Now it is certain that your predecessors Charlemagne, saint Louis, Philip the Fair, Louis and Philip, and his sons, and several others confirmed this liberty of the Church. After a few things, when the adversary had said that to grant like privileges to bishops was contrary to the royal oath, as a most absurd thing at col. 904 he infers the following: Which if it were true, which be far from us, it would follow that your predecessors were continually in sin: nay, which it is impious to say, that the blessed Louis, by whom all France is illumined, was not justly canonized. For if, as the proposer said, he swore not to alienate, and to recall what was alienated, and that is inseparable from the crown, it follows that he had forsworn himself: and consequently had sinned mortally, and so could not have been canonized; which it is nefarious to say. And if it be said that he could have repented, it can quickly be answered that the sin is read of, but the penitence is not found:

that is, it is read that he granted to the Church this liberty of judging even among laymen concerning civil causes— for concerning this the matter is everywhere—but it is not read that he ever repented of the privilege given.

[319] These things seem to suffice, that it may be held for certain that temporal judgments were not snatched from the bishops by St. Louis, was afterwards abrogated. and therefore that the law of which we have disputed either was never decreed by St. Louis, or was at once revoked. More could be brought forward from the little work of the most learned Cardinal Bertrand, but, these being passed over, I add only one period of his, because in it there is treated the conspiracy of the nobles against the liberty of churchmen, and from it it becomes more probable that that pretended law was never framed by Louis. For thus it has at col. 905: And to this B. Louis strove much in his time: because when the greater barons of the whole kingdom had confederated themselves to take away that liberty of the Church, and had ordained further to give a hundredth part of their goods (that was done in the year 1247) he never adhered to them, but rather

restrained them from these things, and finally confirmed this liberty of the Church. Although the author speaks of the conspiracy of the year 1247, yet since he says He never adhered to them, he seems also to deny that the law of which we treat was framed by Louis. From this whole disputation it is manifestly concluded that the authors cited at num. 313 not only rashly, as being propped by the authority of no ancient, asserted that the aforesaid law was framed by St. Louis and never revoked; but also wrote things contrary to an authority utterly irrefragable:

for indeed if St. Louis's privilege had been doubtful, by which the Theodosian law and the judgments of the bishops were confirmed, neither would the bishops have so often repeated it with such confidence in the assembly of the king and the nobles, nor would the royal pleader have been dumb at it. Besides, from the issue of the disputation it is clear that not even under Philip of Valois were the judgments snatched from the bishops, which the adversaries will have already snatched from them by Louis's law, since the victory fell to the bishops, the king preserving their privileges. As for the rest, he who desires to understand how and when this jurisdiction of the bishops in temporal matters was taken away in France, may consult Louis Thomassin in his Ancient and new discipline of the Church, part 2, book 3, chap. 110, learnedly treating these matters. § XXVIII. The administration of the kingdom undertaken: various things of the year 1236: the movements of the king of Navarre and of other princes: the peril of Louis from the Assassins, concerning whom various things are made clear. Louis undertakes the administration of the kingdom: Various authors write that in this year 1236 Louis, having gone out from his mother's wardship, took up the free reins of the kingdom, because they think that the twenty-first year of his age was only now completed on the XXV of April, and that that age was at that time required for the King to be able to administer the kingdom by himself. Others will have it that the administration of the kingdom was taken up by him two years earlier, when he took Margaret to wife. But since on that matter I have found nothing in the ancient authors, I should rather believe that it was done in the past year according to the custom of the kingdom: for then according to the chronology of ours he completed the twenty-first year of his age. However it be, in this year certainly he administered the kingdom by himself, although for that reason little was changed in the whole administration of the kingdom: for, as Blanche had deferred much to Louis while she herself had the chief authority, so also Louis used the counsels of his most prudent mother in the chief affairs of the kingdom: which Chaize rightly proves, page 217, is not to be turned into a fault for St. Louis: for he is not to be reproved who uses another's counsel; but he is deservedly to be blamed who suffers himself to be led away by the caprice of others from the right path to evils, from which Louis was far removed, as his whole life will make manifest.

[321] he forbids the nuptials of certain persons: There had died in the year 1233 Ferrand count of Flanders, as Alberic has, page 547: his widow Joanna countess of Flanders was courted by Simon of Montfort, afterwards earl of Leicester in England, who prevailed in great favour with the king of England, and in the year 1238 married his sister, on the testimony of Paris at the same year, page 314. But

St. Louis, perceiving how perilous to the kingdom of France the nuptials of Simon of Montfort with Joanna would be, ordered her, as his client, to abstain from them; and she declared to the King that she had neither entered nor promised a marriage, nor would enter nor promise one, and that, if she had promised, she would desist. This declaration du Tillet cites in his Collection concerning the kings of France, part 1, page 71. In a like manner Louis hindered the nuptials of the same Simon with Matilda, widow of Philip count of Boulogne, concerning whom it has often been treated in what precedes, as may be seen in Chaize, page 215. Of both hindered marriages Alberic speaks, page 561.

He composes a grave dissension. Matthew Paris at the same year, page 295, reports a grave sedition quieted by the royal authority: his words I subjoin: In the same year also, about the days of Pentecost, there arose a lamentable dissension in the city of Orléans between the clergy (or the scholars) and the citizens, a certain little woman stirring up the incitement and seed-bed of discord.

And so far did the tumult, being fanned, take increase, that there were slain in the city by the citizens most illustrious young scholars, and renowned by birth: namely the nephew of the count de la Marche, the nephew of the count of Champagne, that is of the king of Navarre, and a near kinsman of the count of Brittany, and a certain other kinsman by consanguinity of the noble baron Archambaud of Bourbon

, and many others, of whom some were drowned in the river Loire, others butchered, but others, who escaped, scarcely lying hid in caves and vineyards and various hiding-places, were snatched from the peril of death. Which being heard, the bishop of the city, girt with zeal for justice, went out from the city, and, the malefactors themselves being excommunicated, put the city itself under interdict. Moreover the aforenamed magnates,

hearing of the slaughter of their kinsmen, entering the city in hostile fashion, butchered many of the citizens with the edge of the sword without awaiting judgment. Others too, while they were returning from certain fairs, laden with panniers and packs, they beheaded on the road with swords still bloodied. Nor did the sedition, once moved, cease, until the royal mandate, through the wills of both parties, compositions being made, prudently tempered the tumult.

Truly no small authority and prudence was needed for repressing these movements between most powerful princes and a noble city.

[323] Alberic in his Chronicle at the year 1234, page 550, writes these things: The king of Navarre prepares arms against Louis. Theobald count of Champagne, after Easter, on the Sunday Misericordia Domini, is raised into king of the Navarrese, his uncle Sancho having died without heir, in whose treasury he is said to have found seventeen hundred thousand pounds. The finding of so great a treasure, and the accession of a kingdom, seems to have lifted up the prince's mind, and to have brought it about that against the King himself, by whose benefit he had been preserved from ruin, he ungratefully rose up. Concerning the time in which the count began to move, the authors do not altogether agree: for indeed Vincent of Beauvais and Philip of Nangis assign the year

1235; but others, and those more accurate in designating the time, the year 1236. Yet these can in some measure be reconciled, if we say that Vincent of Beauvais and Nangis speak of the time in which Theobald king of Navarre began to prepare himself for war and to enroll military forces, which it is probable was done before the Easter of the year 1236, at which they begin to count this year. But whether those authors erred in this place, as often elsewhere, in designating the year, or whether they are to be understood in the aforesaid manner, we cannot doubt, on account of the authors presently to be alleged, that this movement of Theobald and of those adhering to him is to be referred to the year 1236. And so let us hear the cause of this tumult.

[324] Alberic just now praised, page 556, alleges various causes of the discord, for various causes, beginning the year from these, in these words: In the year MCCXXXVI Theobald king of Navarre demanded back from the King of France certain of his fiefs which, for above forty thousand pounds of Paris, as they say, he had bound

over to him three years before by way of pledge, namely of the county of Blois, and the county of Chartres, and the county of Sancerre , and the (vis)county of Châteaudun toward Vendôme , with their appurtenances; and because the aforesaid*

money had not been restored at the term fixed beforehand, the King of France as of right retained and appropriated to himself the aforesaid fiefs. That those fiefs were not only pledged to Louis, but sold, we have already proved in §23 from authentic instruments and from the testimony of the King himself in Joinville. Since nevertheless the report at that time was that they had been pledged, someone might suspect that Theobald spread this report, and also perhaps sought a knot in a bulrush, thinking that he would easily recover the aforesaid fiefs by striking fear into the King, whom he knew to be a lover of peace. Whatever be the case, that this was one of the causes of this tumult I easily agree with Alberic, who thus continues: Whence upon this and upon certain other articles a controversy was moved between them. When meanwhile the king of Navarre gave his daughter, whom on his faith

and under certain pactions of religion he had promised to the king of Castile for his son, without consulting the King of France, to John son of the count of Brittany, which cause was the tinder of so great a scandal that the whole land was disturbed, and thus prepared and drawn up were the lines of battle on this side and that, that they thought to invade one another.

[325] and enters a league with the counts of La Marche and of Brittany: Although Theobald played the chief part in this movement against Louis, and thence it seems to have come about that by most authors he alone is recorded, yet he had other princes also joined to him by league. Them, together with the time in which the movement began to break out, Matthew Paris records at this year, page 294, in this manner: In the same year also, the spring season smiling, there rose up many magnates girt for battle, that they might move war against the King of France. For they were indignant that the kingdom of kingdoms, namely France, was ruled by womanish counsel. Now those rising up were men grave and famous, and from their earliest years brought up to the exercises of battles: namely the king of Navarre, that is, the count of Champagne; the count also de la Marche,

the count of Brittany, and very many other powerful men, bound together by league and oath. You see those triumvirs, who, Louis being crowned, presently had taken up arms that they might despoil Blanche of the administration of the kingdom, again fly to arms, the administration of the kingdom having been transferred to Louis. They perhaps hoped that they would accomplish more with the young King than they had been able to accomplish with the queen: but their hope deceived those leaders of tumults, as we shall presently see. Further, the letters by which the count de la Marche and his wife, by the counsel of the count

of Brittany, promise help to the count of Champagne against whomsoever should bring war upon him, given in the month of April, the often-praised Lobineau assigns in the History of Brittany, book 7, num. 128, or tom. 1, page 237. But he is deceived in thinking them given after the peace entered upon by Theobald with the King, since this is some months later.

[326] but Louis hastening with an army, he sends legates, What was done between Theobald and Louis, and with how great speed the young King shook the arms out of his hands, Nangis explains, page 331, in these words: In the following year, Theobald count of Champagne, gathering an army, attempted to rise up against his lord King Louis.

Which the King recognizing, the dukes and counts of his kingdom being called together to Paris, gathering his army, against the aforesaid count, for the repressing of his pride, began quickly to set out as far as the wood of Vincennes with those who were with him. But after the count of Champagne learned this by a truthful report, being troubled and anxious in mind, because he had presumed to lift his heel against his liege lord*

the King of the Franks, considering the boldness and valour of the Franks, he was utterly ignorant what he ought to do. At length, having a good and salutary counsel, knowing that it is not base to change counsel with the matter, he sent messengers in good time

to his lord the King, charging him and most earnestly entreating that he would deign to lay aside the anger and indignation which he had conceived against him. And

that he might the more speedily find grace in his eyes, he delivered to him two towns with their strongholds, namely Bray on the Seine, and Montereau en fors d'Yonne , in sign of complete subjection, to be possessed in perpetuity without any disquiet. For as he had known justice in the King toward rebels and the proud, so he had known his piety toward humble and peaceable subjects.

Thus therefore the count of Champagne, who by his pride had offended his lord the King, deserved by his humility going before to pacify him without any encounter. And then the King with his people returned to Paris. With these agrees Vincent of Beauvais, book 30, chap. 137.

[327] But we have more from Alberic praised above and from other authors: and commits himself to the King's mercy, being fined by whom, for various writers teach both that favour was granted to Theobald at the request of others, and that he himself was compelled to submit himself and his goods to the King's mercy.

Hear Alberic: But so many, he says, and so great (honourable) persons mediating, the king of Navarre came to the King's mercy, and submitted himself and his land, and whatever was demanded, to him; so that not only were the said fiefs

altogether quitclaimed to the King in perpetuity, but the King himself also had his garrisons in Montereau and in Bray on the Seine, which nevertheless he afterwards restored to the king of Navarre. The anonymous author of the Life of St. Louis, concerning whom at num. 31, confirms this complete subjection of Theobald, and that the towns were altogether given

to Louis: both Chaize narrates from various MSS., who adds, page 223, that he had to grant three towns to the King, to be chosen by Louis himself; that besides these Theobald bound himself to fulfil the vow of an expedition into the Holy Land, by which he had bound himself in the preceding year, and to stay there, or in the kingdom of Navarre, for seven years. And so if the King afterwards restored the said towns to Theobald, as Alberic has, that seems to have been done for another cause than that he had not altogether abdicated them. Hence deservedly to his praise William of Puylaurens said, chap. 39: The count also of Champagne Theobald felt that it was hard for him to kick against the goad. For the holy King knew not only how to spare the subjected, but also how to subdue the proud: this those triumvirs felt, the authors of so many tumults, who all were compelled at different times to commit themselves and all their goods to the King's mercy. The Breton we saw a suppliant two years since; now the Champenois, increased even by a kingdom, we likewise behold a suppliant: and lastly Hugh count of La Marche we shall see after some years, to his greater detriment, imploring the King's mercy. These things being briefly observed, I return to my purpose.

[328] But now, since Alberic says above that it came about by the intercession of honourable persons by the intercession, as it seems, that it did not come to the shedding of blood, and yet does not name those persons, it will not be beside the point to inquire to whom chiefly this glory is owed.

The report of this warlike movement had been carried to Gregory the Pontiff, either by Theobald himself or from elsewhere. And so, since the Pontiff feared lest the expedition beyond the sea against the infidels, which Theobald with many princes of France had vowed, the cross being taken, as Alberic has at the year 1235, page 555, should thence receive great detriment, he pressed with most effectual prayers upon Louis that he would compose the matter. Receive the end of his letter in Raynaldus at the year 1236, num. 47: We ask the royal serenity by the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ, enjoining it upon thee for the remission of thy sins, that, lest the loss of the Holy Land, which on this account, which be far from us, might happen, be required of thy hands, desisting from the assailing of the aforesaid king (of Navarre) and of the other cross-signed men, thou procure that peace be so made in thy kingdom that both the business of the cross may be advanced, and thou mayest thereby deserve to have Him propitious who for thy salvation and that of the whole human race sustained the torment of His own body on the gibbet of the tree. Given at Terni on the XIV Kalends of July in the X year. On the same day Gregory gave letters to the bishops of Paris and of Langres, and to the abbot of Clairvaux, which the most illustrious Manrique recites in the Cistercian Annals at this year, chap. 3. But in these, after reciting the letters written to the King, he thus addresses them: And therefore to you, in whose prudence, zeal, and authority we trust, by these Apostolic writings we charge that, personally approaching the King himself and the queen his mother, and more prudently setting forth to them the evils which from this could happen not only to the Holy Land, but also to the whole kingdom of France, you may the more effectually induce them to enter into peace, or a truce, with the same king of Navarre.

[329] of the Pontiff, he is received into favour: That the matter was accomplished by these delegates of the Pontiff the praised Manrique writes: which the circumstances of the time and of the matter make probable. Louis had commanded, says de Choisy, page 48, from an ancient instrument,

that the nobles of the kingdom should be present at Saint-

Germain-en-Laye three weeks

after Pentecost, that is about the eighth day of June,

since Easter in that year was the XXX of March. If therefore after some days the King withdrew with his army to Vincennes, these Pontifical legates could have found him acting at Vincennes, which perhaps happened after Theobald's first legates were sent back, whom

Chaize, page 222, narrates were scarcely heard. For the Pontiff's letters were written on the XVIII of June, or ten days after the term assigned for the gathering of the army: so that it seems scarcely doubtful that the Pontifical legates came between Louis's departure from Saint-Germain and the reconciliation of Theobald. The time therefore agrees. The circumstances of the matter also persuade that Louis attributed much to the prayers of these legates, both because he was of surpassing observance toward Christ's Vicar, and because the Pontiff demanded concord with such earnest prayers, and because among the conditions of the peace that one is found concerning the fulfilling of the vow of the expedition beyond the sea, which the Pontiff so greatly desired. Whence by a very probable conjecture it can be judged that the conditions of the peace were imposed on Theobald by the counsel of these legates. Yet I should not dare to say this altogether certain, because the ancient authors do not sufficiently explain the matter.

[330] the error of certain writers concerning this deed. Nor yet should I have doubted to say that some authors have been led away from the right path, among whom Chaize, page 221, Daniel in the History of France, tom. 2, page 28, de Choisy from page 47, who intrepidly assert that Louis, the admonitions and prayers of the Pontiff being neglected, went on against Theobald. Hear the words of the author last named, which at page 48, after the Pontiff's admonitions have been reported, he subjoins: Louis, he says in French, who knew that the Pontiff could give him counsels, never commands, did not omit to send charges into the provinces, that he might take care that his army be gathered. He ordered the vassals of the crown to be present at Saint-Germain-en-Laye three weeks after Pentecost, that is, the VIII of June, as we have already observed. If therefore it please to believe this author, the holy King before the VIII of June, when he was sending charges to the princes, had already seen and neglected the Pontiff's prayers, which were to be written in Italy on the XVIII of the same month. Further, as this author shamefully wanders from the right division of times, so those narrate things alien from the mind of St. Louis who frequently bring him in as despising the Pontifical admonitions.

As for the rest, concerning the time in which this warlike movement was ended, Matthew Paris thus writes, page 295: In the same year also, the summer season now declining, those nobles who had disposed to disturb the kingdom of the Franks, a certain composition of peace being made, were received into the King's favour. Thus by the King's speed the tumult was quickly quieted, and perhaps before the counts of La Marche and of Brittany had openly declared their intention.

[331] In this same year Nangis with other writers of his time narrates a grave peril of life The peril of St. Louis from the Assassins. which a certain eastern prince had created for St. Louis, whom authors commonly name the Old Man, or the Old Man of the mountain. Receive his words from the Chronicle at this year, where he narrates the matter more succinctly than in the Deeds of St. Louis: The Old Man of the Mountains, king of the Harsacides, he says, sent into France Harsacide messengers, enjoining that they should slay Louis the King of France; but as they were departing, God changed his heart, and put into him thoughts of peace and not of slaying: whence after the first, sending others as quickly as possible, he charged the holy King Louis that he should guard himself from the first messengers: on account of which the King from that time caused his body to be more diligently guarded (namely by men constantly carrying copper clubs, as he adds in the Deeds, page 332); and by the second messengers he found the first, and, they being found, the holy King, rejoicing, honoured both with gifts, and to their king in sign of peace and friendship sent very many presents and precious gifts. Concerning this same eastern prince, whom he calls prince of the Bedouins, Joinville treats at chap. 19, where he reports his arrogant embassy to Louis staying in Palestine, and the King's constancy in blunting his arrogance by the help of the Hospitallers and Templars. Likewise he records various things concerning his religion, different from the religion of the Mahometans, and infected with ridiculous errors. Wherefore concerning that band of cut-throats I have thought it must be treated in this place a little more diligently, that by the same labour the said chapter of Joinville may be illustrated.

[332] Barthélemy d'Herbelot in the Bibliothèque orientale written in French, concerning whose names, and printed at Paris in the year 1697, treats in various places of those cut-throats and of their princes. Page 437 and elsewhere he says that the name Old Man of the mountain is derived from the words Scheikh-el Gebal, which, he says, in Arabic signify the lord of Persian Irak, or of the most elevated and mountainous part of Persia. This opinion Vitry favours in the History of Jerusalem, num. 14, where concerning them he thus writes: But the first and highest abbot of their ill-omened religion, and the place whence they had their beginning, and from which they came to Syria, is in the Eastern parts very remote toward the city of Baghdad, and the parts of the province of Persia. Further, the Old Man, or old man of the mountain, this prince is everywhere called by Latin writers, because the former Arabic word signifies alike an old man and a prince; the latter, a mountain. But the subjects of this prince are called by various names by Latin and Greek authors, as du Cange notes on Joinville, page 87, where you may find them called Heissessin in their own tongue, by Benjamin the Jew HHassissim, by William of Tyre Assissini: he says they are named by others Hansesisii, Assidei, Accini, Assassi, Arsasidæ, and Hakesini.

The Greeks everywhere call them Chasii or Chasisii. But now they are called by the more common name Assassins, which name of theirs has been transferred to cut-throats of any kind.

[333] the time of their princedom, The princes of that people the praised Herbelot enumerates as eight, page 505, at the word Ismalioun, all of whom together, he says, held the princedom for 171 years. The first of them was called Hassan Sabah, a nefarious man, who began to gape after the slayings of princes. But his beginning he sets in the year of the Hegira 483, of Christ 1090, in which same year also in Elmacin's Saracen History at the year of the Hegira 483 it is read that the Batinæi, who appear the same as the Assassins from the same manners, began to move themselves and to invade castles. But the beginning recorded by Herbelot, and the time in which the princedom stood, agrees well enough with the time of their destruction: for in the year 1262 their chief castle was girded with a siege, and it being taken they were destroyed, as we shall see afterwards; but to this year from the year 1090 the 171 years added will easily lead us, provided some months be added, as will appear to one subtracting the numbers. Now receive the region whence those bands of cut-throats broke forth, and their manners, from authors who surveyed those places as eyewitnesses.

[334] dominion, and forces, John Phocas in his Itinerary of the Holy Land, which Papebroch published in Latin before tom. 11 of May, page 3, having reported the maritime places from Antioch as far as Tripoli, thus continues: In the inland parts a great ridge stretches out, which the Chazisii inhabit, a Saracen people, neither embracing Christ nor holding with Mahomet; but, tenacious of their own sect, confesses God, and him who holds the first place among them they call the envoy of God: by whose command, being sent to the princes of great cities, they behead them with swords. For they rush upon them unexpectedly, and in the very deed they meet death, those few being surrounded by many after the crime is perpetrated; and this they judge to be martyrdom and the receiving of immortality. Ten castles with their suburbs William of Tyre ascribes to the dominion of that prince, and about sixty thousand men, in the Eastern History*, book 20; but Vitry at the place assigned reckons as many castles or towns, but of men above forty thousand; each places the people in Phoenicia about the city of Antaradus or Tortosa: which things, and others reported by them concerning the manners of the Assassins, agree with the sayings of John Phocas, and the same things you may find in several authors of that time, out of whom Spondanus at the year of Christ 1231, Chaize from page 230, and other more recent writers have made a diligent narration concerning the Assassins.

[335] the frauds by which he led on youths Yet it is pleasing to add something to these from an author lately dug out of the darkness, that that blind obedience of the Assassins, by which they hurled themselves into a death by no means doubtful, may become more credible, and that it may become known by what arts and frauds those perverse princes made use, that they might lead improvident youths to so great a contempt of death. Ludovico Antonio Muratori, tom. 9 of the Writers of Italian affairs, published in the year 1726 the latter part of the Chronicle of Francis Pipino of the Order of Preachers, who flourished at the beginning of the XIV century, and in the year 1320 surveyed the holy places. This author, agreeing with the authors already cited concerning the dominion of the Assassins and their manners, concerning the art of the prince by which he led them to that rash obedience, writes at col. 706 the following: This old man therefore had, a religious man indeed, though an observer of an ill-omened rule, a great and pleasant garden, with marble palaces, with walls adorned with divers works, with many-coloured hues, and panelled with various carvings, and also enclosed round about with walls

and outworks. Now the walls were vaulted, and within the vaults there was conducted through pipes wine, milk, honey, oil, and water, which rose in the midst of the garden. There were also within the vaults of those walls every kind of food, and every kind of clothing: royal beds too. In the same garden also every sort of herbs and trees was had; in which he ordered to be nourished and guarded the sons of his peasants, from the time they had first learned to speak, until they had come to the age of XX years. But he chose those whom look, act, and gait, however youthful, showed beforehand would be the bolder. But their nurses were fluent in every tongue, who also instructed those boys in every language, and taught them as dogma that they alone were saved who had died in fulfilling the old man's mandates, asserting that he was the prophet of God.*

[336] Then, having reported the use of comely girls to his commands rashly granted to the youths in the garden, he teaches that that impostor, who in constructing this garden had imitated the words of the Koran concerning paradise, feigned, and persuaded the youths, that this very place was the paradise of which Mahomet speaks in the Koran; and that he permitted the entry of that garden to no others, that namely the imposture might be the better concealed. From all these things Marco Polo the Venetian does not differ much, chap. 28, On the Eastern peoples. Yet Pipino afterwards adds more: But when the boys, he says, as has been said, nourished in the garden, had come to their XX year, a lethargic potion being given them, they were carried outside

the garden, whom the old man ordered to be led to him. To whom, when he had said that they had gone forth from paradise, he caused them to be shut up in a certain tower, where by the sight of serpents and worms, and by great fasting, he wasted them. And it was said to them that that was the horrible place of hell, from which they the more truly supposed that they had gone forth from paradise; perceiving namely the squalor and horror of a place so most unlike the garden, and enduring so strait a penury of food after the most sumptuous feasts in which they had been nourished. These secrets could break forth after the destruction of the Assassins, and therefore they ought not to seem incredible, even though they are not found in those authors who wrote while the Assassins flourished. Truly a marvellous cunning was needed for that old schemer to impel youths to those deeds which it is established from the authors they designed.

[337] And when, says Pipino, he wished to send them through the parts of the world to slay someone, to be executed by slaying princes, he caused it to be announced to them that if they wished to go forth from hell and to return into paradise, they should fulfil his will to the full. And when they answered that they were ready at hand, he gave each three knives, and to the killing of the men, to whatsoever places he had decreed, they exposed themselves intrepidly with those knives, and, death being neglected, they busied themselves through the wiles and cunning of their lord to fulfil his mandates. For he promised them, on account of an execution of the mandate of this kind, even if they died, that they would have far greater delights without end after death in the everlasting country than were those in which they had been nourished. But those who died on account of such a mandate of the old man were reckoned martyrs by their own, and among the saints were held in much reverence by that foolish people. The parents also of those who had been slain the old man himself enriched with many and great gifts. If they were slaves, they were permitted to depart free. To these things he subjoins certain examples of princes slain by them, which for brevity's sake I omit. Yet it is pleasing to transcribe hither one example of the rash obedience of those youths, which Sanuto also reports, book 3, part 10, chap. 8.

[338] [and their mad obedience, and various things are noted concerning the destruction of the people.] But they were so far, he says at col. 705, obedient to their lord that nothing was so grievous to them that they would not with cheerful mind and ardent will accomplish it at his nod. Whence when Henry count of Champagne … being asked by the old man himself to turn aside through his land, saw one day, walking with the old man, a lofty tower on whose summit youths in white tunics were sitting; and when the old man asked whether the count had his subjects so obedient as he had his own, cutting short the count's answer, he called by a known sign two of the youths who were upon the tower; who straightway, hurling themselves from the tower, their bodies being dashed to the ground, breathed out their souls. At length the author, when he had narrated in what manner they became tributaries to the Templars, and how their prince had wished to convert himself from Mahomet to Christ, and in what manner that was hindered by the perfidy of a certain Christian, subjoins at col. 708 their destruction by the Tartars; for they lay in wait for the lives of Tartars and Saracens as well as of Christians; and he reports that their chief castle was besieged in the year 1262, and after a three years' siege taken for want of victuals, and thus concludes his narration: The Tartars therefore, having got the town by the violence of famine, butchered with swords that infamous old man with all his attendants. And thus, by divine judgment, the name and race of that perfidious people failed, the Tartars exterminating all things. Concerning the time of the destruction Marco Polo the Venetian agrees, chap. 29, and others, although others place it some years earlier, which it is not worth the labour to discuss more exactly.

[339] The Saint snatched from peril by God's singular protection. But from what has been said it is manifest in how great peril from that perfidious people St. Louis was, and that not undeservedly he judged that he must beware of them, when he had heard that men had been sent to contrive his death. But the name of the prince by whom they had been sent, in the said catalogue of Herbelot, page 505 of the Bibliothèque Orientale, is Ala-eddin Mohammed, who is said to have held the princedom for above 35 years, and therefore he must needs be the same who afterwards sent the proud embassy to Louis staying in Syria. There have not been lacking those who said that by divine revelation these ambushes were detected by St. Louis: but contemporary authors were ignorant of that, and therefore it does not deserve credit; especially since it is established that it was done by the Assassins themselves. More rightly do those philosophize who acknowledge God's singular protection, vindicating from destruction, amid so many perils, the King beloved of Him. Nor can we doubt that Louis himself gratefully acknowledged this favour of God toward him, and from it conceived new spurs to virtue and piety.

Archambaud of Bourbon of Sacrum-Cæsar, Sancerre Vendôme Vincennes Bray-sur-Seine Montereau-Faut-Yonne, on the Yonne. Assassins, commonly that is, sort

§ XXIX. The deeds of the year 1237, or the nuptials of Robert count of Artois: the ambushes of Frederick the emperor eluded: and other things done in the same year and in 1238. The King takes care that a certain suit be determined: In the two following years not many deeds occur: wherefore we shall weave the deeds of both years into this §. Peter de Colmieu, after various sees refused, had at length been compelled by the Pontiff's mandate to undertake the archbishopric of Rouen, as you will find in the Sainte-Marthes, tom. 1, page 586. But presently he had a controversy with the canons of St. Mellon of Pontoise, who declined to be subject to his jurisdiction and correction. There was not lacking to that most excellent man, who had as arbiter terminated various controversies of Louis, the care of the holy King: but arbiters being chosen by his will between both parties of the litigants, the cause was adjudged to the archbishop, and the canons were compelled to be subject to him as their ordinary superior. The letters of concord, given on the Thursday before the Nativity of the B. Virgin of the year 1237, d'Achery recites, tom. 3 of the Spicilegium, page 619.

[341] Nangis, page 332, records certain things concerning Louis to his brother Robert, endowed with knighthood, which he thought were done in the year 1238, but all those must be drawn back to the year 1237, as from more certain documents will become manifest: for we have already shown that Nangis's chronology not rarely wanders. Meanwhile let us hear his words:

For the two following years, peace being granted him by his enemies, all of whom he had subdued, King Louis rested peacefully in his kingdom. And in the twelfth year of his reign, namely in the year of the Lord MCCXXXVIII, the lord Robert, his brother next elder in birth after himself, at Compiègne he made a new knight, whom a little before he had caused to be joined in lawful matrimony to the daughter of the duke of Brabant, Matilda by name: a dispensation having namely been obtained from Gregory the Pontiff, as Raynaldus reports from the Pontifical letters at the year 1236, num. 45, saying Matilda daughter of the duke of Lorraine, which is to be understood of lower Lorraine, for by that name Brabant was then everywhere called. And then, he says, to his same brother he granted Arras and the whole land of Artois to be possessed by hereditary right in perpetuity. There was gathered almost the whole nobility of the kingdom of France of both sexes, the royal mandate urging.

[342] Further, that these things were performed with huge celebrity may easily be gathered from this, and bound in nuptials, that all the nobility of both sexes was gathered at Compiègne. Briefly Alberic records certain things at the year 1237, page 562, describing the nuptials in this manner: At Compiègne on the octave of Pentecost, in the presence and with all the throng of the nobles of France, the same king's brother Robert, newly girt with the belt of knighthood, celebrated his nuptials with Matilda daughter of the duke of Brabant … there, as is said, up to a hundred and forty new knights were created. And those who are called minstrels there did many things in a spectacle of vanity, such as he who rode on a horse upon a rope in the air; and such as those who rode two oxen clothed in scarlet, sounding horns at every course which was set before the King at table. Chaize, page 237, says that some dissension arose on this occasion, because certain cathedral chapters had declined to render the service due to the King in like cases; but the matter was shortly composed by the intercession of the bishops.

[343] the county of Artois, The diploma of Louis by which he grants Artois to his brother Robert Aubert Le Mire made public in the Notitia of the churches of Belgium from page 602, which, since by it the matter is illustrated, the time established, and the surpassing liberality of St. Louis toward his brother appears, I transfer hither: Louis by the grace of God King of the Franks. We make it known that, whereas our father of bright memory Louis king of the Franks ordained in his testament, and assigned for a share of the inheritance to our brother Robert the land of Artois, which our same father had on his mother's side— Arras, Saint-Omer, and Aire,

and, after the decease of our mother Blanche queen of the Franks, Hesdin , Bapaume , and Lens , with their appurtenances, which the same lady our mother held in the name of dower, moving from the side of Isabella the queen our grandmother: we grant by the present charter to our same brother the whole aforesaid land (the fiefs and alms being saved, which shall be held and rendered as in the time of our father) to be possessed by him and his heirs by hereditary right. So that both that land of Arras, Saint-Omer , and Aire , which we before held, and that which the lady our mother possessed in the name of dower, with that right which the same lady our mother had in the purchase which she had made at Villanes, situated in the fief of Lens, he may have as his own inheritance.*

[344] and grants other things: And he has done us liege homage therefor, and his heirs shall be bound to do the like to us and our heirs; and we have commuted the aforesaid dower, in our mother's name, to the same lady our mother in a place pleasing and agreeable to her, to the equivalence of the land. But our same brother holds himself as paid for the aforesaid, for the share of land which he ought to have. Neither he nor his heirs can ask further of us or of our heirs for a share of land, nor shall they ask. Which, that it may obtain the strength of perpetual stability, we have caused the present page to be confirmed by the authority of our seal and by the character of our royal name noted below. Done at Compiègne in the year MCCXXXVII, in the month of June, in the XI year of our reign, there standing by in our palace those whose names and signs are set beneath.*

No steward. The sign of Robert the butler. No chamberlain. The sign of Amalric the constable. Given, the chancery being vacant. Louis. From these letters you see that there were not only granted to Robert those things which were owed him after the twenty-first year of his age was fulfilled, but that there were liberally added those things which were to come to him only after his mother's death. Yet not even here did Louis's liberality stand: for that both a daily pension of twenty pounds of Tours, and a yearly one of 5000 pounds with the city of Poissy *, were assigned him Chaize narrates, page 236, from ancient instruments, which du Tillet partly assigns, part 1, page 293.

[345] he eludes Frederick's ambushes: Another reason was not lacking to Louis why he wished all the nobles gathered to the nuptials of which we have treated. But, as in the preceding year by divine providence he had been snatched from the ambushes of the Assassins, so in this year he wished by his own prudence to fortify himself against the ambushes of the emperor Frederick: for Frederick had in this year invited, at the feast of St. John the Baptist, as Paris designates the time at page 300, who in this matter is to be preferred to Nangis, Louis with certain other princes to a common conference; which, as the peaceable King was unwilling to refuse, so he studiously took care not to expose himself unarmed to Frederick, since he was not ignorant of the man's fraudulent nature and of the league lately contracted with the Englishman. Let us hear Nangis, at the place cited narrating the issue of the matter: Whence Frederick, he says, the Roman emperor, who had charged Louis the King of France that he should in no wise omit to go as far as Vaucouleurs * (a town of Champagne within the county

of Bar, situated on the Meuse), to have a conference with him, hearing that the King of France wished to lead in his company two thousand warrior knights with an innumerable multitude of footmen and sergeants, all of whom he had with him at Compiègne, charged the King that he could not come either on the day fixed beforehand or to the place which he himself had named. Whence the knights of France, who had been gathered and were present at so great a nobility, leave being received from the King, each betook himself to his own places. The emperor indeed hoped that the King would bring few knights with him, which also he desired with his whole mind, because, as was said by many, like a malicious man and a seducer he was busy plotting against the King of France and against the kingdom. But the nefarious counsels which he was devising against the kingdom of France, the Lord hindering for the sake of His servant King Louis, whom He everywhere protected, he could not establish. You hear, reader, what were the sentiments of the French about Frederick in Louis's time: whence the holy King, as he was unwilling rashly to break off his friendship with him, so prudently always guarded himself against his ambushes.

[346] Meyer in the Annals of Flanders at this year 1237 thus speaks: he helps Baldwin of Constantinople: There came Baldwin the emperor of Constantinople into France, and received both in Flanders and in Champagne his goods and revenues; and his right which he had in the county of Namur he defended by the help of King Louis against (his sister Margaret) the count of Vianden, and obtained the county. Alberic agrees with these things, page 562, and adds the death of John, Baldwin's father-in-law and guardian, who had also obtained the name of emperor; and he teaches that the county of Namur was recovered not without the blood of some men, because Baldwin's sister Margaret would neither acknowledge her brother nor have him for a brother. The whole matter an eyewitness confirms, Walter archbishop of Sens, when he sets forth the cause why Baldwin, not yet emperor, as Meyer calls him, but heir of the empire, came into France, and the help rendered him by Louis, in du Chesne, page 408, in this manner: But the cause of his coming is said to have been twofold, namely that from King Louis, of whose blood on both sides, of father and of mother, he had his origin, and from his most prudent mother Blanche, whose niece he had taken to wife, and also from the noble barons of the kingdom of France, his kinsmen, he might ask that in the crisis of so great a necessity there be succour

for himself and his; and moreover another cause underlay it, that he might enter upon the inheritance of his brothers who had died without heir, namely the marquisate of Namur with its appurtenances, and the castellany of Courtenay . For indeed, having entered the kingdom of France, he was received by the King himself and his mother and the barons of the kingdom gladly, honourably, and joyfully. If also he found any difficulties in entering upon the inheritance, by the King's mandate and power they were utterly removed.* You see that Baldwin obtained by the favour and help of the King the goods owed him by hereditary right. But what St. Louis rendered him for defending the empire of Constantinople we shall see afterwards.

[347] he consents to the marriages of certain persons: In the same year, says Meyer, in the month of October, Joanna the princess (or count of Flanders), desirous of procreating offspring, by the counsel of King Louis married Thomas brother of the count of Savoy, uncle of the queens of France, of England, and of Sicily: whom the King would not admit to the oath of fealty before he had sworn to the peace of the year XXV (of that century, concerning which we treated in § X), and he swore to it at Compiègne, made for the ransom of count Ferrand. By this arrangement the countess of Flanders, whose nuptials with Simon of Montfort Louis had hindered in the preceding year, shortly had a spouse not suspect to the King. Likewise there was married in this year, with the King's assent, Joanna daughter of the count of Ponthieu to St. Ferdinand king of Castile, St. Louis's cousin, whose kinswoman she also was, inasmuch as she drew her origin from Louis VII and was his great-granddaughter, as is reported in the Acts of St. Ferdinand, tom. VII of May, page 330. But that she was married to Alphonse, Ferdinand's son, writes at page 285, wandering, Paris, from whom we narrated at num. 300 that her marriage with Henry king of England, Louis forbidding, was passed over. From which perhaps someone will not badly infer that the King had care that those women whose nuptials, perilous to the kingdom, he had forbidden should not be compelled to remain long without a consort; for Matilda countess of Boulogne also in the following year married Alphonse the brother of the king of Portugal, as the brief Chronicle of Tours narrates in d'Achery, tom. 2 of the Spicilegium, page 496.

[348] he induces the count of Toulouse to peace: Besides other letters, Gregory the Pontiff wrote in this year exhortatory ones to Louis, that he should turn the count of Toulouse away from the defence of the men of Marseille against the count of Provence. The Pontiff also touches on other deeds of the count of Toulouse, for which he had again been excommunicated; and he asks the pious King that he compel him to amend what he had ill attempted. The letter Raynaldus recites at this year, num. 35. Further, that these things were a care to Louis I judge: for both that a peace between the count of Provence and the men of Marseille was made the Annals of Marseille of Jean-Baptiste Guesnay relate at the same year; and in the following year the Pontiff, at the prayers of Louis, charged the bishop of Palestrina that he should loose the count of Toulouse, promising amendment, under certain conditions, from the bond of excommunication. His letter on this matter you will find in Raynaldus at the year 1239, num. 71, which was given on the V Ides of June in the XII year, that is of Christ 1238. To the deeds of this year Chaize adds, page 240, that it was granted to the King by Gregory that it should be lawful for him and his kinsmen to deal with the excommunicate; and that the bishops of France were ordered by the same Pontiff to proceed more slowly than they had hitherto done to the passing of a sentence of interdict. Thus Gregory and Louis strove with one another in mutual good offices.

[349] he prorogues the truces with the Englishman: terminates suits; In the year 1238 the Pontiff exhorted both Louis king of France and Henry king of England to prorogue for five years the truces whose end was at hand, as Odorico Raynaldus reports at the same year, num. 38. The Pontiff's reason was, That from each kingdom the Christian youth might be able to betake itself into Syria to subdue the Saracens. That the Pontiff was obeyed by the kings is gathered from Matthew Paris at the year 1242, page 398, where the legate of the king of England says that the truces made between both kings ought still to last for three years. Likewise in this year the King, most loving of peace as of justice, terminated various controversies of less moment by the arbitration of honest men, which the curious reader will find partly recounted in Chaize from page 243. Likewise a peace made by Louis's help between Waleran count of Limburg and the bishop of Liège, to whom the count of Flanders was bringing help, the same author reports.

[350] So far had Louis's fame already spread even into the East The Saracens seek help from Louis against the Tartars: that even barbarians and Saracens implored his help against the Tartars, overflowing very many provinces of Asia and Europe after the manner of a torrent. These things Matthew Paris narrates at this year, page 318, in these words: In those days solemn legates of the Saracens were sent to the King of the Franks: announcing and truly setting forth, chiefly on the part of the Old Man of the mountain, that a certain monstrous and inhuman race of men had broken forth from the Northern mountains, and had occupied the spacious and opulent lands of the East: had depopulated greater Hungary, and had sent threatening letters with terrible embassies. He adds then, the manners of the Tartars being in some measure set forth, which we shall do in another place, that they asked help of Louis against them as common enemies; and that also to the king of England one of them was sent. But in truth that mind was far from the Saint, that he should render any help to the Saracens, against whom he rejoiced that the chief princes of his kingdom would shortly set out.

[351] A specimen of the holy King's exact justice at this year, num. 22, Raynaldus reports in this manner: he consults the Pontiff concerning money exacted from the Jews: And when St. Louis King of the Franks consulted the Apostolic See what it behoved him to do, for the shaking out of the religious scruple of the deed,

concerning the great force of money exacted from the Jews, which it was fair to believe was extorted by them from Christians by usuries and evil arts, he wrote back that those moneys, whose owners were not found, should be turned to the procuring of aids for the Eastern empire. The same author subjoins the Pontiff's letter, by which he commends to him Baldwin the emperor and the Eastern empire. A summary of the letter the praised author gives in words of his own of this kind: He treated also with the same King that the Gallican prelates should pay a thirtieth to Baldwin for three years; and he proposed that the thing would be most pleasing to the Deity if that empire were snatched from the power of the schismatics. Concerning the thirtieth I find that nothing was obtained, and indeed Louis himself would have obtained it with difficulty: yet that Louis did not fail Baldwin with his own resources will appear below.

[351] To the things done in this year we add the nuptials of Alphonse, St. Louis's brother, with the daughter of the count of Toulouse, the nuptials of Alphonse, Louis's brother. although it is not altogether certain in what year they were celebrated. This marriage we saw already decreed ten years before in the treaty of Paris: but that it was not celebrated sooner, the too little mature age of both seems to have stood in the way. Further, Raynaldus at the year 1236, num. 45, testifies that there is extant a diploma by which Gregory permitted Alphonse to be able to accomplish nuptials with the daughter of the count of Toulouse, joined to him in the fourth degree of consanguinity. But concerning the time, Alberic at the year 1237, after reporting Robert's nuptials, thus speaks: In almost the same year the King's other brother Alphonse made his nuptials with the daughter of Raymond count of Toulouse. Yet Alphonse was not yet at this time endowed with knighthood, nor sent into possession of his inheritance, which we shall see was done in the year 1241. Lastly, the King's letters, by which in the month of August of this year he grants a certain land to be possessed in perpetuity to the church of B. Mary of Pébrac of the Order of St. Augustine, you will find among the instruments of tom. 2 of the Gallia Christiana, col. 89, enclosed in the letters of Guy bishop of Clermont, who testifies that he saw them entire. For this Guy, moreover, St. Louis is said to have sought the bishopric, which seems little probable, both from those things which are narrated of his lesser age in the said tom. 2, col. 277, and from the regalia denied him by Blanche then administering the kingdom, so that I shall not say more of him at the year 1250, in which he was elected.

Compiègne of Artois Hesdin Bapaume in Latin Lentium, or Lentiacum Saint-Omer Arien, in French Aire that is, he reckons himself satisfied Poissy Vaucouleurs * Courtenay § XXX. The Thorny Crown of the Lord given to St. Louis, and carried into France. The author of the history of the thorny crown carried into France: That Baldwin II of this name, afterwards emperor of Constantinople, came into France, and was not only honourably received by Louis, but also helped in recovering his county of Namur, we have already seen at num. 346. But on occasion of his coming the Lord willed to honour both Louis's piety and the kingdom of France with a huge treasure, namely the Lord's thorny Crown. For the Latin emperors, after the death of Baldwin I and of his brother Henry, who at the beginning of the same century obtained the Eastern empire and had bravely sustained it against the Greeks and Bulgars opposing them, had little by little been reduced to such want that they pledged all the most sacred pawns for procuring money for themselves,

by which they might in some measure protect the dignity of the empire they had obtained. By this necessity therefore the thorny crown also was pledged, which was afterwards given to Louis, and by him redeemed and carried into France. The whole matter, by the King's mandate, Walter Cornut archbishop of Sens described, who was present at the reception of the crown and presided over the ceremonies, so that there is no need to have recourse to other historians, who have narrated the same things more briefly. I shall therefore subjoin Walter's relation, from which the studious reader will understand both Louis's surpassing piety toward the sacred pawns of the Lord's passion, and the history of the thing done, yet with almost half cut off, which from an authentic instrument I shall narrate more briefly and more distinctly, with certain previous notations added for a clearer understanding of the matter.

[354] Baldwin being absent, the crown is given in pledge, Du Cange after the History of Constantinople published certain instruments, and among them at page 2 the letters of Anselm de Cayeux (bailiff, as they call it, or administrator of the empire after the death of the emperor John, while Baldwin the heir of the same empire was absent) and of other nobles of the empire, given in the year of the Lord MCCXXXVIII in the month of September, on the IV day, in which the aforesaid nobles report that the thorny crown was first pledged to various persons, partly Venetians, partly Genoese. But when, the term for restoring the money being now passed, there was the same want, the whole sum of money, namely thirteen thousand one hundred and thirty-four hyperpera (it was a coin used in the Greek empire), was lent by the Venetian noble Nicholas Quirino on this condition, that the most sacred crown should remain in deposit at Constantinople until the following November; but if the money could not be repaid at the term fixed beforehand, it should be carried to Venice and there be kept for four months after it had been shown to the doge of Venice, so that within that time, the money being repaid, it should be restored: Otherwise, say the nobles to Nicholas Quirino, those four months having elapsed, thou shalt have the fullest power of having, holding, selling, alienating the same most sacred crown, and doing whatever shall please thee. And thus we have sworn, having touched the most sacred Gospels of God, to attend to and observe all these things in good faith, and not to contravene them in any way. There will not be, I think, at this time anyone who will excuse that contract from simony: but let it suffice to have said that at that time that simony was still less known to all which is committed in the disposal of relics, and therefore that it could be that in good faith the Constantinopolitan and Venetian nobles entered upon a contract of this kind. Yet not such was Louis's ignorance, as from the following relation will appear, so that some authors are to be corrected, and among them Matthew Paris at the year 1238, page 325, who imprudently wrote that the instruments of the Lord's passion were sold to St. Louis. He indeed paid the money for which the crown given to him had been pledged: but by that payment he did not buy the most sacred crown; but rather he dissolved a simoniacal contract, and brought it about that the gift given him should not fall into other hands, which needs must have happened had he not restored that money for Baldwin: this therefore I wished first to be noted, which will become manifest from Walter's relation presently to be given. Then from the recited contract it appears how the same Walter is to be understood when he shall say below that the most sacred crown was bound over to the Venetians. These things being noted beforehand, I subjoin part of the relation of Walter archbishop of Sens, which du Chesne published, tom. 5 of the Writers of the history of the Franks, in which the author at page 409 thus continues:

[355] The same Baldwin therefore, weighing the devotion of the King and of his mother, Baldwin gives the crown to St. Louis, makes mention to them concerning the most sacred thorny crown. He says therefore

that he knew by a truthful report that the nobles shut up in the city of Constantinople had come to this starvation of calamity, that that incomparable treasure of the Lord's Crown (which was the title of the whole empire and its special glory) had to be sold to strangers, or at least bound over under title of a pledge. Whence he ardently had in his wishes that to the King, his kinsman, Lord, and benefactor, and also to the kingdom of France, from which both his parents had come forth, the inestimable honour and glory of this beautiful gem might accrue. But because the same Baldwin had perceived that, if so precious a thing were sold to him for a price of money, the king's conscience would be injured, with affectionate prayer and with tears he entreats him that he would deign to receive that honourable gift from him as a gift, and freely. These things being heard, the King, prudently understanding that this was done by the Lord, rejoiced in this, that He who had borne that same crown for us in reproach willed it to be piously and reverently honoured by His faithful on earth, until, coming to judgment, He should set it again upon His head, to be shown to all who are to be judged. He rejoiced therefore that for the showing of honour of this kind God had chosen out his own France, in which by His clemency the faith firmly flourishes, and with most devout worship the mysteries of our salvation are celebrated.

[356] who presently sends legates to Constantinople, The King therefore, rendering most abundant thanks to Baldwin, gladly assented that he would receive that inestimable gift from him. There are sent with speed by the King to Constantinople, for the completing of the business, James and Andrew, brothers of the Order of Preachers, of whom one, namely James, had been prior of the brethren of the same Order in the aforesaid city, where he had frequently seen the crown itself, and knew excellently the things that were about it. Baldwin also sends with them a special messenger worthy of trust with letters patent, by which he charges the barons that to the royal messengers the holy crown be delivered. After many windings of the ways therefore, entering Constantinople, they find a way prepared by the Lord for the King's pious purpose. For so great a strait had straitened the barons of the empire that they were compelled to bind over the most sacred crown to the Venetians for a huge sum of money. But the citizens of Venice, who had greatly desired that noble treasure, obtained that this condition be appended, that unless the holy crown were redeemed by the heir of the empire or by the barons within the term, namely the solemnity of the holy martyrs Gervase and Protase, it should fall into forfeiture: so that that binding-over of a pledge should be converted into a title of sale for the money already paid.

[357] where they find it, They appended moreover that that inestimable pledge should meanwhile be transferred to Venice. The barons, their lord's letters being read, the holy purpose of the King of the Franks and of the heir of the empire being more fully understood, devoutly fulfil their lord's mandate, bearing in their wishes that, being drawn out of the hands of the Venetians, it might, if it could be done, accrue to the honour of the Gallican church. Du Cange, among the instruments subjoined to the History of Constantinople, page 3, gives the tenor of the letters by which the Constantinopolitan nobles order Nicholas Quirino, the money being received, to restore the thorny crown. These letters were given in the month of December of the year 1238. From which we understand that Louis's legates came about that time to Constantinople, the most sacred crown not yet having been carried to Venice, although according to the contract of the nobles with Quirino it could already have been carried thither. Then from this letter it can be gathered in about what month of the same year the same most holy crown was given to Louis. Which things being briefly noted for the clarity of the matter, let us return to Walter, who thus continues:

[358] They agree therefore with the Venetians that the royal messengers, and carry it to Venice: whose life and habit testified their religion,

should carry that most sacred thing to Venice, solemn messengers of the empire being joined to them, great citizens of the Venetians also being present. It is sealed the little chest with the seals of the nobles, and not without rivers of tears and public wailing it is carried down to the ship. The companions therefore of so sacred a pledge, trusting in its protection, in mid-winter, which is wont to be impassable for sailors, about the Nativity of the Lord commit themselves to the waves of the sea. But Vatatzes , that most wicked aspirant to the empire, had known by scouts of the matter concerning the transferring of the crown. Anxious therefore and intent how he might snatch it from the messengers, he scatters a force of galleys through the divers gulfs of the sea through which they seemed likely to pass: but as the messengers come in the name of the Lord, nothing of hindrance withstands them. They enter Venice, received with rejoicing, and lay down the most blessed crown with the sealed vessel in the treasury of the chapel of the blessed Mark the Evangelist with diligence and devotion. Brother Andrew being left there as guardian of the noble treasure, brother James with the messengers of the empire hastily approaches the King, faithfully sets forth the thing done and the state of the business to the King and the queen. Both rejoice, and all to whom they communicate that secret, with unspeakable gladness, hoping in the Lord that He who had begun would happily consummate their wish.*

[359] They prepare therefore solemn and discreet messengers with brother James and the messengers of the empire, The King then takes care that it be borne into France: sending them to Venice more fully instructed and furnished with money for obtaining the redemption of the sacred pledge. It is written to Frederick the emperor that, if there be need, he should confer safe conduct, counsel, and help on the royal messengers. Speedily they come to Venice, they find brother Andrew with the treasure. By the procuring of the divine clemency, at that time there were trading in those parts merchants born of the kingdom of France. The royal letters being shown them, they lay out money on loan at the pleasure of the messengers. The holy pledge is redeemed,

the Venetians grieving, but unable to gainsay because of the conditions entered upon. The seals of the nobles being recognized, the messengers take up the little vessel of the holy crown, committing themselves to the labours of the way. They had the security of a safe conduct, where it was fitting, through the emperor's

ministers. Being protected moreover by the presence of the divine gift, nothing contrary on the way saddened them. No inclemency of the air harmed them, nor did a drop of rain fall upon them, although, when they had been received into their lodging, it had rained several times abundantly. They send messengers ahead, who announce that the most sacred gift has already come as far as Troyes .*

[360] The King, being exceedingly gladdened, with his mother and his brothers, it being brought thither, is visited, taking with him Walter archbishop of Sens, Bernard bishop of Le Puy, and other barons and knights whom he could suddenly have, festively goes to meet it. In the village which is five leagues distant from Sens, and is called Villeneuve-l'Archevêque, he finds with the messengers the treasure which he had desired: the sealed wooden vessel is unlocked, there appear about the silver vessel the seals of the barons. But the aforesaid messengers brought the seals of the nobles with letters patent to the King and to Baldwin. A comparison therefore being made of these with the seals with which the vessel of the sacred crown was sealed, they find them true.

[361] The seals of this kind therefore being broken, and also

the seal of the doge of Venice, and is shown to the King, who had set out to meet it: which for greater certainty had been appended, they open the silver vessel. They find of purest gold a most beautiful little chest, in which the holy crown lay: the lid of this being lifted, there was seen by all who were present the inestimable pearl. With how great devotion therefore, with how great weepings and sighs it was beheld by the King and the queen and others, could scarcely be weighed. They linger in the sight for the desire of love, feeling so devout a fervour of minds as though they saw before them the Lord crowned with the very thorns present. After a little while they enclose it in the little vessels: they are sealed with the royal seal; which was completed on the feast day of the blessed Laurence the martyr.

[362] In the year therefore one thousand two hundred and thirty- nine, on the morrow of Laurence the martyr, the treasure of this precious gem is carried to Sens , all the peoples meeting it on the way: The King bears it with his brother to Sens, the whole assembly of men exults without difference of sexes and ages. At the first entering of the city the King, with bare feet, clothed in a tunic only, with his brother Robert the count, likewise humbled, takes the sacred burden upon his shoulders to be carried.*

The knights follow and go before, their shoes being cast off. The joyful city went out to meet it, the convents of clerics come in procession: the clerics of the mother church adorned in silks, the monks with the other religious carry the bodies of saints and the relics which men's devotion imagines, as though the saints desired to meet the Lord coming. Eagerly they sound forth the praises of the Lord; the city, adorned with tapestries and hangings, displays its precious things, resounds with bells and organs and the applause of the rejoicing people: wax lights with twisted candles are kindled through the streets and every lane. It is carried into the church of the protomartyr Stephen, it is uncovered to the peoples, and the cause of so great joyfulness is opened.

[363] and thence to Paris: where afterwards it is shown to the people: On the following day the King directs his journey toward Paris the royal city, carrying the notable little vessel. By the voice of all it is praised, saying, Blessed is he that cometh in the honour of the Lord, by whose ministry the kingdom of France is exalted by the presence of so great a gift. On the eighth day, outside the walls, beside the church of B. Antony, on the level of the field there is built a lofty pulpit, several prelates standing by, the convents of the churches clad in silks, the pledges of the Saints being displayed, in so great a throng of peoples as had gone out of Paris. There is shown the little chest from the pulpit, the felicity of the day and the cause of joy is preached.

[364] [again by the King, a column of suppliants accompanying, it is borne through the city:] After these things it is brought within the walls of the city by the King and his brother unshod, as before, and with their garments laid aside save their tunics. All the prelates too with the clerics and religious men, and also

the knights, go before with bare feet. How great joyfulness there was through the city, how many signs and tokens of joys were seen in the sight of those coming, no one would suffice to narrate. It is brought into the pontifical church of the blessed Virgin, where, devout praises being paid to God and to His most blessed Mother, they return solemnly with the noble treasure to the King's palace. The Lord's crown is placed in the royal chapel of the blessed Nicholas with much joy.

[365] the concourse of the people, miracles. These things therefore being solemnly performed at Paris, a famous report went forth, the notable spectacle is spread abroad. First through the neighbouring places, then through remote cities and towns: they run together hastily to the joy, they desire to see the cause of the felicity of the present times and of the whole region. But because it is not granted them to see what they desire, the Lord's treasure being for certain causes hidden, faithfully sealed, they eagerly flow together to the fields, they ardently kiss the pulpit on which the vessel had been displayed. There, if credit is to be given to persons most worthy of trust, by the power of the sacred diadem, and on account of the devotion of the faithful, the Lord Jesus Christ, to whom be praise &c., wrought many powers and miracles

about the languishing. Thus far Walter, an eyewitness, whose relation seems to me to suffice both for knowing this history and for commending St. Louis's surpassing piety in these matters and his singular modesty, so that it is not pleasing to add anything from others, save an ancient coin, on one side marked with the King's effigy, but on the other side thus exhibiting the piety of the same King, fallen upon his knees before the crown, in James de Bie, fol. 24.

the Greek emperor Troyes * Sens § XXXI. Help given to Baldwin of Constantinople: the expedition of the nobles into the Holy Land: the foundation of the abbey of Maubuisson. Louis, moved by the peril of the empire of Constantinople We saw at num. 346 that for a twofold cause Baldwin, heir of the empire of Constantinople, came into France to Louis, namely that he might ask for help for defending the empire, and might enter upon his inheritance. That he obtained this by the help of St. Louis we have said; it remains therefore that in this place we narrate what the holy King contributed to him for protecting the empire. But it will be well first to hear to what miseries the empire of the Latins in the East had been reduced. This the Walter praised just now, the archbishop, narrates from page 408

in this manner: While he (Baldwin) made a stay in the French parts, being detained by the business of his own inheritance, and exceedingly solicitous and intent upon seeking help, he received a messenger from the parts of Romania, who struck and troubled his ears and mind with sudden rumours. For he announced, as the thing was, that the illustrious man John the emperor his father-in-law had, according to nature's debt, been withdrawn from mortal life: and that the state also of the city of Constantinople, and of the other land, if any it had outside the walls of the same city, was so utterly straitened and oppressed by the inroads of enemies that scarcely lay open to them an approach to the fields. But within, his wife, the nobles, and the common folk lacked daily food. For there ran freely through the region hostile onsets, not permitting victuals to be carried into the city: troops being gathered with this mind, that they might besiege Constantinople itself.

[367] To these things a greater heap of desolation pressed the matter, bears help to Baldwin: because many of the people, some of the nobles, overcome by the present straits, and fearing future perils, by night or otherwise stealthily went out from the walls of the city, and, fleeing by sea or by the hazards of the roads, for fear exposed themselves to more certain perils. On account of which it was doubtful whether, if a hostile siege should encircle the city, the nobles would find men whom they might set for the fortifying of the walls on the battlements. These things truly could suffice for bending Louis's mind to mercy; inasmuch as he had nothing more in his wishes than to succour the wretched and lift up the oppressed. But Baldwin brought forward other reasons besides, as the said author narrates, who thus continues: By sad words of this kind the youthful heir of the empire is troubled. Whence more frequently he goes about the King of the Franks and his mother and his friends, solicitous, humbly appealing, miserably beseeching that they succour him, and that they permit not the empire of Romania, which by the Franks had been powerfully and gloriously

acquired, to be reduced again into the servitude of the unfaithful Greeks. He shows the letters of Pope Gregory, by which to those succouring the necessity of the same empire he grants the same indulgence which the general council had granted to those setting out in aid of the Holy Land.

[368] Baldwin's first column being scattered by Frederick's fault, By these things the King and the queen are moved; out of their treasures they confer on him great quantities of money, they seek stipendiaries for him, and associate with him other knights whom they knew to be notable warriors. Some of his kinsmen, whom both piety and fleshly affection had led on, confederate themselves to him by oath, promising that they would follow him with all their strength. By these aids and resources Baldwin, being helped, sent in the year 1238 a huge army to Constantinople, John of Béthune being the leader, whom he himself should afterwards follow, girt with greater military forces. But that first help was reduced almost to nothing by the fault of Frederick the emperor, who at first denied passage through Lombardy; then, passage having been granted to the army, detained the leader, who being snatched from the living for grief, the army was almost wholly scattered, so that only a few through huge hazards came to Constantinople: as du Cange narrates more at large in the History of Constantinople at the year 1238, whom consult.

[369] he himself brings the second safe to Constantinople. Baldwin, not yet broken by this misfortune, in the year 1239, as Alberic has, page 573, the castle of Namur, for above fifty thousand pounds of Paris, to Louis King of France pledged . With which money, and with other aids given both by Louis and by the king of England and the supreme Pontiff, he again enrolled a huge army, which, certain nobles of France accompanying him, among whom in warlike praise Humbert de Beaujeu, afterwards supreme commander of the soldiery in France, excelled, he brought safe to Constantinople, Frederick at length granting passage, which he did not dare to deny, Louis being open in the matter, as the praised du Cange writes from a very probable conjecture, page 118, whom, as also Alberic, the reader will be able to consult more at large on the whole matter: for I have judged that these things were only to be recorded so far as they pertain to Louis, by whose liberality and munificence chiefly Baldwin was helped, as even the Greeks were not ignorant. Hear therefore one, George Acropolita, chap. 37, writing of this help: Baldwin …, he says, sets out to the King of the Franks, joined to him by affinity, and of the same race, and most hostile to the Romans (thus the Greeks called themselves), and therefore ready to bring succour, and asks his aid, not to be despised. He obtains his wish, and within a short time sixty thousand of the Franks were chosen, that they might take arms against the Romans.* Whose land journey then into Thrace he describes, and the success of the war, at the beginning happy enough, although afterwards, the treasury being exhausted, Baldwin fell back into the same straits.

[370] The expedition of the nobles into the Holy Land, While these were making for Greece, to bring help to the Eastern empire, other nobles of France, and those exceedingly powerful, were seeking Syria, to snatch, if they could, the sacred places from the hands of the Saracens. On which occasion too Louis did not suffer his liberality to be wanting. Concerning this expedition Alberic thus writes at this year, page 572: For succouring the Holy Land there set out in the summer of this year Henry count of Bar, the duke of Burgundy, the count of Nevers, the king of Navarre, and the count of Brittany (namely Peter, who had already resigned the county to his son John) with his brother the count of Mâcon. This count of Mâcon, John of Dreux, St. Louis furnished with money for the journey, his county being bought for ten thousand pounds of counted money, and an annual rent of a thousand pounds, as the Sainte-Marthes write in the History of the house of France, tom. 1, from page 526, and they add that the letters of the sale are noted in the month of February of the year 1238, namely after the French manner, so that the purchase is to be referred to the year 1239. Mention of this Alberic made, subjoining these things to the preceding: There it is to be noted that from thenceforward no count was in Mâcon save the lord King of France, because not only did this man with his wife, but the other heirs also, sell the whole, whatever they had, to the lord King, or could have there; but especially the aforesaid wife, her husband being dead, who fell in this expedition, sells the whole.*

[371] The affairs of the kingdom did not suffer Louis to be present at an expedition of this kind at this time, in which the King also had a part. yet he wished to have a part in the work undertaken for the exaltation of the faith. Wherefore he sent the supreme commander of the soldiery to serve at royal stipend. Alberic records it at the place assigned in these words: On count Amalric of Montfort the King of France conferred his arms, and sent

him in his stead into the service of the Crucified, giving him thirty-two provincial pounds (of Paris, and) he, in giving thanks, came to his feet. As for the rest, unhappy was the issue of this expedition; for, when rashly some, separated from others, attack the Saracens, there perished the count of Bar, the count of Mâcon, and other nobles: but Montfort with other nobles was taken, and then, freed by the work of Richard the Englishman, fell on the return, being honourably buried at Rome: others, truces being covenanted with the Saracens, returned. Further, if credit be given to the letter cited in Paris at the year 1240, page 358, the unhappy issue of this expedition was imputed also to the Templars and Hospitallers; for these words are read there: Besides, know that the lord King of France removed all his treasure from the Temple; because neither the Templars nor the Hospitallers were willing to help the Franks in this crisis. He who desires these things more fully set forth, let him read the authors treating expressly of the expeditions beyond the sea: for I must hasten to the deeds of St. Louis.

[372] Gerard du Bois in the History of the church of Paris, tom. 2, page 346, thus writes: Blanche founds an abbey, In the year MCCXXXIX Blanche the queen, mother of King Louis, out of love of religion founded, not far from Pontoise , in the place which they commonly call Maubuisson , a monastery which has its name from the place, and into it she brought virgins of the Cistercian Order. Then he subjoins the letters by which Louis endowed the aforesaid monastery in the same year. The same Martène afterwards published, tom. 1 of the Amplissima Collectio, from col. [ ], where concerning the place and the name of the monastery he notes things somewhat different from the preceding in these words: Founded in the place of Aulnay, which, after the land of Maubuisson had been bought from Robert and Odelina of Château-Renaud and their children and given, began to be called Maubuisson, and hitherto flourishes under a stricter observance. But Blanche wished it first to be named Saint Mary Royal, as is in the letters of the foundation in the Sainte-Marthes, tom. 4, page 603. But these letters are noted in the year MCCXLI, in the month of March, although the foundation cannot be later than this year.

[373] which Louis endows with her: For the letters of St. Louis's endowment are noted in this year, which I subjoin from the praised Gerard du Bois, that from them the reader may understand the pious liberality both of the King and also of the queen: In the name of the holy and undivided Trinity. Amen. Louis by the grace of God King of the Franks. We make it known that, whereas for the amplifying of the service in the Church of God, and for the remedy of souls, my most dear lady and mother Blanche, illustrious queen of the Franks, out of a devotion divinely inspired in her, for the salvation of her own soul and of that of our parent Louis the king of bright memory, and of ours,

and also of the forefathers of the same our mother and of ours, has established a monastery beside Pontoise, intending to place there nuns of the Cistercian Order: We, with the same our mother, wishing to provide in necessaries for the persons who there are to serve the Lord, have assigned to the aforesaid place, and given in perpetual alms, a hundred Parisian pounds of annual revenue in our provostship of Mantes , to be received each year at these terms, namely within the octaves of the Lord's Ascension fifty pounds: within the octaves of the feast of All Saints fifty pounds. In the provostship also of Meulan, by the will and assent of the same our mother, who possesses Meulan * by reason of dower, we have given a hundred pounds to the aforesaid monastery, to be received at the terms above-said,

[374] and adorns it with certain privileges. Whence we will and enjoin that whosoever shall be provosts at Mantes and Meulan shall, in the time of their provostship, pay the said revenue to the said church, or at its mandate, without any contradiction or difficulty, at the terms noted beforehand; but for every day on which they shall have deferred to pay that revenue at the said terms, let them pay each day five Parisian shillings by name of penalty to the same church, until they shall have made entire payment of the above-said revenue. Likewise all the grain , and all the wine from the land which the oft-said lady*

and our mother has at Étampes and Dourdan , and in our castles which she holds by name of dower; and also eight measures of grain which Drogo de Beaumont, knight, was wont to receive at Pontoise, we have given and granted to the aforesaid monastery with all the above-said in pure and perpetual alms, the same lady and our mother willing and granting and quitclaiming all these above-said things which pertain to her dower, granting them freely and absolutely to the said monastery. Which that, &c. Done in the year of the Lord's Incarnation MCCXXXIX. But of our reign the XVIII—to be read [ ]. Other privileges Louis afterwards gave to this abbey: for he both exempted it from all secular exaction in the year 1244, in the praised Sainte-Marthes, page 604, and willed it to be under his protection by letters of the year 1248, recited in the same place, page 603. You see St. Louis everywhere beneficent, whether pious wars were to be waged, or divine worship

to be advanced.

* that is, of schismatics

* that is, he bound over

* Mâcon

* Pontoise

* Maubuisson

* Mantes

* Meulan

* that is, corn

* Étampes

* Dourdan § XXXII. The Talmudic books of the Jews, Louis lending his help, gathered in France, condemned, and burned: a little fable about these refuted. The relation of Thomas of Cantimpré St. Louis bestowed notable pains upon abolishing the infamous books of the Jews in France:

concerning which nevertheless his biographers were silent. But Thomas of Cantimpré, who lived at the same time, mentions the matter, but in such a way that he would more rightly have been silent. Yet it is well to hear his words, already rashly adopted by another writer, and with greater rashness expounded to the infamy of the chief counsellor of the holy king, that, a silly little fable being convicted of falsehood by a true relation of the history, it may be exploded. Receive therefore the words of Thomas of Cantimpré, book 1 On Bees, chap. 3: I too saw another archbishop, a man lettered and noble, about whom such a vengeance happened at God's nod. From these words Jacques Échard wrongly infers, tom. 1 of the Bibliotheca of the Preachers, page 250, that Thomas of Cantimpré offers himself as an eyewitness of all these things which follow. For neither does he assert anything save that he at some time saw an archbishop, to whom he narrates that vengeance befell: he does not say that he saw the other things, though he would doubtless have said it if he had seen them, since that would conduce more to making credit than what he says, that he saw the archbishop to whom he reports it happened. Whence it appears to me far more probable that Thomas of Cantimpré wrote it from the relation of others. But let us hear him further:

[376] Louis, King of France, most devout among princes, concerning the cause of the Jewish books, about the year from the Incarnation of the Lord MCCXXXIX, at the instigation of brother Henry, called of Cologne, of the Order of Preachers, a most excellent preacher, caused to be gathered at Paris, under pain of death, the most nefarious book of the Jews

which is called the Talmud; in which unheard-of heresies and blasphemies against Christ and His Mother were written in very many places. Divers copies therefore of this book were brought to Paris to be burned. The Jews therefore, weeping, went to the archbishop, who was the King's chief counsellor, and offered him innumerable money for the preservation of the books. Corrupted by which, he went to the King, and presently turned the youthful mind to his own will. The books therefore being restored, the Jews appoint a solemn day to be kept every year: but in vain, the Spirit of God ordaining otherwise. For a year having rolled by, on a certain day and in the very place in which the execrable books were restored to the Jews, that is at Vincennes near Paris, the said archbishop, coming to the King's consultation, was seized with a dire pain of the bowels, and on the same day, with the greatest wailing, received the end of his life. But the King fled from the place with his whole household, too much * fearing lest with the archbishop he should be divinely stricken. And not long after, as before, at the instigation of the said brother Henry, the books of the Jews were gathered under pain of death, and in the greatest multitude were burned.*

[377] Du Boulay in the History of the university of Paris, tom. 3, which du Boulay rashly adopted and expounded. page 177, the aforesaid words being reported, subjoins the following: Who is that archbishop whom Thomas of Cantimpré points at? Certainly Walter archbishop of Sens, who in the administration of the kingdom held the first place. Which, as I do not deny that it was said probably enough, the truth of Thomas of Cantimpré's narration being supposed, since the adjuncts of the matter designate the archbishop of Sens, so what is to be said will easily prove that it was rashly asserted of a man of unblemished fame. For indeed the archbishop's name was not unknown to Thomas of Cantimpré. Why therefore did he not express it? Lest, as I conjecture, out of a relation not sufficiently certain he should sprinkle a certain stain upon a prelate of most unblemished fame. But we see that it turned out otherwise: for no one will deny that a mark, and that a notable one, was branded on Walter when du Boulay came as interpreter to Thomas of Cantimpré's vague relation. It is well therefore to narrate the whole history in this place, from which the blot wrongly fastened on St. Louis's counsellor, from which not even the Saint himself would be altogether immune, may be wiped away, and the matter itself may shine out more clearly.

[378] The monuments of this history already published: Jacques Échard in The Summa of St. Thomas vindicated to its author, page 572, undertook to make this history clear, or rather suggested how it might be illustrated, by publishing monuments concerning it and ancient letters which had not yet seen the light. Hear his words in the same place: I have judged that I should do the reader a favour if he should here find all the things done in the cause of the Jews by reason of the Talmudic books, the divine Louis reigning: the more so because, although they were most grave, yet scarcely anything is had either in the ecclesiastical Annals of Odorico Raynaldi or in the Councils of Philippe Labbe, besides the letter of Innocent IV to the same holy King. But these I draw forth from a contemporary Sorbonne MS. codex whose title is, Extractiones de Talmut. Then he reports part of the extractions, and the monuments found there, which the curious reader will be able to consult, if he desires to know the horrid blasphemies of the Jews against Christ and the Mother of God, and the raving dreams of the Rabbis: for us it will suffice to draw forth those things which conduce to narrating the history of the condemned books: which I now set about doing.

[379] the whole history reported in summary: The author of the Extractions in the prologue of the second part, in the praised Échard, page 583, reports in summary the beginning and progress of the matter: In the year, he says, from the Incarnation of the Lord MCCXXXVI or thereabout, the Father of mercies called to the faith a certain Jew named Nicholas, called of La Rochelle, exceedingly learned in Hebrew, even according to the testimony of the Jews, so that in the nature and grammar of the Hebrew tongue he scarcely found his like. He went to the Apostolic See, and to Pope Gregory of good memory, in the XII year of his Pontificate, disclosed the nefarious malice of the aforesaid books, and expressed certain articles in particular, upon which he obtained Apostolic letters to the kings of France, of England, and of Spain, that, if it should happen that such things were found in the aforesaid books, they should cause them to be given to the fire. All the books of the Talmud therefore being collected by royal authority from the whole kingdom of France, and brought to Paris, there were burned in one day to fourteen cartloads , and six on another occasion.*

[380] The letters of Gregory of which mention is here made are had inserted in the letters of Odo the Cardinal and Apostolic legate in France, Gregory IX orders the Talmudic books to be seized; to Innocent IV, from which we shall afterwards adduce more. But Gregory gave letters on this matter in the XIII year of his Pontificate, that is of Christ 1239, in the month of June, to the archbishops of France, of England, of Castile, and of León, to the kings of France, of England, of Aragon, of Castile and León, of Navarre, of Portugal, and those of almost the same tenor: as is understood from the praised letters of the Cardinal of Tusculum. Where also he gave this mandate to William bishop of Paris, page 595: To thy fraternity by the authority of the present we charge that our letters pertaining to the business concerning the books of the Jews committed by us to thee and thy colleagues, to be presented to thee on our part by our beloved son Nicholas, formerly a Jew, bearer of the present, devoutly receiving, thou transmit them to our venerable brothers the archbishops, and to our most dear sons the illustrious kings of France, of England, of Aragon, of Navarre, of Castile and León, and of Portugal, destined for them by us, when thou shalt see it expedient. Another mandate he gave to the bishop, to the Prior of the Preachers, and to the Minister of the Minors, which agrees with the writings to the kings and archbishops. Receive the words of the Pontiff: To your discretion by Apostolic writings enjoining we charge that, causing all the Jews dwelling in the kingdom of France, of England, of Aragon, of Navarre, of Castile and León, and of Portugal, to be compelled by the secular arm to exhibit all their books, you cause those which you shall find to contain errors of this kind to be consumed by fire, restraining gainsayers by ecclesiastical censures by Apostolic power, and being about faithfully to write back to us whatever you shall have done. Thus nearly to the kings and archbishops Gregory, who at page 593 orders their books to be seized on the first Saturday of the next Lent, that is of the year 1240.

[381] But that Gregory's will was not sluggishly obeyed in France, these in France are seized by the help of St. Louis, examined, we are taught by certain monuments, and that Louis bestowed notable pains in that matter is made manifest from what has been said and is to be said. In the first place the praised author of the Extractions, concerning the examination of the books gathered at Paris by the King's authority, as has been said above, thus speaks in the Epilogue in Échard, page 586: Lastly I would not have this hidden from you, for the caution of things to come and for the greater certainty of the preceding, that, when concerning the burning of the books of the Talmud, containing the aforewritten marvels and things like them, the cause had for some while been ventilated before our most Christian King Louis,

at length he gave us other auditors, namely the archbishop of Sens, the bishop of Senlis, the chancellor of Paris, but now bishop of Tusculum and legate of the Apostolic See in the Holy Land. This is Otho, or Odo of Châteauroux, or of Castrum Radulphi, as others call it, who by the final sentence at last condemned the Talmudic books. Ughelli in the Italia sacra of the most recent edition, tom. 1, col. 234, concerning him among other things thus has: By Innocent IV he was created Cardinal bishop of Tusculum in MCCXLIV, and legate into the Gauls for promulgating the crusade, as they call it, against the Saracens. Further, of this notable man frequent mention will be made by us, because he followed St. Louis into the Holy Land; that he was aggregated to the Cistercian Order before he was adorned with the Cardinal's dignity the praised Ughelli writes with certain Cistercians, but Échard refutes that here, page 573. But let us see what before these three auditors was done.

[382] On the day therefore appointed for us, says at page

587 the author of the Extractions, they are condemned, and as many as could be had are burned: and the more skilled masters of the Jews being called and cited before them, they began to inquire into the truth upon the premises: and first there was brought in he who according to them was most skilled and most famous throughout the whole of Jewry, named Vino (or Vivo, as Échard notes) of Meaux. Whose confession concerning many articles, partly blasphemous, partly plainly ridiculous, he subjoins in the same place. But concerning the aforesaid examination and the burning of the books that followed thereupon, the praised Odo the Cardinal thus wrote to Innocent IV, page 595: But all the things which were sent enclosed under the bull (of Gregory), both each of them and many more, were found in the aforesaid books in the presence of Walter of good memory, archbishop of Sens, and of the venerable fathers the bishops of Paris (and) of Senlis, and of brother Geoffrey de Bléneau your chaplain then regent at Paris, and of other masters of theology, and also of masters of the Jews, who confessed the aforesaid to be contained in their books in the presence of the aforesaid … But the aforesaid examination being made, counsel having been had of all the masters of theology and of canon law, and of many others, according to the Apostolic mandate, all the aforesaid books which then could be had were then burned with fire. These are the things done in that matter under Gregory.

[383] from which the whole narration of Thomas of Cantimpré is refuted. From which it must be that Thomas of Cantimpré's whole relation falls: for neither were the books collected at the persuasion of Henry of Cologne, but at the order of the Pontiff; nor were they restored by an archbishop corrupted with money, but, he presiding at that judgment, they were condemned, and as many as could be had were burned. If therefore the archbishop of Sens died a sudden death, it is rashly ascribed to divine vengeance: but he is said by the authors whom I have been able to see to have died on the XI Kalends of May of the year 1241, who do not express the kind of death, but do not keep silence about his praises, as Chaize also notices, page 302, writing moderately enough on this matter, since he did not have the monuments by which the fable might be refuted. Hear, for all, certain little verses inscribed on his tomb in the choir of the metropolitan church where he is buried, from the Gallia Christiana, tom. 1, page 638: Here in the dust lies the prelate Walter, a true cultivator of justice, father of the clergy, ark of wisdom. And then: While thy power flourished, while it prevailed, Walter, fraud lay hid, peace was great, honesty reigned. From these things the fame of Walter seems to me sufficiently vindicated, and at the same time that of Louis, who by youthful levity was said to have restored to the Jews books filled with blasphemies. But what is narrated concerning his flight with his whole household when the archbishop was dying can be held for an added ornament, such episodes as tragedians are wont to call them; since it befits neither Louis's gravity nor his piety to desert a man most dear to him in so great a necessity. As for the rest, we ought not so vehemently to wonder that upon Thomas of Cantimpré, seeking out everywhere examples apt to strike terror, something from time to time alien from the truth was thrust, either from a lying report or by someone feigning mysteries where there were none. But these things he seems to have narrated the more confidently because he hoped the example would profit, and would harm no one's fame, provided he suppressed the name: although the last he did not sufficiently avoid in this place. But let us return to the history.

[384] The remaining books of the Jews are investigated in the time of Innocent IV: The cause concerning the Talmudic books of the Jews, and their other nefarious writings, was resumed in the time of Innocent IV, Odo the Apostolic legate greatly advancing the matter. Whence, since above at num. 379 the books are said to have been burned at one time to fourteen wagons, at another to six wagons, it is probable that the later books were burned in Innocent's time. Certainly, after the first burning, Odo the Cardinal writes to Innocent in the letter often praised, in Échard, page 597, that he had exacted from the masters of the Jews all their books, namely those which had escaped the earlier investigation. Receive his words: But from the masters of the Jews I asked that they exhibit to me the Talmud and all their other books, who exhibited to me only five most worthless volumes, which, according to the form of your mandate, I cause to be diligently inspected. But, terrified by this second investigation of the books, the Jews seem to have had recourse to the Pontiff himself that the books might be spared, endeavouring to persuade him that they could not understand the sacred Scriptures without the help of the Talmudic books: this I shall presently show proved from the letters of the Cardinal of Tusculum.

[385] From whose letter hear first what Innocent willed to be done, he, taught of the Jews' frauds by his legate, being impelled by this fraud of the Jews to the milder side. In this manner Odo the legate, Cardinal of Tusculum, begins his letter to Innocent, page 592: It pleased your Sanctity lately to give me in mandate that I should cause the Talmud and the other books of the Jews to be exhibited to me, and that they be inspected: and that, inspecting the same diligently, I should tolerate them in those things in which according to God, without injury to the Christian faith, I should see that they were to be tolerated, and should restore them to the masters of the Jews. Which mind, being about with all his strength to take away from the Pontiff, he reports all the proceedings made in Gregory's time, and his letters written on this matter, and lastly all things which, according to the order of the thing done, we have already narrated from him: from which at page 596 he thus infers: Whence it is manifest that the masters of the Jews of the kingdom of France lately suggested a falsehood to your Sanctity and to the venerable fathers the lord Cardinals, saying that without those books which in Hebrew are called Talmud they cannot understand the Bible and the other institutes of their law according to their own faith … And it would be no small scandal, and an everlasting reproach to the Apostolic See, if books so solemnly and so justly burned before the university of scholars and the clergy and people of Paris, should by an Apostolic mandate be tolerated, or even be restored to the masters of the Jews; for this toleration would seem a kind of approbation. Then he proves that those books are to be condemned, even if they contain some good things, though rare, and thus he addresses Innocent: These things I have intimated to your Sanctity by the present, that the truth concerning the aforesaid books may become fully known to your Sanctity.

[386] Stirred by these letters, Innocent turned himself to St. Louis, exhorts Louis that he take care that they be abolished, that, by whose help the books of the Jews had before been burned in so great abundance, by the same man's authority the rest in France should be investigated and abolished. Part of the Pontiff's letters Raynaldus gave at the year 1244 from num. 41, and the whole Cherubini inserted into his Bullarium, tom. 1, page 62, in which, the perfidy and wickedness of the Jews and of their books being set forth, he thus speaks:

And although our beloved son the chancellor of Paris and the doctors regent at Paris in the sacred page, by the mandate of Pope G. of happy memory, our predecessor, have publicly, before the clergy and people, burned with fire, to the confusion of the perfidy of the Jews, both the aforesaid book of abuse and certain others, with all their glosses read through in their power , and examined, as we have perceived to be contained in their letters, to whom thou, as a catholic King and a most Christian Prince, hast bestowed upon this fitting help and favour, for which we commend the royal excellence with worthy praises in the Lord, and pursue it with acts of thanks: yet because the profane abuse of those Jews has not yet rested, nor has vexation yet given them understanding, we ask the royal highness and beseech it in the Lord Jesus Christ, that thou who hast piously begun, laudably pursuing it, cause excesses of this kind, detestable and enormous, committed in contumely of the Creator and injury of the Christian name, to be struck with due severity: and that thou command both the aforesaid books of abuse, reproved by the same doctors, and generally all with their glosses which by them shall have been examined and reproved, to be burned with fire throughout thy whole kingdom, wheresoever they can be found. These things Innocent in the month of May of the year 1244.

[387] which, an examination going before There is no doubt that the Pontiff's will was satisfied: but perhaps only after a year or two were the books sought out, so that, the Jews then hiding them for fear, they could afterwards be seized in greater abundance. Certainly a sentence of condemnation was passed against them only in the year 1248, on the Ides of May, by the same Apostolic legate Odo bishop of Tusculum, which I here subjoin from the often-mentioned Échard, page 597: Odo by divine mercy bishop of Tusculum, legate of the Apostolic See, to all who shall inspect the present letters, greeting in the Lord. Let your whole community know that we at Paris in the year of the Lord MCCXLVIII, on the Ides of May, concerning certain books of the Jews which are called Talmud, the masters of the Jews being present and called for this, have brought forth a definitive sentence in this manner. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

[388] and a condemnation, is accomplished. There having been exhibited to us by Apostolic authority by the masters of the Jews of the kingdom of France certain books which are called Talmud, which we have inspected, and which by discreet men and men expert in such things, fearing God and having zeal for the Christian faith, we have caused to be diligently inspected. Because we have found them to contain innumerable errors, abuses, blasphemies, and nefarious things, which are for shame to those reporting them and for horror to those hearing, so far that the aforesaid books according to God cannot be tolerated without injury to the Christian faith: by the counsel of good men, whom we have thought fit specially to be called for this, we pronounce that the aforesaid books are not to be tolerated, nor ought to be restored to the masters of the Jews, and we condemn them by sentence. But concerning the other books not exhibited to us by the masters of the Jews, although they have been several times required by us

upon this, or even not inspected, we shall take fuller cognizance in place and time: and we shall do what shall be to be done. There are subjoined to the sentence the names of forty-one of those by whose counsel it was passed, among whom the first is the bishop of Paris. This sentence being passed, I should believe that by royal order the six wagons of books were burned of which it was said before. And let these things suffice concerning the Jewish books, which hitherto had scarcely seen the light, from which, together with Louis's zeal, his moderation shines out, in that he committed this whole cause to an ecclesiastical judge to be decided, and strenuously showed him a helping hand.

Vincennes other MSS., namely nimirum that is, the loads of carts of Gregory Raynaldus, Perlectos in parte § XXXIII. A daughter born to St. Louis: Richard the Englishman honourably received: complaints between the emperor and Louis on occasion of the count of Provence, whom the King reconciles to the emperor and to the count of Toulouse: the rebellious patrons of the Albigenses conquered, and peace restored. A daughter born to St. Louis: the peril of a divorce refuted: France had long desired the fruit of St. Louis's marriage: nay, if credit were owed in this matter to the author of the Life of St. Theobald abbot of Vaux-de-Cernay, there was a question of procuring a divorce between St. Louis and queen Margaret, because Margaret was believed barren. We keep this Life in manuscript in our chests, to be examined more fully at the VIII of December, on which St. Theobald is honoured: the fragment in which that peril of divorce is asserted du Chesne inserted into tom. 5 of the Writers of the History of the Franks, page 406, which suffices for refuting the fable. Hear therefore from du Chesne's fragment how neatly the author reports that offspring was obtained for the queen by St. Theobald's prayers: The man of God therefore prayed, and chiefly for the queen … The Lord heard the voice*

of His servant: queen Margaret was made pregnant by the most happy Louis, and bore a son named Louis, whom Philip succeeded, who reigned as king. Afterwards she had sons and daughters, God giving. But truly two daughters preceded Louis the son; the author therefore is deceived when he says that Louis was born of a mother till then unfruitful: why then should we not judge that he is deceived also in asserting the peril of a divorce—in a matter, I say, so incredible, of which in other writers no mention is made? For indeed the said author was not so near to these times that he could not err. But if we would have it that he did not altogether err, it will be needful to say that the matter was amplified by him, as is wont to happen: and that what perhaps had been muttered by some less religious men was so narrated as if there had been a true peril of divorce. Certainly it is by no means to be believed that this thought was in the King or in the queen, much less the will. As for the rest, in the year 1240, on the testimony of the Chronicle of St. Denis, tom. 2 of the Spicilegium, page 497, and of others, there was born Blanche the firstborn of Louis the King on the Translation of saint Benedict, and she dispelled the fear of the queen's barrenness. But this Blanche died in infancy in the year 1243, as her epitaph has in du Chesne, page 442.

[390] In the same year St. Louis pursued Richard, brother of the king of England, Richard the Englishman honourably received by the King: departing through France into Syria, with great humanity and benevolence. Receive the matter from Matthew Paris, page 363, thus writing: But count Richard, when he had prosperously put in on the further shore, and, now coming to the parts of France, had drawn near to the King, the King with his mother Blanche and many magnates went to meet the coming count, joyful and festive, and lodged him in his own palace, gladly feasting with him as with his beloved kinsman, courteously regarding him with presents and royal gifts. He sent also his marshal as guardian and guide through all his land, who provided for him and his men provisions and lodgings sumptuously and honourably, until he had passed over the Rhone glad and safe. Such was Louis toward friends, although they had before been enemies, and afterwards seemed likely to be so, being wont to lay aside his anger with his arms. Likewise in this year St. Edmund archbishop of Canterbury sought France in a voluntary exile, on the testimony of the said Paris, page 360, where also he met his last day. Chaize adds, page 283, that he came to the King at Paris, and prayed well for the royal household: which last will be confirmed from the words of queen Blanche, when we shall treat of the translation of his most sacred body. Now we must go forward to other things.

[391] [the movements of the emperor and of the count of Toulouse against the count of Provence:] There raged at this time an atrocious war between Gregory the Pontiff and the emperor Frederick, in the preceding year again struck by the Vatican thunderbolt, concerning which we shall afterwards say more, for explaining what Louis did in that matter: now it was needful to have hinted it in a word, because from this source seems to have flowed the war which arose for Louis in this year, and was extinguished only in the following one, the seditious being subdued or pacified. Jean-Baptiste Guesnay in the Annals of Marseille, page 364, recites an instrument of the year 1239, by which the archbishop of Arles hands over the jurisdiction of the city, which had pertained to the empire, to the count of Provence Raymond Berengar; which cause, that the emperor stirred up the count of Toulouse to bring war again upon Berengar, Chaize judges, page 276, with whom I easily agree in this matter, although Matthew Paris brings forward another cause also, who narrates that the count of Toulouse was impelled to this war by the emperor. But, whatever be the case with the cause of the emperor's hatred against the count of Provence, that a war was stirred up against him by Frederick the said Paris reports at the year 1240, from page 357, in these words: The emperor wrote to the count of Toulouse, effectually admonishing him that, in return for a worthy recompense, he should in hostile fashion assail the count of Provence, raised up on account of his two daughters the queens, and kicking back … For the burdening also of the count of Provence, the emperor ministered effectual help to the count of Toulouse. Whom the count of Toulouse straightway obeyed.

[392] certain Frenchmen, succouring him, are cut down by the count of Toulouse: After these things, a few things being interposed, he thus again writes on that matter: But the count of Toulouse, being stirred at the emperor's mandate, whom the ancient damages often inflicted upon him by the Franks had rendered the readier, rushed in hostile fashion upon the count of Provence, inflicting on him irreparable damages. But

the count of Provence straightway ran to the protections of the Franks, humbly asking that, for the honour and reverence of the queen of France, his daughter, they would effectually help him. For there were at Avignon , and in the parts chiefly adjacent to the Rhone, men who had come thither with Louis (VIII) king of the Franks; who still held the castles and strongholds and cities then violently taken by that same Louis, by the instigation and help of the Pope—Franks noble and powerful: who, when they heard that the queen's father was bringing back the worse reckoning in this contest, and that, in order to breathe again, he was suppliantly imploring that help be rendered him for the queen's love, were gathered, and unanimously flew to arms to the help of the count of Provence. Of which thing the count of Toulouse, being forewarned, ambushes being prepared, met them with a strong hand, and butchered many of them with the edge of the sword, repressing their endeavours according to his wish. And so the warlike work prospered in his hand: so that in a short time the count of Toulouse brought some twenty castles over the Franks and the count of Provence, the rebels being gravely punished, under his former dominion. But this victory could not be long-lasting, the matter being shortly carried to Louis, concerning whose endeavour in this matter, after a few things, the said author subjoins these:

[393] But the most powerful King of the Franks, when he had heard that such a wrong was inflicted on his own men, hence Louis's complaints against the emperor and the count of Toulouse, and believing that these damages were being prepared for him by the emperor, glowed with vehement anger both against the emperor and against the count of Toulouse; wishing by all means that these damages with the wrongs be most fully made good to him: and for the executing of vengeance for so great a rashness, he manfully gathered his army, as much and such as the nobility of France is known to be able to convoke, under royal edict and under a terrible haste. Nevertheless, lest they should precipitately rush to the contest, they humbly demanded and required of the emperor himself whether he had taken up the patronage of this crisis. Meanwhile, on account of the loss of his soldiery in the Holy Land, lest by fortuitous chances they should lose the remnants, for repressing the onsets of the enemies from Provence, the King of France

sent seven hundred knights ready, with far more sergeants. These things truly

Louis did prudently: for neither is it credible that the enemy would have departed from arms unless terror were struck into them; nor was it expedient at this time to provoke a hidden enemy, and that a most powerful one, in open war, if by his authority alone he could recall him to his duty, since the chief nobles of the kingdom were away, having set out into Syria or to Constantinople.

[394] But let us hear what Frederick, who in words always exhibited a huge benevolence toward Louis, who excuse themselves to him. but secretly not rarely endeavoured to break his power—who feared, not loved, the holy King, whose crafty nature was as ready for giving words as for weaving wiles—what

Frederick, I say, answered to the King's complaints: Concerning these things therefore, says Paris, when the lord emperor had been reproved and as it were criminally accused, he denied with a most vehement spirit that it ever proceeded from his conscience that through him the kingdom of the Franks should be injured in anything: nay, rather against the enemies of that kingdom he was ready to stand, and manfully and willingly to fight, for otherwise he is not known to have deserved: and he said: Far be it that I should recompense evils for goods. But if inconsiderately some of the Franks, neighbouring and bordering upon the lands of the count of Toulouse, believing that it pleased the queen, rose up too hastily against her father's adversary, and, more inconsiderately, without the command of the lord their King rushed upon our men, and they, being injured, avenged the unexpected wrongs by repelling them, it is not to be wondered at. Therefore, so far as it can be done, let what was taken be restored on both sides, and let satisfaction be made for the wrongs; lest the seeds of discord now sown by the enemy of the human race be able further to sprout between persons so noble, and our enemies rejoice at our disturbance. Moreover the count of Toulouse excused the lord emperor with the King of the Franks by affirming him ignorant concerning this deed.

[395] By this excuse of the emperor there was indeed a holding back from arms between Louis and Frederick; Certain patrons of the Albigenses nor did the count of Toulouse dare to assail the King in open war: yet enemies were not lacking, for the subduing of whom the army sent by Louis was occupied some months. The matter Alberic records in summary at this year, page 576, whose words I subjoin: In the land of the Albigenses certain heretics rebelled against the King— Roger de Badières and four of his accomplices— invading castles and slaying the King's garrisons; and the count of Toulouse was said secretly to consent with them. Whence the King convoked a council at Bourges, and the lord Cardinal of Palestrina was present, and there were sent against the Albigenses such and so many knights, squires, and crossbowmen that the King, God giving, obtained the triumph, and recovered two castles, and compelled the said adversaries to return to his mercy. With these Nangis in no way gainsays, recording the same war at page 334: but he passes over some things said here, while he adds others here omitted; receive his words:

[396] rebel and invade the King's castles: At almost the same time it happened that the most wicked apostates of the land of the Albigenses rose up against the Christians and the people of Louis the King of France, who by his command kept the strongholds of that land on account of those very apostates. Whence, most often invading them, they daily endeavoured to take from them the castles which they guarded on the King's behalf. But they, seeing the multitude of the apostates, and considering their most wicked infidelity, counsel being taken, sent messengers to the most excellent King of France, their lord Louis,

signifying to him by them how many and how great harassments they were sustaining from the aforesaid apostates. Which being heard, the most Christian King of France, Louis, kindled with exceeding anger, calling his faithful lord John de Beaumont, enjoined him that against the Albigensian apostates he should not delay to take the road.

[397] which the army sent by the King subjugates, Who forthwith, desiring to fulfil the King's command, a multitude of armed men being collected, swiftly passing through the kingdom of France, came shortly as far as the land of the Albigenses. He, straightway besieging a most strong castle named Montréal, stone-throwers , mangonels , and other instruments of divers kind fit for this being set up, and manfully storming it within a few days, most excellently fortified it forthwith both with people and with victuals: and turning himself to other castles, whose names are here passed over in silence for brevity's sake, he subjugated them by his strength, yet not without the greatest labour, to the dominion of the King of France. Then he traversed that land so most powerfully that of him it could truly be said: In roaring he treadeth down the earth, in fury astounding the peoples. And so, the Albigensian apostates being subdued, he swiftly returned to his lord the King with triumph. But the King, glad at so great a victory against the enemies of the Christian faith, rendered thanks to the Creator of all.

[398] At what time, and in whose confidence, these rebelled; What the army sent by Louis did these authors explain: but who stirred up this war, and what they accomplished before this army of the King arrived there, William of Puylaurens teaches more distinctly, having pursued expressly the deeds concerning the Albigenses; from whom likewise we understand that this rebellion arose in Gallia Narbonensis at the same time in which the count of Toulouse, at Frederick the emperor's exhorting, was invading the count of Provence, so that it is credible that these movements of the Albigenses or of their patrons were begun not only by the favour of the count of Toulouse but also in confidence in Frederick. Hear therefore William, chap. 43: In the year, he says, following, MCCXL, the count of Toulouse, a strong army being collected, in the summer season entered the Camargue , and was against the city of the count of Arles at Trinquetaille , with the Rhone between, and it was contended almost through the whole summer between the parties, by the hurling of millstones with engines on this side and that, and with other warlike instruments, and by naval assaults upon the river, the citizens of Marseille bringing help as to their lord the count of Toulouse.* Which was done at the instigation and with the help of Frederick, as we have already seen.

[399] At the same time also, as the author continues, Trencavel, their progress before the coming of the King's army: son of the former viscount of Béziers, with the magnates adhering to him— Olivier de Termes, and Bernard d'Ortalibus, and Bernard Hugh of Serralonga, and Bernard de Villeneuve, and Hugh de Romegos his nephew, and Jordan of Saissac—invaded the land of the lord King in the dioceses of Narbonne and Carcassonne; and many castles turned to him: Montréal, Montolieu, Saissac, Limoux, Azille, Laurac, and as many as

he would in that onset and trembling. These were taken at the first onset; but the greater weight of the war was at Carcassonne, while the King's faithful subjects strove to keep that city with all their strength. But that the things which the author narrates as done there may be more clearly understood, something must be noted beforehand about Carcassonne. Carcasso, says Baudrand in his Geography, a city of Gallia Narbonensis, … episcopal under the archbishop of Narbonne, is threefold; namely upper, lower, where otherwise the borough, and the castle. Now let us hear what for keeping this city the King's subjects did, and what for losing it the adversaries plotted. Thus the author goes on to narrate the matter:

[400] On the other side there entered the city of Carcassonne the venerable fathers the archbishop of Narbonne the things done in the siege of Carcassonne, and the bishop of Toulouse, and the barons of the lands, and several clerics of the land with their servants and goods, trusting alike in the security of the city and of the borough: for the bishop of Toulouse frequently went down into the borough, and preached to the burgesses, comforting them and forewarning them that they should not depart from the Church and the King, who could know that the King would in no wise long suffer these things to be done. And while these conferences were carried on, the city was being filled with harvests and with vintages gathered beforehand, the walls are strengthened with wooden battlements, engines are set up, and all things pertaining to the fight were prepared. Meanwhile certain men of the borough secretly mingle conferences with the enemy, procuring that they should bring them into the borough … And after

a few days the bishop of Toulouse, whose gracious tongue was effectual for mitigating enmities, together with the seneschal went down into the borough, and, the burgesses and the people coming together in the church of the blessed Mary, they bound them all by an oath—the Body of Christ and the relics of the Saints being set forth, the most holy Gospels being touched— upon the altar of the glorious Virgin, that they should adhere to the Church and the King and to those who were in the city, and should defend them; and on the following day, on the Nativity of the blessed Mary, by their own messenger, whom the burgesses themselves had sent to the King, they received his letters, which with an array of great gladness they showed to the prelates and magnates who were in the city.

[401] To these men credit could seem safely to be given: the lower part of which the rebels receive by treason, but even from this the perfidious gave proofs of what origin the Albigenses were born, who followed that saying of the Manichees: Swear, forswear, be unwilling to betray the secret. For hear what follows: And it came about that on that very night the enemies of the King and of the Church are brought into the borough and received, the oaths notwithstanding, and it is sworn together for the contrary. But many clerics who were

in the borough fled to the church, to whom, when leave had been given of going toward Narbonne, and security promised by that prince himself under the testimony of his seal, men corrupt in mind, reprobate as touching the faith, met them as they went out, and treacherously slew them, thirty and more in number, near the gate. Then, beginning to mine , after the fashion of moles, they endeavour to invade the city; but our men meeting them beneath the earth in like manner, they are repulsed by wounds and smoke and lime, and are compelled to give up the labour begun. Nor shall I omit that Bernard Arnaldi, and William Fortis, and the other lords of the castle of Puy-Nautier , when on the preceding day they had sworn to the seneschal that they would return to him to defend the city, on the following day, distrusting the seneschal, adhered to the enemy: for their own malice blinded them, so that they who were not worthy of the favour which, if they stood with the King, they would acquire, did not, if they did not stand, see the peril. But there was in the first assault a mill which was fortified with a thin and old palisade , taken, and the youths who were in it slain.

[402] But the fight was very close, and therefore perilous, but by the army sent by the King they are put to flight and subdued: because the houses of the borough were near, almost adhering to the city, from which with crossbows they could do harm, and could begin unknown holes from a hidden place, and they received from above with engines and millstones the like requital: and it being thus contended for almost a month, a succour is sent from France, whom the enemy did not dare to await; but, fire being set in several places, they resigned the borough to those coming, and forthwith withdrew themselves to Montréal , whom the army following besieged also there. And when it had been contended for very many days, at length, the counts of Toulouse and of Foix coming together and treating of peace, the besieged, going out thence with their horses and arms, gave up the castle and the people: winter had already grown so strongly rough that it would be a peril for the army to winter there. Which reason seems to have been why the aforesaid conditions were granted to the rebels. Yet that the other castles of the rebels also were received in surrender at the beginning, as it seems, of the following year 1241, we have already seen from Nangis, and that the rebels were compelled to flee to the King's mercy from Alberic. The same things are also reported in the Chronicle of St. Médard of Soissons, tom. 2 of the Spicilegium, page 491, where the viscount of Châteaudun is joined as leader to John de Beaumont, and the end of the war is described in these words: But afterwards, God giving, all things were brought back into peace, and ordered according to the will of the aforesaid King in the whole land of the Albigenses.* Yet one receptacle of the heretics remained, namely the castle of Montségur, concerning which presently more.

[403] in what manner all things were pacified by Louis, As for the rest, Chaize adds certain things, page 291, and the following, from ancient monuments, which I shall briefly touch upon. To Montargis there came to the King about the month of March of the year 1241 the viscount of Narbonne, and rendered the oath of fealty: the same at Pontoise did a little afterwards Olivier de Termes and other rebels, committing themselves to the King's judgment and mercy: likewise the count of Toulouse, deservedly suspect, bound himself to the King by a new oath at Montargis; moreover he permitted his cities still to be occupied by a royal garrison for a year, and undertook that he would confer help for razing the Castle of Montségur: besides these he determined, at the legate's persuading, to set out to Rome to the council. Nor indeed must Louis's notable charity be passed over, who took care that all the losses of all who in this war, apart from their own fault, had suffered damage—among whom the chapter of Carcassonne—should be made good, even though those were inflicted by no fault of the royal army. Concerning the inhabitants of the borough, or lower city, of Carcassonne, who had paid the penalties of perjury through those very men for whose favour they had forsworn themselves, I read in an ancient Chronicle in Catel, page 172: And afterwards the men, by the will of the lord King of France, returned and built anew that borough in the place where it now is, beyond the river Aude . Lastly at this time Louis obtained peace for the count of Provence with the emperor and the count of Toulouse, as Matthew Paris reports, page 376: nay, a treating of nuptials between the count of Toulouse and Sanchia daughter of the count of Provence you will find in William of Puylaurens, chap. 44, but the matter lacked effect.

[404] Further, how great a thing Louis accomplished in subduing these rebels [and with how great worth of labour, on account of the count of Toulouse's league with Frederick.] and in containing the count of Toulouse in his duty, can easily be understood from the league of the count of Toulouse with Frederick: for that there was a league between them is gathered both from their arms joined against the count of Provence, and from Frederick's letter to the count of Toulouse, written about these times, which Martène published, tom. 2 of the Amplissima Collectio, from col. [ ]. Hear its beginning: Thy messengers, the indicators of thy heart and affection, coming to our presence, we received with accustomed kindness; and from those things which they set forth to us by the office of an embassy, we have understood diligently, exceedingly cheerful and joyful, that thy tried sincerity, others failing, whose faith is turned out to have been small, is set forth and offered the readier inasmuch as the desire of a truth long since conceived seeks to be more clearly proved and known in necessity: for against all our enemies, ecclesiastical and worldly, and especially against the Pope and his patrons, and count P. N., we purpose and dispose to rise up powerfully and openly, and to defend the common cause and honour against the same common enemies by all means, which clarifies before us in thy person the fidelity of a fidelity already proved with God, so that of no living man is a surer confidence offered us … Since therefore the time and the cause require that we may be able to take vengeance

of the common enemies, &c. And below: Do thou therefore strengthen thy mind, and thy forces in that hand which thou showest us. With these the rest are conformable, swollen with praises of the count of Toulouse and with hatred toward churchmen. This bond therefore, pernicious to the Church and perilous to the kingdom, Louis seems to have broken by subduing the rebels, and by bringing back the count, at least for the time, to his duty.

[405] Lastly, that we may conclude the deeds done under St. Louis's auspices against the Albigenses The fortified castle of the Albigenses and their patrons, it is pleasing in this place to add the storming of their most fortified castle, although that happened a little later. William of Puylaurens narrates it, chap. 43, after reporting the journey of the count of Toulouse to the Pontiff and the emperor, thus continuing: And meanwhile the venerable father the lord Peter Amelii archbishop of Narbonne, and the lord Durand bishop of Albi, and the seneschal of Carcassonne besieged the castle of Montségur * in the diocese of Toulouse, which two magnates, Peter de Mirepoix and Raymond de Peyrala, had long held by theft, where there was a public refuge of all malefactors and heretics, as it were a synagogue of Satan, on account of the strength of the castle, which, set on a very high rock, seemed impregnable; and when they had long been there and profited little, it happened that light-armed native troops were sent with men who had experience of the place, arranging an ascent by night through horrible precipices, who, the Lord leading, reached a certain stronghold which was at a certain corner of the mountain, and, the watches being suddenly intercepted,

they occupied that fortification, and slew with the sword those whom they found.

[406] afterwards stormed by the King's men. And when it was light, being as it were made equal to the rest who were in the greater part, they began strongly to assail them; and, marvelling at the horribleness of the way by which they had ascended by night, they would in no wise have dared to commit themselves to it by daylight; but, those in the upper part being shut in, a readier ascent was made for the others who were in the army: and those who were within, being stormed day and night, since they had no rest nor could bear the assaults of the faithful, the unfaithful, security of life being received, divided the castle and the vested heretics—who, between men and women, were found to be CC or thereabout—among the assailants. But among them was Bertrand Martini, whom they made their bishop, who, refusing the conversion to which they were invited, being burned in an enclosure made for them of stakes and posts, fire being set, passed to the fire of Tartarus; and the castle was restored to the marshal of Mirepoix, whose it before had been. This was done in the year 1243: thus little by little the Albigenses were utterly cut off.

Avignon perhaps umquam elsewhere, more rightly, dicta that is, engines for casting greater stones that is, engines for smaller stones la Camargue, it is an island in the Rhone. Trinquetaille that is, to drive mines.

Puy-Nautier that is, a row of stakes, commonly a palisade Montréal Montargis Aude Montségur § XXXIV. The excommunication of the emperor Frederick: the empire offered to Robert, St. Louis's brother, but not accepted: a fabricated answer of the French refuted. Gregory the Pontiff strikes Frederick with anathema: In the year 1239, as Matthew Paris writes, page 328, in Lent, the lord Pope, when he had seen the too rash deeds of the emperor, and his sayings excusing his sin, … being moved with most vehement anger against the emperor, proposing most grave questions against him and setting forth complaints, writing and by writing constantly and diligently persuading, through many and by many solemn messengers, whose authority deserved to be heard, that he should restore what was taken away, and should cease to widow the Church of her possessions, which it is established was endowed with them by a long prescription of time; and after the manner of a prudent physician, who now uses fomentations, now the steel of amputation, now cautery, intermingling

threatening words with soothing ones, friendly with terrible: but when the emperor had insolently refused, and had excused his deeds by certain apparent causes propped with reason, the lord Pope, with many Cardinals then present, … on Palm Sunday … solemnly excommunicated … Frederick. The sentence of excommunication the said Paris presently subjoins, which for the clarity of what is to be said I shall write out from him, yet certain things being omitted for brevity's sake which do not conduce to the understanding of the history. Receive the words of Gregory:

[408] We excommunicate and anathematize on the part of God almighty, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, on account of various crimes and by the authority of the Apostles Peter and Paul, Frederick called emperor, for this, that against the Roman Church he entered upon sedition in the City, by which he intended to drive the Roman Pontiff and his brethren from their see, and to trample upon the privileges, dignities, and men, the liberty of the Apostolic See, and also the ecclesiastical liberty, rashly coming against the oaths by which upon this he is held to the Roman Church. Likewise we excommunicate, &c. … because he charged, through certain of his faithful men, that our venerable brother the bishop of Palestrina, legate of the Apostolic See, be hindered lest he should proceed in his legation, which we committed to him as a charge into the parts of the Albigenses for the strengthening of the Catholic faith. Likewise … because he does not permit certain cathedral and certain other vacant churches to be provided for in the kingdom … Likewise … because in the kingdom clerics are seized and imprisoned, proscribed and slain. Likewise … because in the kingdom*

churches consecrated to the Lord are destroyed and profaned.

Likewise … because he does not permit the church of Sora

to be repaired.

[409] Likewise … because the nephew of the king of Tunis,

coming to the Roman Church to receive

the sacrament of baptism, reported here, he detains, nor has permitted him to come.

Likewise … because Peter the Saracen, a noble Roman citizen, coming on the part of the king of England to the Apostolic See, he seized and detains consigned to prison. Likewise … because the lands

of the Church … he occupied, rashly coming against the oath by which upon this he is held to the Church. Likewise … because the lands of certain nobles of the kingdom, which the Church held in her hands, he occupied and devastated. Likewise … because certain cathedral churches … and certain monasteries … he despoiled of their goods. Likewise … because many cathedral churches, and other churches, and monasteries of the kingdom, by an iniquitous inquisition were despoiled of almost all their goods. Likewise … because in the kingdom the Templars and Hospitallers, despoiled of movables and immovables, have not been entirely restored according to the tenor of the peace. Likewise … because in the kingdom the prelates of the churches, and the abbots of the Cistercian and other Orders, are compelled every single month to give a certain sum of money for the construction of new castles. Likewise … because, against the tenor of the peace, those who adhered to the Church, being despoiled of all their goods, are compelled to go into exile as though proscribed, their wives and children being taken captive. Likewise we excommunicate and anathematize the same, for this, that through him the business of the Holy Land is hindered, and the repairing of the empire of Romania.

[410] But all who are held bound to him by an oath of fealty the examination concerning his faith being deferred: we decree absolved from the observance of that oath, strictly forbidding that they observe fealty to him so long as he shall be bound by the bond of excommunication; concerning the oppressions and other grievances of the nobles, the poor, widows, orphans, and others of the kingdom, for which the same Frederick otherwise swore to stand to the commands of the Church, we intend to remove him, and in that business, the Lord giving, we shall proceed as it shall be just to proceed. Further, for all and each of the above-said things, for which the said Frederick was diligently admonished by us, and frequently, nor did he care to obey, we bind the same Frederick with the bond of excommunication and anathema. But since the same

Frederick, concerning his said deeds, is gravely defamed, many crying out through almost the whole world that he does not think rightly concerning the Catholic faith: we, the Lord giving, upon this shall proceed in its place and time, according as the order of law requires in such cases. Thus Paris expressed Gregory's sentence against Frederick, according to the Paris edition of the year 1644. But the reasons why Frederick was excommunicated you will find more fully set forth in Odorico Raynaldus at the year 1239 from the beginning.

[411] the sentence is promulgated: This sentence was promulgated at Rome first on Palm Sunday, and again on the day of the Lord's Supper, as the praised Raynaldus proves, num. 14. Then, sent to various kingdoms, the Pontiff's letters being added, it was promulgated there, and namely in France, which alone makes to our purpose. But Frederick was so far from being amended by these things that he omitted nothing whereby he might defend himself by words, writings, and arms, and avenge the wrong, as he called it, received. For indeed, as he was ready and eloquent of speech, he declaimed against the Pontiff, and calumniously charged that the thunderbolt of anathema was hurled not from zeal for justice but for vengeance: he drew up letters to various princes, by which he endeavoured both to show his own innocence and to blacken the Pontiff's fame: but with arms he assailed the Pontifical dominion and that of its confederates: which things the reader will find reported more fully in the praised Raynaldus and other authors. The Pontiff therefore, being inferior in power of arms to Frederick, began to look about for outside help, and sent his legate into France, the bishop of Palestrina; concerning whom Nangis in du Chesne thus has: At these times also, between the Roman Church and Frederick the emperor a great dissension arose. For the same emperor was, so far as he could, contrary to the Roman court in all things, and upon it from times past he was inflicting manifold persecutions and unjustly, which it would be long to write, more sharply than usual. On account of which Pope Gregory the ninth of blessed memory sent into France a certain white monk named James bishop

of Palestrina, legate of the Apostolic See, that he should promulgate throughout the whole of France the sentence of excommunication against the said emperor Frederick, whom the Pope himself had excommunicated.

[412] The aforesaid legate also brought letters of Gregory to Louis, [Gregory exhorts Louis to war against Frederick; but the King studies to reconcile peace:] which Spondanus summarily reports at the year 1239, num. 9. By these the Pontiff, Frederick's excommunication being reported, endeavoured to stir up the pious King to succour the Church and to pursue Frederick with war. It cannot be doubted that Louis kindly heard the Pontifical legate. But the most prudent King was not ignorant that a war should not rashly be undertaken by him, especially at that time in which the chief forces of the kingdom had been sent away partly to Constantinople, partly into Palestine, since there were also most grave reasons which, however devoted he was to Gregory, must necessarily dissuade him from that war which was apt to bring the whole kingdom of France into the greatest calamities and manifest peril: especially if he had undertaken it with the nobles of the kingdom dissenting. Louis therefore preferred, if he could, to reconcile peace between Gregory and Frederick. Alberic testifies this at the year 1239, page 568, in these words: The King of the Franks sent to Rome Robert bishop of Langres, and the lord Adam, a knight of his council, to temper the mind of the supreme Pontiff and the mind of the emperor, if any form of peace and concord could be found between them.

[413] But, although Frederick feigned himself inclined to peace with the princes but Frederick was not inclined to peace. whose arms he feared, he spoke otherwise to those whom he hoped would not fail him. Receive a specimen from the letter to the count of Toulouse cited at num. 404: Since therefore, he says, the time and the cause require

that we may be able to take vengeance of the common enemies, the world fighting for us, on account of their manifest wrong, against them we send T., a special messenger, bearer of our conscience, and privy to our inmost will, who will render thee fully certain and assured of our intention, affection, and purpose, chiefly because we wish to have and to hold it certain that we alike will the same and refuse the same. Do thou therefore strengthen thy mind, and thy forces in that hand which thou showest us; and we from experience have conceived the purity of thy confidence, because the justice of our ways is our companion … Priestly insolence, forgetful of its own manner, having gone out beyond the bounds of modesty, preaches scandal for the Gospel, and out of the office of prayer prepares unlawful wars; it will fall upon itself, as that which ceases not to prevaricate the ways of the Lord, the Lord of hosts helping us, who sees His vineyard scattered by evil shepherds. These things truly, as also the whole letter, breathe nothing but war.

[414] Since therefore Gregory sufficiently perceived that no hope of peace to be entered upon with Frederick on fair conditions Gregory endeavours to bring it about, remained, he began to labour that another be elected emperor in his stead, who might bring help to the imperilled Church. For that he did not wish to do this at once, Frederick being excommunicated, becomes probable from this, that he loosed his subjects from the religion of their oath only so long as he shall be bound by the bond of excommunication. Further, concerning Gregory's endeavour to substitute an emperor for Frederick, Alberic writes in his Chronicle at the year 1241, page 577, in this manner: On the Lord's Supper

Waldemar king of Denmark died … He left three sons, namely king Eric, Duke Abel, and count Christopher. That Abel the Pope at one time wished to make king of Germany against the emperor: he refusing, because he had not so many and so great things wherewith to oppose himself to the emperor, duke Otto of Brunswick likewise refusing and saying that he would not die by a like death, by which his uncle the emperor Otto died. At length that matter, by the Pope's mandate, was carried to the lord Robert brother of the King of France, but by the counsel and prudence of his mother the work remained untouched. These things Alberic, who in this very year set an end to his Chronicle.

[415] But Albert abbot of Stade in his Chronicle at the year 1240 thus has: that the electors substitute another emperor for Frederick: Pope Gregory, fearing the insolences of the emperor against the Church, solicited the princes concerning the election of another; but he profited nothing, because certain of the princes wrote back to him that It was not of their right to substitute an emperor, but only to crown one elected by the princes. This answer seems inept, unless perhaps those princes wished to signify that it is not for the Pontiff to deprive an emperor of his dignity in order to substitute another: or certainly unless the Pontiff designated someone whom they should elect. However it be, I have adduced these words only that it may appear that Gregory carried the matter to the princes of the empire, whether he assigned them someone to be elected, or committed the election entirely to their own judgment: nor is it pleasing to dispute what in this matter are the rights of the Pontiff. But truly what was answered and done by Louis must be the more diligently examined, because not a few authors feign answers more agreeable to their own wit than to Louis's modesty. They have as their leader Matthew Paris, whose ineptitudes some have already refuted, and which we shall refute at greater length; so that, the foundation being overturned, the things built upon it may likewise fall.

[416] The empire offered to Robert, Louis's brother: Paris's fabrications Let us weigh therefore Paris's relation. These are his words at the year 1239, page 350: About the courses of those days, the lord Pope

wrote to the King of the Franks, sending him solemn messengers; signifying to him that he should order his letter to be solemnly and memorably read and understood before him and the whole baronage of France. Whose sum and tenor is reported to have been such. You see from the last words that Paris did not see the Pontiff's letter itself, so that it must be either that he wrote from a report spread through England, or that these letters are a fabrication out of a brain fertile in trifles. But hear the fictitious letter of Gregory itself: Let the Church's beloved spiritual son, the illustrious King, and the whole baronage of the Franks, know that we, by the diligent deliberation and conference of all our brethren, have condemned and adjudged away from the imperial summit Frederick called emperor; and have chosen Robert the count, brother of the King of the Franks, to be substituted in his place: whom also the Church, not only Roman but universal, has thought fit with all endeavours not sluggishly to help and effectually to advance. In no way therefore be slow to take up with open arms so great a dignity spontaneously offered, for the obtaining of which we shall pour out abundantly resources and pains and help. For the manifold crimes of the aforesaid Frederick, as the world now knows, have irreparably condemned him. This, as Gregory's letter,

they have given: Chaize, page 299; Daniel at the year 1239, Fleury at the same year, and others. Yet none of them rendered the whole text of Paris into French.

[417] concerning this deed are weighed, But to me, to say it most mildly, whoever could judge that not the words, I say, but even the sense of the Pontifical letters was faithfully set forth in this place by Paris, seems too credulous. It is well to weigh certain things. Paris says the letter was written to the King: but meanwhile he recites a letter drawn up no more to the King than to all the magnates. The empire was offered to Robert, yet the letter exhorts all the nobles of the kingdom that they should not refuse to accept the dignity offered, as though there were as many emperors to be created. Robert's consent in the first place was necessary; but, no mention being made of his consent, the consent of the nobles is demanded. Did Gregory then reckon Robert of so great worth as to wish to make him emperor and the Church's defender? and did he at the same time so despise him as to wish others to answer for him, as if he had been a ward set under guardians? Again, the aids of the King and of the nobles were to be implored for Robert, and the hope conceived of his magnanimity to be set forth: but nothing of these things is in the fictitious letter; but they offer not only help, but also the resources both of the Roman and of the universal Church for securing the empire to Robert. Shall we then reckon Gregory to have been so imprudent as to have wished to write to the French what could in no way seem to them credible? For indeed in what way could they believe that the English, the Spaniards, all the Germans, and other peoples, had pledged their faith to the Pontiff to confer resources and pains that they might secure the Roman empire to Robert count of Artois? In what way could they bring themselves to think that Gregory himself did not rather need French resources for defending himself than that he would pour out his own abundantly for vindicating the empire to Robert?

[418] Besides, we saw above that the Pontiff wrote to the princes of the empire and are refuted: that they themselves should elect another emperor; nor otherwise did Innocent IV afterwards proceed, when Henry Landgrave of Thuringia, and after him William count of Holland, were elected kings by at least a party of the electoral princes: so that it is not credible that Gregory, by his own authority only and that of his brethren, wished to hand over the empire to Robert, as the invented letter feigns; but it is altogether probable that Gregory sought the consent of Robert and of Louis, that he might take care that he be elected by at least some princes, since even from Albert of Stade cited above it is clear enough that not all the electors gainsaid the Pontiff. More can be brought forward against this invented letter, but let these things suffice meanwhile: to which if anyone shall aptly answer, I shall gladly confess that it is not yet certain that the authors mentioned above put forth, as Pontifical letters, the fabrications of Matthew Paris, ill coherent with themselves. As for the rest, if anyone should say that the letter, as it is recited by those authors rendered into French, cannot be assailed by those arguments by which we have impugned Paris's own words, I shall readily admit that it was recited by them in a more probable manner than is had in Paris, which I do not deny was indeed cautiously done; whether also faithfully enough, I leave to the judgment of others.

[419] Meanwhile let us hear the answer, either of the French, as after Chaize Daniel suspects; The fictitious answer of the French or of Louis, as Fleury wished it to be believed, or certainly of Matthew Paris, imitating the dreams of a sick man, as I at least altogether judge: To which, says the cited Paris, the circumspect prudence of the French answered: By what spirit or rash daring has the Pope disinherited so great a prince, than whom there is no greater, nay not even an equal among Christians, not convicted or confessed of the crimes objected against him, and cast him down from the imperial summit? Who, if by the exigency of his deserts he were to be deposed, would be judged to be voided only by a general council? Concerning his transgressions credit is not to be given to his enemies, of whom the Pope is known to be the chief. To us he has hitherto been guiltless, nay a good neighbour: nor have we seen anything sinister concerning him in secular fidelity or in the Catholic faith. But we know that he faithfully served our Lord Jesus Christ, confidently exposing himself to perils of the sea and of war. So much religion we have not found in the Pope. Nay, he who ought to have promoted him and protected him while serving God has endeavoured to confound him while absent, and wickedly to supplant him.*

[420] We are unwilling to hurl ourselves into such perils or the King's answer, as to assail that Frederick, so powerful, whom so many kingdoms will help against us, and a just cause will furnish him support. What is it to the Romans about the prodigal shedding of our blood, provided we should satisfy their anger? If he shall have overcome him through us and others, he will trample upon all the princes of the world, taking to himself the horns of boasting and pride, because he has crushed that great emperor Frederick. But lest we should seem to have received the Papal mandate in vain, although it is more established that this proceeded from the Roman Church out of hatred of the emperor rather than out of love of us, we shall send prudent messengers from among us to the emperor, who shall diligently inquire how he thinks concerning the Catholic faith, and shall certify us upon this. And if they find nothing but sound, why is he to be harassed? But if otherwise, both him, nay even the Pope himself, if he shall have thought ill of God, or any mortal whatsoever, we shall pursue even to destruction. Thus was answered to Gregory's legates, says Paris, presently subjoining: Which when the Papal messengers heard, they withdrew confounded.

[421] and the ridiculous embassy to Frederick I truly wonder that an answer of this kind could please even French Historians, which seems so alien from the humanity implanted in French minds that not even among the Tartars, a most savage people at that time, ought the Pontifical legates to have expected a like answer. But, before we discuss that further, let us hear the pretty embassy of the French to the emperor, which Paris subjoins in these words: The solemn messengers of the Franks therefore approached the lord emperor, being about to announce to him in order the charges which they had received from the lord Pope. Which when the lord emperor had heard, stupefied at the savagery of the hatred, he answered that he was a Catholic Christian man, thinking soundly concerning all the articles of the orthodox faith. And he added: Let it not please my Lord Jesus Christ that I should ever depart from the faith of my magnificent fathers and forefathers, following the footsteps of the lost. But let the Lord judge between me and him, who has so wickedly defamed me throughout the world. And stretching his hands to heaven, tears rising, he exclaimed with sobbing: Let the God of vengeances, the Lord, render him his recompense. And turning to the messengers, he said: My friends and most dear neighbours, truly, whatever my enemy says, the thirster after my blood and the subverter of my honour, I believe as another Christian: and if you dispose to move war against me, wonder not if I defend myself from those rising up against me. For I hope that God, the protector of the innocent, will powerfully deliver me. For God knows that the Pope, in favour of those rebellious against me, chiefly of the Milanese heretics, lifts his heel against me and rises up wrathful. But to you I rise up wholly in acts of thanks, because you have wished before assenting to be certified by my answer concerning the present cause. To these things the messengers: Let it not please God that it should ever ascend into our heart that we should assail any Christian without a manifest cause. Nor does ambition drive us: for we believe our lord the King of France, whom the line of royal blood has advanced to rule the sceptres of the Franks, to be more excellent than any emperor whom mere voluntary election advances: it suffices for the lord count Robert to be the brother of so great a King.

And these things being said, they withdrew with imperial love and favour. And thus in this purpose the Papal endeavour came out void.

[42] ineptly invented All these words of Paris seemed exceedingly worthy to the heterodox Struve to be inserted into the Corpus of the history of Germany, tom. 1, from page 463. Nor did Claude Fleury think them unworthy to have a place in his Ecclesiastical History, the harshness of the expressions being nevertheless not a little mitigated, namely that they might appear more probable. I have already said that these things are to be attributed to Paris in a reverie; unless perhaps they were inserted into his History with many others by some impostor, which, wherever I reject Paris's words, I always wish to be understood as a doubt. But truly how incongruously they are invented, receive in a few words. If the French judged that he was not convicted of the crimes objected, if they knew Gregory to be his chief enemy, and therefore unworthy of trust, why did they permit the sentence of excommunication, by which also his subjects are loosed from the religion of their oath, to be promulgated in France without any excuse, nor complain of its injustice before the Pontiff? If they judged no Christian prince equal to the emperor: why do the French legates, men truly discourteous, afterwards fling in the emperor's own face that they judge their King more excellent than the emperor, which honesty advised should be kept silent, even if they had been of that opinion? If the French believed Frederick so good and faithful a neighbour, why did the same men in the year 1237 suspect that Louis was invited by him to a conference Because, the words are Nangis's, page 333, as was said by many, like a malicious man and a seducer, he was busy plotting against the King of France and against the kingdom? Why does Chaize himself, whom Paris's answer does not displease, at page 301 narrate from Philippe Mousket that Frederick's faith was suspect to Louis, and that it shortly appeared that the King's suspicions did not lack foundation? Why does he add that there was scarcely anything in which he was not held suspect, so that he was even accused of having drawn on the Tartars to subjugate the whole West, and to divide it with them?

[423] Besides, with what probability are the French brought in praising Frederick's expedition into the Holy Land, are proved. where they were not ignorant that he accomplished nothing worthy of praise? Who likewise would believe that the French acknowledged more religion in Frederick, whose crimes were not hidden, than in Gregory the most laudable Pontiff? They are feigned to call Frederick's cause just, and consequently to accuse the Pontiff of injustice: with what probability again? But who would read without laughter the most ineptly invented embassy to the emperor, by which they should inquire into his faith, being about to declare war on him if he were a heretic, but not so if he were a catholic: while the whole examination is reduced to this, that they forthwith acquiesced in him affirming that he thought rightly concerning the faith? What heresiarch even called himself a heretic? But neither had Frederick been condemned for heresy; but the cause concerning his faith had been deferred to another time: nor were two or three legates of the French fit judges of his faith; nor would they have presently acquiesced in his asserting that he believed as any other Christian, if they had undertaken to examine his faith. Hence it may safely be concluded that all these things which we have given from Paris are the fabrications either of him or of another, who did not even know how to feign things suitable to the matters and persons: and that nothing of them all is worthy of credit, save what we have said from Alberic, that the empire was offered to Robert by the Pontiff and not accepted.

[404] But that the matter lacked effect Alberic says was by the counsel and prudence of his mother, The empire refused by Blanche's counsel, for which she had many reasons. nor does he add what moved her to dissuade it. In the first place there could move her the huge peril of the kingdom if war were declared on Frederick: for indeed Frederick's league with the count of Toulouse; the affinity with the king of England, the perpetual enemy of the French; the war at that same time flourishing in Gallia Narbonensis with the patrons of the Albigenses; certain nobles of the kingdom always watching for an occasion of increasing their own power—these could persuade the most prudent queen that there was a peril lest a graver war should presently arise for Louis than he himself would have brought on Frederick for his brother's sake. Add the two columns sent to Constantinople, the one in the year 1238, the other in 1239; a third which set out with the chief nobles of the kingdom into the Holy Land in the year 1239: by which it had come about that the kingdom was at that time deprived of its chief captains and of a huge number of soldiers. These things truly could call away the mind of Blanche and of Louis from the war, and furnish an honourable reason by which he might excuse himself before Gregory the Pontiff for not bringing war upon Frederick. These things we have thought must be disputed a little more fully, that we might vindicate a most modest King, and one notable for the highest observance toward the Roman Pontiffs, from the blot of immodesty and of a petulant answer fastened upon him. As for the rest, Noël Alexandre, tom. 7 of the Ecclesiastical History, page 376, thus speaks of this answer of the French: I too could wish the affronts and the harsher words to be fastened on by Paris. Rightly. But he ought not for the greater part to have reported those affronts and harsher words a little before, and adopted them, as if they had been uttered by the French nobles, if he had wished to narrate true things coherent with themselves.

perhaps: qua that is, of Denmark

* IV

that is, the assembly of nobles perhaps suscipere that is, to be deprived of the empire § XXXV. A council appointed by Gregory, which Frederick endeavours to hinder, Louis to advance: the French bishops taken on the journey by Frederick, whom he restored to liberty at Louis's threats. A council appointed by Gregory Gregory the Pontiff, both on account of other necessities of the Church and on account of the war with Frederick, in the year 1240 appointed a general council to be celebrated at Rome in the following year about the Paschal feasts; and for that cause he gave letters not only to the bishops but also to the princes, that the former should be present at that council, the latter should send their legates to it. The letter written on that matter to St. Louis Odorico Raynaldus recites at the year 1240, num. 54, in which, after a few things, the Pontiff thus addresses the King: Since therefore mother Church, occupied with grave affairs amid the whirlwinds of the age, has decreed to call the kings of the earth, the prelates of the Church, and its subjects, and other princes of the world, that, being clothed with their variety and fortified with their counsels, she may be able the more happily to expedite the grave affairs which have followed; thee, most dear son, whom she by the grace of regeneration renders a son, and beloved by the prerogative of sincerity, we confidently invite to this by the counsel*

of our brethren; asking and more attentively admonishing thy serenity that by the next feast of the Lord's Resurrection thy highness send to us faithful and provident messengers, who upon the expediting of the causes of the universal Church may bestow upon us useful counsel in the royal stead, that the Christian religion may have in thee a son of accustomed devotion, and a prompt zealot of ecclesiastical advancement, being about to bestow due recompense upon thine own advantages. These letters were given on the V Ides of August of the year 1240. Thus Gregory to Louis—about to use truly another style, nor to summon the French with so great zeal, if by that barbarous answer of Paris, which we have just now refuted, the French had driven off his legates.

[426] Frederick endeavours to hinder, Frederick, who before had pretended that he wished a synod, when he heard that a synod had been appointed by the Pontiff, studied by all means to hinder it. Hear Nangis, page 335, in du Chesne: But the emperor, foreknowing and weighing that Pope Gregory intended to condemn him through the prelates of France, sent letters to Louis King of France, charging him that he denied free passage, both by sea and by land, to the ecclesiastical persons of his kingdom, and to all whom the aforesaid Cardinal desired to lead with him to Rome. Then he commanded not only the lands but even the sea to be so diligently watched that without the leave of his people no one was given the faculty of travelling anywhere in those parts. Likewise Frederick wrote on that matter to Henry king of England, whose letter Matthew Paris recites at the year 1240, in which, certain pretexts being set forth why he wished to hinder the council, at page 368 he thus speaks: Wherefore we exhort the royal serenity by the present, that through all and each of the prelates of your kingdom, the programme of a royal edict being published, you divulge that no one under the confidence of our safe-conduct should come to that synod. For we, however greatly we most willingly defer to the faithful of your kingdom, on account of the special love which we bear toward you, yet it would not befit us in any way with an even mind to tolerate the presumptuous boldness of those who should come at our enemy's calling.*

[427] This prohibition of Frederick's offended not only the Pontiff but also St. Louis, Frederick, which certainly was not that of a man desiring peace, but of one who, by the conscience of his crimes, feared a general judgment not only of bishops but of secular princes also, whose legates we have seen called to the council. But whether Frederick feared lest an examination should be instituted concerning his faith (as was afterwards done in the council of Lyons), and thence it should be proceeded to the election of a new emperor; or whether he was afraid lest that council should stir up the arms of the princes against him: it is certain that he vehemently feared it: for he also took care that a friendly instruction be published without a name, by which the perils of those going to the council are marvellously exaggerated, in which he does not refuse to be called a second Herod in cruelty, another Nero in impieties, so that the reader might believe that this instruction proceeded from some enemy of Frederick, and he himself might thus the more easily persuade that the bishops were not bound to fulfil the mandate of Gregory the Pontiff with so great a peril of their life or liberty; which alone he intended to persuade. That instruction, with other letters of Frederick, Étienne Baluze published, tom. 1 of the Miscellanea, from page 478, where the curious reader may consult it.

[428] Further, that Louis took ill, as we have said, this manner of Frederick's proceeding, which St. Louis takes ill. and that he signified it to him by letters, we gather from Frederick's replies in Martène, tom. 2 of the Amplissima Collectio, col. [ ]; for in them, all the blandishments being omitted by which Frederick is otherwise wont to soothe Louis, when he had imputed the disturbance of the Church to the Pontiff, he thus addresses the King: Let the royal serenity therefore not wonder if we forbid those called to a calling of this kind passage by land and sea by obstacles prepared: since we know for certain that they are convoked not so much for the solaces of a calling as for the loss of our safety; which your circumspection can manifestly weigh, since, while we securely placed in your bosom our cause offered to him through us, many times were the counsels of peace slighted by him, so that he suddenly thought to destroy us, and with such an onset that he believed he would abolish for ever our name and that of our race. He forbade also the synod awaited by us to be convoked for showing the causes of our innocence: therefore it is no wonder if we do not suffer the council called by him to meet even for our own injury: by which, all who adhere to us being passed over, he has convoked the rebels of the empire and our most capital enemies, as our foregoing letters have taught you. But if Frederick's reasons, expressed in the letters premised before, had been approved by Louis, he would not have pressed upon Frederick by his own. Then, if these had satisfied him, reasons would not have been lacking by which he might have deprecated before the Pontiff the bishops' Roman journey on account of manifest perils. Whence it follows that the convocation of the council was approved by Louis, and Frederick's plottings, endeavouring to hinder it, disapproved.

[429] The Pontiff orders the bishops to come to Rome: Gregory the Pontiff, these endeavours of Frederick's being heard, on the Ides of October of the year 1240 gave other encyclical letters to the bishops, a copy of which Matthew Paris recites, page 374, as also Raynaldus at the year 1240, num. 57. But by these he enjoins, in virtue of obedience, that, Frederick's threats being despised, they come to Rome at the time already designated: and by the authority of these letters the Pontifical legate in France did those things which Nangis reports as done by him, page 335, in these words: But the sentence being promulgated, the Cardinal, seeing the emperor hardened in his malice, and so obstinate that, the excommunication being slighted, he would in no way leap back from his nefarious purpose, convoked certain archbishops, bishops, and abbots at the city of Meaux, being about to have counsel upon so arduous a business, and to treat some things through them and with them. And then, all being present, he enjoined certain of them in virtue of obedience on the part of the lord Pope that, all business being set behind, taking the road personally with him, they should in no wise omit to go to Rome. But he there pledged and affirmed that at Vienne * the city he would conveniently provide the same men with ships, sailors, and the other things which pertain to a voyage, because the Roman emperor had occupied all the passes by land.

[430] they come happily to Genoa: Then, a few things being interposed, he describes the journey of the bishops in this manner: Meanwhile the prelates of France, taking the road with the aforesaid legate, by their day-marches came to the city of Vienne, many days having elapsed, but not without great labours and expenses. And then, a lack of ships being found there, and no help of men being found by whom they could be defended from the emperor's people, they feared to cross further. Whence the archbishop of Tours and he of Bourges, and also the bishop of Chartres, and many proctors, fearing to put themselves in peril, returned. But others, attending to that which the Lord says in the Gospel: Fear not them which kill the body, but cannot kill the soul; but rather fear him who is able to send both body and soul into hell, and therefore fearing the peril of the soul more than that of the body, and the Lord more than a mortal man, entering the sea, delivered themselves to bodily hazard: and they came to Genoa happily enough, which this author leaps over: whither likewise came the English, Spaniards, Lombards, and others about to set out for the council.

[401] Frederick, when he had understood that the prelates had come thither, asked them to pass through his dominion and to treat with him, promising security, as Paris narrates more at large, page 380. But they, thinking that the sea, infested with the ships of enemies, was more to be trusted Being about to go to Rome, they are taken and consigned to prison by Frederick. than Frederick's promises, committed themselves to the galleys of the Genoese: But when Frederick, says Raynaldus at the year 1241, num. 53, was making ready a very strong fleet of Sicilians and Pisans for intercepting the prelates at sea, over which he had set Enzio, called king of Sardinia, the Pontiff admonished the legate acting at Genoa of the forces mustered by Frederick, that he should prepare so most powerful a fleet that the enemy should not be equal to sustaining it: but he, as Gregory afterwards complained, did not use the salutary counsel. Hence the disaster followed, which the contemporary author Richard of San Germano in Ughelli's Anecdota, col. 237, narrates in this manner: In the month of May, on the feast of the Finding of the Holy Cross, the imperial galleys with the galleys of the Genoese, having a conflict, seized some western prelates who were in them, the victory over the Genoese being had, and led them captive to Pisa with the two legates, namely the bishop of Palestrina and Odo, Cardinal Deacon of S. Nicholas in Carcere Tulliano, by whose*

mandate they were coming to the Pope. Among whom were the abbots of Cîteaux and of Clairvaux, and also the archbishop of Rouen, and others whom I do not know. Of the galleys of the Genoese also there were taken more than 20, and some Genoese in them, and very many were for fear's sake drowned in the sea: all of whom afterwards, at the emperor's command, both prelates and others, with those legates, were led by sea into the kingdom to Naples in captivity, and sent into custody through the castles of the kingdom. Various letters on this matter the Raynaldus praised just now gives, in which the reader will find which prelates were taken, and which escaped. It rests upon us only to report what for the freeing of the French St. Louis did.

[432] This Nangis, page 336, thus has: But the most pious and most devout King, seeing the Church of God destitute of human help, St. Louis asks of Frederick that he dismiss the French prelates free; and compassionating the prelates of his kingdom, consigned to the divers prisons of Frederick the emperor, sent the abbot of Corbie and the lord Gervase de Escrinis to the emperor, charging him that he should free the prelates of his kingdom whom he held in prison at the intervention of his prayers. But then the said emperor,

not hearing the King's prayers, nay, gathering all the imprisoned from divers places at Naples, thus charged the King of France: Let the royal highness not wonder if the august Caesar holds in straits the prelates of France, who were being drawn to Caesar's straits. Only the latter words of the Frederician letter did Nangis adduce: but more from the same letter you will find in Raynaldus, num. 78. But let us go on with Nangis: Which King Louis hearing, and vehemently wondering that the emperor had by no means acquiesced in his prayers, charged him again through the abbot of Cluny in this manner. Then he subjoins Louis's letter, but certain things being passed over. Receive it therefore from Raynaldus, num. 76, where the things which Nangis passed over are supplied:

[433] Our confidence has hitherto undoubtedly held that between the empire and our kingdom, which he at first refusing, by a second letter, established by mutual love through a long tract of time, no matter could arise apt to bring forth hatred or scandal: since our predecessors of happy memory, all the kings of France down to our times, have been zealous for the honour and sublimity of the empire. We, who after them, God willing, reign, were held in the same purpose; and also the ancient Roman emperors, and those nearest to us, reckoning or judging the kingdom and the empire one and the same, kept the peace of unity and of concord, and between them not a little spark of dissension shone. But we are compelled to wonder vehemently, and not without reason to be troubled, that, no cause or matter of offence going before, the prelates of our kingdom, coming to the Apostolic See, to which they were held both by faith and by obedience, nor could refuse its mandates, you caused to be taken at sea, and hold them under custody: which we bear more grievously than perhaps the credulity of your majesty may believe. For, as we have manifestly learned from their letters, they had devised nothing against the imperial highness; even if the supreme Pontiff had been about to proceed to some things less due.

[434] and that a threatening one, he extorts their liberation. Whence, since no cause of detention is found in them, it would befit your highness to restore the prelates of our kingdom to their due liberty: in which you will render us appeased toward you, we who reckon that detention itself a wrong; and to an exalted King there would be much detraction if upon such things we kept silence. But if you will not turn back the aforesaid to the eyes of your mind, the bishop of Palestrina and the other legates of the Church, wishing to implore aid to your prejudice, we most manifestly repelled; nor could they obtain anything in our kingdom against your majesty. Let therefore the imperial providence provide, and put in the scale of judgment the things which we say, nor let it wish to draw the ground from power or will: for the kingdom of France is not so weakened in strength that it would allow itself to be urged on by your spurs. Frederick was unwilling to try Louis's arms, whose threats he knew to be slow indeed, yet by no means vain. For to the letter the praised Nangis subjoins: Whose words and reasons the emperor understanding, he freed them all alike, though unwilling, greatly fearing to offend King Louis. From these things you may see that Louis abstained indeed from bringing war upon Frederick, with whom he was joined by a long-standing league, yet in no matter failed the Pontiff, nor stood against him for Frederick. This Noël Alexandre confesses, tom. 7, page 377, in these words: Yet he did not fail in his duty toward the Apostolic See and Gregory IX; for indeed he sent the Gallican prelates to the ecumenical synod which in the difficulty of so great a matter he had appointed at Rome; being ready to stand to the Church's judgment concerning Frederick, and meanwhile rejecting his communion, whose excommunication had been promulgated in the Gallican churches.

of Palestrina Vienne that is, of Genua, commonly Genoua, in French Gênes. § XXXVI. A saying of St. Louis concerning the Tartars: a part of the Cross, and other instruments of the Lord's passion, carried to Paris by Louis's care, and received with the King's notable piety. A generous saying of St. Louis concerning the Tartars: What precedes has already led us to the year 1241, in which several things remain to be discussed and narrated. The Tartars at this time were bringing a huge terror upon the whole of Europe: for they had penetrated into Hungary, and, the Hungarians being cut down, were ravaging the whole of Hungary at their pleasure as far as the borders of Austria and of Bohemia, as various authors narrate. On this occasion Matthew Paris celebrates a generous saying of St. Louis, resting on divine confidence, at this year, page 377. For his mother Blanche was asking of him: What is to be done, most dear son, upon so mournful an event, whose terrifying rumour has flown through our borders? There hangs over us all and over the most sacred Church in our times a general destruction, from the impetuous coming of the Tartars upon us. Which being heard, the King with a tearful voice, but not without a divine breathing, answered: Let heavenly consolation lift us up, mother. For if they themselves come upon us, either we shall thrust back those whom we call Tartars to their tartarean seats whence they came forth, or they themselves will carry us all up to heaven. As if he should say, either we shall repel them, or if it happen that we be conquered, we shall pass over to God as confessors or martyrs of Christ. And this notable and laudable word lifted up and animated not only the nobility of the Franks, but the inhabitants of the adjacent borders.* Thus he, subjoining Frederick's letters, in which the reader will find many things concerning the Tartars and their devastations: nor does he keep silence that the said Frederick was with many suspected concerning the Tartars having been summoned into Europe.

[436] That Baldwin the emperor of Constantinople was affected with great benefits by St. Louis we have already seen. the benefits of the same toward Baldwin of Constantinople; A new heap was added to these, when in this year, moved with compassion for a needy prince, the holy King uses his own right for preserving his paternal inheritance for him even against his will. He, pressed by want, had given to the prince of Achaia Courtenay—in French Courtenay, whence the name of his family— and Louis's consent was sought. But he was unwilling to consent, and on that matter gave letters to Baldwin. Hear from Baldwin's replies, which du Chesne, tom. 5, from page 423, made public, how welcome that benefit of the King's fell out to him: We have understood, he says, that your sublimity wondered, and also took it ill, that we had given our land of Courtenay to the prince of Achaia, as by our letters we signified to your Majesty. But we rather wonder at your wondering. For, as could be well enough established to your Highness both by our letters and by several messengers, we were held oppressed by so great a strait of want and poverty, when the aforesaid prince came to us at Constantinople, that we utterly knew not whither to go, or what we ought to do. Since therefore we hoped for great help from the said prince, and were so needy, it is not to be wondered at if to his petitions in such a crisis we gave assent. Nay, if he had asked far greater things, it would have behoved us to acquiesce in his will. Wherefore, though unwilling, it behoved us to make the aforesaid donation. But when we understood that your Lordship refused to admit that prince to the said donation, know

that we were filled with as great gladness as if we had obtained

another land equivalent to it. Then

he grants Courtenay to his wife, and commends to Louis's care the other things which he possessed in France, whom also he appointed his procurator with full power by letters recited in du Cange after the History of Constantinople, page 4.

[437] Baldwin had well seen that his chief hope was set in Louis's help, Baldwin gives to Louis a part of the Cross and other relics: and therefore he wished to earn the King's favour by new benefits. There were kept in the chapel of Constantinople most precious relics, of which William of Tyre makes mention, book 20, chap. 25, and others cited in du Cange, page 124. But these, compelled by want, he had already pledged: wherefore, as before the Lord's thorny crown, so these also he gave as a gift to Louis, as from his letters we shall afterwards prove. That the Saint did not fail the occasion of transferring those sacred pledges to Paris, Nangis teaches, page 333, whose words I subjoin: Not long after, the most devout King Louis hearing and understanding that the emperor of Constantinople had taken a certain sum of money on loan, and had put in place of a pledge the standards of the Lord's Passion, namely the greatest part of the Lord's cross, on which Christ hung for us, and the sponge with which, hanging in His thirst, He was given vinegar to drink, and the most holy iron of the lance which pierced His most sacred side for the healing of the wounds of our souls: fearing the alienation of so great relics, the riches of this world being slighted, that he might gain Christ, he caused the most sacred relics, which are the ensigns of our most true redemption, redeemed by his own resources through authentic and honest persons, to be brought to him at Paris. And as the holy crown, as has been said above, so these precious relics also, hemmed in by a marvellous throng of archbishops, pontiffs, and abbots, he most devoutly and humbly carried as far as the chapel of his own house with a procession of clergy and people.

[438] the time at which these relics were carried to Paris, The time at which these sacred pledges were received at Paris Alberic accurately designates at the year 1241 in these words: On the Exaltation of the holy cross, honourably and solemnly the King of France received a great portion of the Lord's cross, sent thither from Constantinople. It is pleasing on this matter also to hear the Chronicle of St. Médard in d'Achery, tom. 2 of the Spicilegium, page 492: In the same year (1241) on the day of the Exaltation of the holy cross the greatest part of the Lord's cross, namely that, as many men of good testimony testify, which Helena the mother of Constantine, after the finding of the same holy cross, caused to be honourably carried with her from Jerusalem to Constantinople, and in the chapel of the most glorious emperor Constantine her most beloved son caused to be honourably laid up: but the aforesaid Constantine used to cause that part of the Lord's cross to be gloriously and honourably carried with him in his expeditions for the sake of victory. But that part of the Lord's cross was on the aforesaid day, by Louis King of the Franks, with great honour and with the greatest humility of the aforesaid King and of his brothers— so that all who were present, and had seen and heard, wondered exceedingly much—in procession, with heads bare, and feet, legs,

and arms, in the city of Paris in the chapel of the aforesaid King, which with marvellous works and expense he was building in honour of the same holy cross and of the most precious thorny crown of Jesus Christ our Lord, true God and true man, honourably laid up. Thus this author.

[439] which with great solemnity, and St. Louis's Matthew Paris also narrates these things, page 373: but on the very threshold of his narration he slips by a threefold error: for he wrongly confounds this part of the most sacred cross with the cross carried off by Saladin into Egypt, worse he says it was bought by Louis, and carelessly writes that it was carried to Paris on Good Friday. Yet the solemnity, and the notable piety of St. Louis with which he carried the cross, which he depicts more brilliantly than the preceding authors, receive from Paris: The same cross was brought to Paris, namely from the church of St. Antony, beside which was set up the framework of a certain station, into which the King himself, ascending with both queens, namely his mother B. and his wife M. , with the brothers of the same King, archbishops, bishops, abbots, and other religious men being present, and also the noble magnates of the Franks, with an innumerable people standing round and with jubilation of heart awaiting so glorious a spectacle, lifted up the cross itself on high, tears rising, the prelates who were present beginning with a most loud voice: Behold the cross of the Lord. And when all had venerably and devoutly adored it, the King, barefoot, in woollens, ungirt, with head uncovered, a three days' fast having gone before, taught by the example of the most noble triumpher Heraclius Augustus, carried it toward the city of Paris, and as far

as the cathedral church of the blessed Virgin.

[440] And with a like devotion, purified by confessions, fastings, piety, were there received: and prayers, the brothers of the said King with the above-said queens step by step followed. For they carried the thorny crown, which, lifting it up in like fashion in the open, they presented to the sight of the peoples, which the divine mercy had conferred … upon the kingdom of France … But certain nobles supported the arms of the King and of his brothers carrying so pious a burden, lest perchance, being wearied, since they continually lifted their arms to heaven, they should fail with that priceless treasure, and they held them up. And this was done circumspectly, the prelates themselves so willing … When therefore they had come to the cathedral church, all the bells in the city being rung, and special prayers also being solemnly read through, the King returned to his greater palace, which is in the middle of the city, gloriously carrying his cross, and his brothers the crown, an ordered procession of the prelates following, than which none more solemn or more joyful was ever seen in the kingdom of the Franks. All therefore and each, with joined hands, glorified the Lord, who embraces, consoles, and protects the kingdom of the Franks before all others with a special love. Thus therefore

our Lord Jesus Christ, King of kings and Lord of lords, whose judgments are a great deep, in whose hand are the hearts of kings, giving salvation to whom He wills, endowed and enriched that same kingdom of France with these three precious benefits in a short time, namely with the aforesaid crown, and the cross of the Lord, of which it has already been spoken, and the body of the blessed Edmund archbishop of Canterbury and confessor, evidently flashing with unheard-of miracles. Thus far the said Paris.

[441] Moreover, what relics besides those just reported St. Louis received from the emperor Baldwin, there are enumerated the relics which the letters of the same emperor teach, from which likewise you will perceive that they were not sold, but given as a gift to Louis, although it was needful to redeem them. These letters, whose autograph he asserts is kept in the holy chapel, Gerard du Bois inserted into the History of the church of Paris, tom. 2, page 355, and they are of this tenor: Baldwin by the grace of God most faithful in Christ emperor crowned by God, governor of Romania, and ever august. To all the faithful of Christ, both present and to come, to whom the present letters shall come, eternal salvation in the Lord. We will it to be made known to all that we to our most dear friend and kinsman Louis, most illustrious King of France, the most sacred thorny crown of the Lord, and a great portion of the life-giving cross of Christ, together with other precious and sacred relics which are expressed below by their proper names—which, once venerably placed in the city of Constantinople, and at length for the urgent necessity of the empire of Constantinople bound over in pledge to divers creditors at divers times, the same lord King with our will redeemed for a great quantity of money, and caused them to be transferred to Paris with our good pleasure—we to the same lord King by a spontaneous and gratuitous gift have fully given, absolutely granted, and wholly quitclaimed and do quitclaim.

[442] Baldwin the emperor gave to St. Louis: Which venerable relics we have said should altogether be expressed by their proper names: namely the aforesaid most sacred crown of the Lord and the holy cross: likewise of the Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ: the cloths of the Saviour's infancy, in which He was wrapped in the cradle: another great part of the wood of the holy cross: the blood which by a stupendous miracle distilled from a certain image of the Lord struck by an unbeliever: the chain also, or iron bond, made as it were in the manner of a ring, with which the same our Lord is believed to have been bound: the holy cloth set in a tablet: a great part of the stone of the sepulchre of our Lord Jesus Christ: of the milk of the blessed Virgin Mary: likewise the iron of the sacred lance with which was pierced on the cross the side of our Lord Jesus Christ: another middling cross, which the ancients called the triumphal cross, because the emperors were wont to carry it to their wars in hope of victory: the scarlet cloak which the soldiers put about our Lord Jesus Christ in mockery of Him: the reed which they put for a sceptre in His hand: the sponge which they held out to Him thirsting on the cross, full of vinegar: part of the shroud in which His Body was wrapped in the sepulchre: the linen cloth also with which He girded Himself when He washed the feet of His disciples, and with which He wiped their feet: the rod of Moses: the upper part of the head of the blessed John the Baptist: and the heads of saints Blaise, Clement, and Simeon.

[443] the drought of the air taken away while these were being carried to Paris. In testimony and perpetual firmness whereof we have signed the present letters with our

imperial sign, and have bulled them with our golden bull. Done at Saint-Germain-en-Laye in the year of the Lord one thousand two hundred and forty- seven, in the month of June, but in the eighth year of our empire. Further, this catalogue of relics out of these letters the Life by an anonymous author, several times already mentioned, gives: but whether all are equally certain I leave to learned Frenchmen to discuss. As for the rest, I notice that on the same day on which the aforesaid relics were carried to Paris, an unusual drought was taken away in France: for the brief Chronicle of St. Denis, tom. 2 of the Spicilegium, page 497, at this year thus has: In the same year there was a great drought from the Sunday after the Lord's Nativity until the Exaltation of the holy cross in the month of September. On the same day the rains began.

Blanche Margaret § XXXVII. The holy chapel built: Canons there appointed and furnished with revenues, and other things ordained in the chapel. St. Louis orders the holy chapel to be built at great expense, St. Louis not only with the utmost industry studied to acquire the instruments of the Lord's passion and the relics of the Saints; but he endeavoured also to attend them with becoming worship and honour. For this cause he took care that a plainly magnificent chapel, and splendid caskets, be made, in which these sacred pledges might be honourably kept enclosed: besides these he instituted ministers of the chapel, who might reverently perform the sacred offices there. These things Geoffrey briefly touches upon in the Life, num. 42; as also the author of the second Life, likewise at num. 42. But the notable piety and munificence of the holy King deserves that these things be set forth a little more at large, both from contemporary authors and from authentic instruments. Matthew Paris mentioned above thus speaks of the chapel built, page 373: The King therefore of the Franks, not far from his palace, ordered a chapel of marvellous beauty, befitting the said royal treasure, to be built, in which he afterwards placed it with worthy honour. Besides, the King of the Franks has in his most beautiful chapel of Paris the cloak of Christ, the lance—that is, the iron of the lance—and the sponge, and besides these innumerable relics. Whence the lord Pope granted to all coming to them in the chapel of Paris for the sake of praying forty days of relaxation. More briefly Nangis cited: Which (chapel) the lord King had caused to be built for himself in his house at Paris with marvellous and sumptuous work. Forty thousand pounds of Tours, and more, spent on the structure of the chapel the author of the second Life narrates.

[445] Hear Gerard du Bois in the History of the church of Paris, tom. 2, and with marvellous work: page 354, speaking of its marvellous structure: One may well admire the structure of this sacred edifice, in which you behold a twin chapel, one built above the other, and propped by rather slender columns: whose height, if from the bottom to the top you measure it with your eyes, you would scarcely conceive in mind how the double building and double vaulting has sustained itself thus far: so that at this time in which I write these things, that is for four hundred and fifty and

more years, the work is entire, just as if it had been recently built: nor would you find anything which, either by a fault of the structure or by the injury of time, is gaping or thrown down. Concerning the dedication of the chapel the same author thus writes, page 356: In the year MCCXLVIII, on the XXVI day of the month of April, King Louis took care that the dedication of the holy chapel be celebrated under the name of the thorny Crown and of the holy Cross. The celebrity was great. The sacred rite was performed by Odo bishop of Tusculum, legate of the Apostolic See. There were present several bishops and abbots and a huge number of nobles. There were present in the first place five archbishops, namely of Bourges, of Sens, of Rouen, of Tours, of Toledo. But these bishops we have received as having been present: the bishop of Laon, of Soissons, of Senlis, of Langres, of Chartres, of Orléans, of Meaux, of Bayeux, of Évreux, and others with several abbots, whom it is long to enumerate.

[446] A huge force of money, if it be weighed by the reckoning of present-day currency, likewise most precious caskets in which the relics might be enclosed: we have seen spent on building the chapel. But more than twice as great a sum Louis's pious munificence spent on honourably adorning these sacred pledges. Receive the words of Nangis, page 333: And a precious and admirable cape , of gold and silver, inwoven with precious stones, for honourably laying up the aforesaid sacred relics, he caused to be wrought with subtle and admirable variety of works. Caskets as made in the plural the second Life has, num. 42, which seems by no means doubtful, so that Nangis, after Geoffrey, seems to have spoken only of the chief one. But the author of the said Life subjoins: And the ornaments of the said relics are estimated easily at a hundred*

thousand pounds of Tours, and more. Yet it is not established whether so much was spent at the same time upon these ornaments; for they could in the course of time be marvellously increased by the holy King with pearls and other precious stones.

[447] he institutes canons and other ministers of the chapel: Concerning the ministers of the chapel, besides those things which occur in the first and second Life at the places cited, Nangis cited thus has: But in the same chapel he instituted canons and chaplains who should there celebrate the divine service in perpetuity, and assigned them great revenues, that thence they might be sustained, as befitted the royal Majesty. This institution of canons and chaplains Gerard du Bois, already often praised, describes more exactly, page 356: In the year, he says, MCCXLV King Louis attributed to this holy chapel first five principal priests, or master chaplains; of whose number was he who before performed the sacred rites in the chapel of saint Nicholas. But concerning the chapel of St. Nicholas, for which this was substituted, consult the same author, page 354. Then, the dedication of the chapel being reported, he thus continues: And in the same year (1248), in the month of August, King Louis increased the number of canons and clerics, and ordained the matter in this manner; and willed that in the holy chapel there should be, as had before been ordained, five principal priests or master chaplains, and three matricularian priests likewise; and that under each chaplain there should be a sub-chaplain with a cleric, either deacon or subdeacon; and that under the matricularians one cleric, either deacon or subdeacon, should be placed: and he appointed that those three matricularians, with one of the greater chaplains upon whom by turn the office of celebrating the liturgy should fall, should sleep in the holy chapel; that they might keep continual watch before the sacred

relics.

[448] whom by the letters here recited These things are confirmed by the letters of St. Louis, from which, since the reader may perceive how piously and how wisely all these things were ordained by the holy King, I have judged them worthy that I should here subjoin them whole to the eyes of readers: especially because many things concerning the royal chapel and its ministers are reported in the second Life, on which these letters can shed no small light. Du Bois cited recites them in this manner: In the name

of the holy and undivided Trinity, Amen. Louis by the grace of God King of the Franks. Although toward all churches which stand not only in the kingdom but in the whole world we have an affection of sincere devotion, yet with a special prerogative of sincerity we embrace that venerable and sacred chapel of ours which, for the salvation of our soul and for the remedy of the souls of King Louis our father of renowned memory, and of our most dear lady and mother Blanche illustrious queen, and of all our forefathers, in honour of God almighty and of the most sacred thorny crown of our Lord Jesus Christ, we founded and built within the enclosures of our house at Paris; in which the same most sacred crown of the Lord, the holy cross, and very many other precious relics are contained laid up.

[449] Which, that they may be continually honoured by the homage of divine praise, he endows with ample revenues: and that the same place may in perpetuity be frequented with the due and devout service of divine worship, we will, appoint, and ordain that in the same chapel there be five principal priests, or master chaplains, he being counted who held the benefice of the old chapel; and three matricularian priests. But each of those five principal chaplains shall be bound to have with him one priest sub-chaplain, and one cleric, deacon or subdeacon; and each of those three matricularians shall be bound to have with him in the same chapel one cleric, being deacon or subdeacon. But for the benefice and sustenance of the same five principal chaplains we give and grant them a hundred and twenty-five Parisian pounds of annual revenue; namely to each twenty-five pounds for the body of the chaplaincy; which hundred and twenty-five pounds we will that they receive at Paris in our Châtelet from our provostship of Paris each year at two

terms; namely half at the feast of the Ascension of the Lord, and the other half at the feast of All Saints; until we shall have assigned the same hundred and twenty-five pounds of annual revenue to them competently elsewhere. To the aforesaid matricularians also we give for a benefice seventy- five Parisian pounds of annual revenue, namely to each twenty-five pounds of annual revenue, which likewise they shall receive in the Châtelet from our provostship of Paris; namely half at the feast of the Lord's Ascension, and the other half at the feast of All Saints; until we shall have caused the same revenue to be assigned them competently elsewhere.*

[450] With the consent also of Matthew the priest, who held the benefice of the aforesaid old chapel of ours, to whom he also wisely appoints various things which he spontaneously ceded and expressly renounced, we will and grant that that whole benefice, with all its proceeds, with the offerings coming to the hands of the priests at Masses, and emoluments, as is more fully contained in the letters of King Louis of bright memory our great-great-grandfather, and of King Louis our great-grandfather, shall accrue to the augmentation of the five chaplaincies and of the three matricularies aforesaid; and that they be equally divided among the aforesaid five principal chaplains and the three matricularians. But concerning the allowance which Matthew, formerly chaplain of the aforesaid old chapel of ours, was wont to receive from us, or from the queen, or from the royal offspring present in our palace at Paris, we have thought fit thus to ordain. That the same Matthew, who is one of the principal chaplains, shall receive the aforesaid allowance so long as he shall live in the office of the aforesaid chaplaincy; who when he shall have died, or shall have ceased to be chaplain of that chapel, the hebdomadary chaplain shall receive the aforesaid allowance.

[451] Besides these things we will that, beyond the revenues above-said, the aforesaid principal chaplains, concerning the distributions matricularians, and sub-chaplains, and the clerics of the aforesaid chaplains and matricularians, applying themselves to the divine offices, receive the distributions noted below. On ferial or private days each of the principal chaplains and of the matricularians shall receive twelve pence; namely at matins six pence; at the hours of prime, terce, and the greater Mass, and sext, three pence; at none, and vespers, and compline three pence; even if of the aforesaid hours he shall have omitted two hours in the day: yet the distributions of matins he shall not receive unless he be present at matins; or unless, being present in the town, he be sick or bled , on the first and second day of the bleeding: which same we appoint to be observed concerning the greater Mass and vespers. On the same private days also each sub-chaplain shall have four pence; namely at matins two; at the morning hours with the Mass one, and at the evening hours one, under the aforesaid condition. Likewise on the same days each of the aforesaid clerics of the chaplains and matricularians shall have three pence; namely one at matins, and two at all the hours of the day with the greater Mass.*

[452] to be received by the ministers On Sundays, and on the several feasts of nine lessons, each of the aforesaid principal chaplains and of the matricularians shall receive sixteen pence; namely at matins eight pence; at the above-said morning hours with the greater Mass four pence; and at the evening hours four pence, the omission of two hours notwithstanding, as is expressed above. Each of the sub-chaplains shall have six pence; namely at matins four pence, and at the morning hours with the greater Mass one, and at the evening hours one. Each also of the aforesaid clerics of the chaplains and matricularians shall have four pence in like manner; namely at

matins two pence; at the morning hours with the Mass one; and at the evening hours one.

[453] according to the variety of days On feasts which are celebrated with a semi-double, each principal chaplain and each matricularian shall have eighteen pence; namely at matins eight pence; and at the morning hours with the greater Mass five; and at the evening hours five. The sub-chaplain shall have eight pence; namely at matins four pence; at the morning hours with the greater Mass two pence; and at the evening hours two pence. The cleric shall have six pence; namely at matins four pence; at the morning hours with the greater Mass one penny; and at the evening hours one. On double feasts each principal chaplain and each matricularian shall have two shillings; namely at matins twelve pence; at the morning hours with the greater Mass six pence; at the evening hours six pence. The sub-chaplain shall have ten pence; namely at matins six pence; at the morning hours with the greater Mass two pence; and at the evening hours two pence. The cleric shall have eight pence; namely at matins four pence; at the morning hours with the greater Mass two pence; and at the evening hours two pence.

[454] various: On annual feasts each

principal chaplain and matricularian shall receive three shillings; namely at matins two shillings, and at the morning hours with the greater Mass six pence; and at the evening hours six pence. The sub-chaplain shall have fourteen pence; namely at matins eight pence; and at the morning hours with the greater Mass three pence; and at the evening hours three pence. The cleric shall have ten pence; namely at matins six pence; at the morning hours with the greater Mass two pence; and at the evening hours two pence. In all these things nevertheless we understand it to be saved that to none of those who are to receive the above-said distributions shall the omission of one or of two hours on any day stand in the way as to receiving the aforesaid distributions; provided nevertheless that they in no wise leave off the offices of the Mass and of vespers. But no distributions of matins shall he have unless he shall have been present at Matins; or unless he shall have been sick or bled, as is said above. But all the aforesaid distributions we will to be made out of the incomings and offerings which shall yearly be made in the aforesaid chapel; excepting those offerings which shall be made at Masses into the hands of the priests; which offerings shall belong to the principal

chaplains and matricularians, as is expressed above.

[455] The lighting also of that chapel, as has been ordained by us, likewise concerning the lights, the offerings, we will to be provided by the aforesaid matricularians out of the aforesaid incomings and offerings, with the addition of sixty shillings of annual revenue, which for providing the lighting of the old chapel, as is contained in the above-noted letters of our predecessors, were granted of old. Concerning which lighting we have thus ordained: that three wax candles, each of which shall weigh three pounds at least, shall continually burn every day and night in silver basins before the greater altar: on private days at vespers, matins, and at the greater Mass upon the greater altar before the sanctuaries let four wax candles burn: on feasts of nine lessons, and on Sundays, six candles: on feasts which are kept with a semi-double, eight: on double feasts twelve: on annual feasts twenty-four, of which each candle shall weigh two pounds. Besides these things also we will that on all annual feasts at Mass, at matins, and at first and second vespers, and on all days on which a solemn Mass shall be said of the most sacred relics, there burn at the Mass twelve candles, of which each shall weigh two pounds, about the casket of the holy relics; namely six on one side and six on the other: and likewise as often as within the octaves of the receiving of the holy crown, of the holy cross, or of the holy relics, a solemn Mass shall be celebrated of that most sacred crown, holy cross, or the aforesaid relics.

[456] Out of the aforesaid incomings and offerings also we will the glazings of the same chapel to be remade and the repair of the chapel: and repaired as often as there shall be need, and to be kept in good state. But if anything of the incomings and offerings shall be left over, these things being completed, we will that it be faithfully reserved to our will and ordinance and that of our successors the kings of France, to be turned to the deficit of its lighting or to other uses of the same chapel. But if anything shall be lacking, we will and enjoin that that which shall be wanting of the aforesaid incomings and offerings for completing the aforesaid be received from the moneys of us and of our successors the kings of France at Paris at the Temple, until upon this we shall have thought fit to ordain otherwise.*

[457] We will moreover and ordain that each of the aforesaid principal chaplains, concerning the night watches at the sacred relics, when he shall serve in the order of his turn, shall on every night sleep in the aforesaid chapel with the matricularians, all of whom we will to lie in the same chapel every night; that about the keeping of the holy relics continual watches may persevere. We will also that that chaplain who by his turn shall have lain in the chapel shall for each night receive at matins three pence more than the other chaplains. But let it be lawful for any chaplain that, if he have a lawful impediment, his sub-chaplain supply his turns, as far as concerns performing the ecclesiastical office in the order of his turn, and lying in the chapel by night; and let him receive in distributions as much as the principal chaplain his lord would receive if in that office he served personally.

[458] But concerning the lower chapel we have thought fit to provide that every day, the service of the upper chapel being saved, the divine offices be celebrated there by one of the principal chaplains or of their sub-chaplains, the oaths to be made by the ministers: with at least one of the clerics assisting him. But the aforesaid principal chaplains, and also the matricularians, both present and to come, shall swear that in the aforesaid chapel they will make continual residence in good faith. Those principal chaplains shall also swear, and the matricularians, and all who for the time shall succeed them, and also all the sub-chaplains and their clerics, that for us and for our heirs the kings of France they will well and faithfully preserve all and each of the holy relics, and the whole treasure of the aforesaid chapel, both in gold and in silver, and in precious stones, ornaments, books also, and whatsoever other things. But as often as the principal chaplains or matricularians shall call new sub-chaplains and clerics with them, those new sub-chaplains and clerics shall be bound to render a like oath. But the aforesaid principal chaplaincies and matricularies falling vacant, we and our heirs the kings shall confer them; and this right we reserve to us and our heirs the kings in perpetuity. But the persons on whom we shall have conferred them shall be bound to make an oath of the same form.

[459] a provost of the other ministers of the chapel; Nevertheless, lest those things which concerning the aforesaid we have premised as ordained by us should proceed inordinately; since among the aforesaid chaplains, matricularians, and clerics, if they were equals and had not a certain person set over them, that very equality and the lack of a superior might, as time went on, be the tinder of quarrels and the matter of scandals: we will that of the aforesaid chaplains or matricularians who for the time shall be, there be taken by us and our heirs the kings one who shall preside over the other chaplains, matricularians, sub-chaplains, and all the clerics of the aforesaid chapel; and they shall be bound to obey his mandates. But he shall be able to punish gainsayers and rebels by the withdrawal of benefices and by other fitting constraint. But he who shall preside over the rest shall have fifteen pounds beyond the rest, to be received in benefice in our Châtelet of Paris in the same manner which above is expressed; and on double and annual feasts a double distribution.

[460] [and lastly concerning his own power and that of his successors in all these things.] In all these things also which above are expressed we retain and reserve to us and our heirs

the kings a saved and free power; that in these and other things which we shall see to be ordained concerning the state of the aforesaid chapel we may be able to add, to diminish, or to change. We retain also to us and our heirs, the kings of France, full right and perpetual power, that concerning all and each of the aforesaid relics, and their ornament, and concerning the whole treasure which we have laid up or shall hereafter lay up in the aforesaid chapel, in gold, silver, precious stones, ornaments also, and any other things whatsoever, we may be able to ordain at our good pleasure and to do our will. Yet we ask our heirs that they remove not the aforesaid sacred relics, or their ornament, or anything of the treasure which we have laid up there in gold, silver, precious stones, or other things, from the aforesaid chapel in future, nor permit them to be removed.

Which, that it may obtain the strength of perpetual stability, we have caused the present page to be strengthened by the authority of our seal and by the character of our royal name noted below. Done at Aigues-Mortes in the year of the Lord's Incarnation one thousand two hundred and forty-eight, in the month of August, but in the twenty-second year of our reign, there standing by in our palace those whose names and signs are set beneath, no steward. S. of Stephen the Butler. S. of John the Chamberlain. S. of Hubert the Constable. Given, the Chancery being vacant.

read capsam, that is, a casket that is, we shall have assigned that is, one whose vein has been cut that is, candlesticks that is, plates of glass, in French, vitres § XXXVIII. Alphonse the King's brother endowed with knighthood and made a count: a perilous conspiracy of princes: St. Louis's expedition against the count of La Marche, who occupies very many towns and castles. [Louis with the belt of knighthood gives to his brother Alphonse the county of Poitou,] In the year 1241 St. Louis ordered his brother Alphonse, endowed with the military belt, to have the county of Poitou and Auvergne , and declared him heir of the county of Toulouse: which was the occasion of a new war, as we shall see. Alberic at this year, page 578, thus writes on that matter: King Louis on the feast of saint John made his brother Alphonse a knight at Saumur , and thereby appointed him to be duke of Aquitaine, and, through his wife, count of Toulouse. But the title of duke of Aquitaine attributed to Alphonse

I do not find elsewhere. In his testament Louis VIII had left to his fourth son, who then was Alphonse, the county of Poitou and the whole of Auvergne. But the liberality of St. Louis toward his brother added that part of the dominion of the Albigenses which he had obtained by the treaty of Paris. Nangis has this, page 336, setting forth the matter in these words: In the following year at Saumur he convoked archbishops, bishops, and very many abbots; and also almost the whole soldiery of his kingdom. Then there, making his brother the lord Alphonse a new knight, whom many days already past he had caused solemnly to be joined by marital law to the daughter of the count of Toulouse, named Joanna, he granted him the land of Auvergne, of Poitou, and the lands of the Albigenses to be possessed for ever. There many very powerful and rich men, applying themselves to feasting and gladness, reckoning riches as it were for nothing, spent them, and the knights were clothed in purple and silks. And the pontiffs themselves too and the abbots, as best they could, adorned themselves in all things. Concerning this splendour of garments, and the celebrity of the banquet held there, Joinville will give more, num. 36, who was present.

[462] The English contended that the county of Poitou pertained to them, the English contending that Poitou was of their right: of which they also possessed some part: but the title of count of Poitou king Henry had granted to his brother Richard: whence Matthew Paris, reporting these things at this year, page 383, after his custom again vomits his bile against the French: And at the same time, he says, the King of the Franks, using the counsel of those hating the kingdom of England, gave the county of Poitou to Alphonse

, his brother, on the day of the Nativity of St. John the Baptist. Where the same King, having girded that same Alphonse over-loftily with the military belt, invested him with the honour of the county of Poitou, which is known of right to pertain to the king of England, or to his brother, by his gift. And the same King of the Franks made very many nobles knights, that thus he might seem to brighten his brother Alphonse's first campaign: little weighing, nay rather slighting the right or claim of count Richard, who faithfully served God in the Holy Land. Whence many could not sufficiently wonder at the nobility of the Franks permitting and counselling this, who so ungratefully and shamelessly rendered evils for goods. Not worth laboriously refuting are the silly revilings of a bilious man: for wherein did Louis sin, in handing over to his brother a county owed him by testament? Wherein the French who permitted this? Nor indeed was this the cause of the war that followed, but another, which I shall now assign.

[463] the oath of fealty and clientage exacted Joinville at num. 37 reports that Alphonse was led by the King to the metropolis of Poitou: the reason was that there Alphonse might accept the oaths of fealty and the homages of his subjects, among whom more powerful than the rest was Hugh count of La Marche, who had as wife Isabella once queen of England, and mother of king Henry, a woman notable for pride: and that this pride of the woman was the cause of the war you will presently perceive from the authors. Nangis to the words adduced above subjoins these: These things being performed, King Louis asked of Hugh count of La Marche that he should do homage for his land which he had in Poitou, as he ought, to his brother the lord Alphonse count of Poitou. But the said count of La Marche, puffed up with the wind of pride, asserted that he would in no way do it. For leaning upon a broken reed staff, namely Henry king of England, whose mother that count had as wife, he was meditating, through his help, to rebel against his lord the King of France. The homage refused I find in all the ancients: Chaize nevertheless, page 306, writes that it was rendered by the count, alleging the inventory of Poitiers, but that the count afterwards repented of the deed.

[464] which Hugh count of La Marche refuses to do to Alphonse, However it be, the English historian Matthew of Westminster attributes the fault to his wife, at the year 1242, page 307, narrating the cause of the war in these words: In the same year in Poitou there arose a great sedition, which afterwards generated the greatest ruin, and a deadly schism, and also war and irreparable damage. For the count of La Marche, at the instigation of Isabella—whom the Franks name a most impious Jezebel—his wife, that is the mother of the king of England, lifted his heel against his lord the King of France. For he was vehemently indignant that Alphonse, brother of the King of the Franks, now count of Poitou, on whom the King of the Franks had lately conferred that same county, exacted from him the due homage. Whence the said count of La Marche, insolently answering, with pride and abuse denied what of right he owed. There ascended therefore upon this to the King of the Franks no light complaint. The count was admonished to correct such insolence. But, admonished many times, scorning to do this, and using womanish counsel, he signified to the king of England that he should come into Poitou, fortified not with a company of his Englishmen, but with a quantity of money, and he would restore to him all his lands beyond the sea. But the king lent credit and consent to the counsels of the Poitevins, whose own quality it is to betray, and, preparing a crossing with treasures and shipping, could be delayed by the counsels or prayers of none of his friends nor of his natural men. Thus the king of England by the specious promises of the count was entangled in this war.

[465] As the king of England, so also the count of Toulouse he knew was watching for an occasion of recovering the dominions lost: him therefore the count of La Marche easily drew over to his side, with others adhering to him. [and enters a league with the king of England and the count of Toulouse against Louis:] Receive the matter from William of Puylaurens, chap. 45: Meanwhile, he says, there arise contracts between the same counts of Toulouse and of La Marche and the king of England concerning the making of war upon the King of France, several others consenting in that same thing, so that, being harassed on many sides, he should be less sufficient to defend himself: upon which the same count of Toulouse held the mystery of his counsel with

his magnates, among whom the count of Foix was chief,

who counselled him this, and, an oath being rendered, gave him

also pendent letters of his counsel and

promise that he would help him in the whole war to be moved against the King. Several nobles who adhered to the count of Toulouse the author cited enumerates. The king of Aragon likewise seems to have wished to adhere to the league: for in Paris, page 392,

the count of La Marche promises the king of England the help of the king of Aragon; nor is it doubtful that he treated with the count of Toulouse, in the praised William of Puylaurens, chap. 34: but whether he altogether embraced the league appears uncertain to me.

[466] Meanwhile Hugh count of La Marche, a band of knights being collected, settled at Lusignan not far from the metropolis of Poitou, where the King was with his brother. But the King, seeing that a return to Paris was not safe enough, out of zeal for preserving peace approached the count of La Marche, to treat with him, as from Joinville we have at num. 37. What was then concluded there the author does not indeed disclose; yet Alphonse had come into hope of clientage being rendered him by the count: for in this hope he had invited him to dine with him on the days of the Nativity. But the count of La Marche, if full credit be given to Paris narrating these things, page 392, on a certain night within the four days of the Nativity, when on the morrow he was to come, according to his promise, to do this ; counsel being taken with his wife Isabella, that, his purpose being changed, he should violently resist, came before Alphonse, and said to him brazenly: I purposed to do thee homage, being deceived and circumvented: my spirit therefore being changed, I swear to thee and constantly assert that never to thee, an injurious man, will I make or observe a bond of liegeance *; thou who from my stepson count Richard, faithfully serving God in the Holy Land and prudently and mercifully freeing our captives, hast unbecomingly taken away his county, repaying evils for goods. And straightway swelling with thundering threats, hemmed about by a throng of armed men, with his wife brazenly through the midst, the crossbows of the Poitevins being stretched, the house in which he had lodged being set on fire, hastily and in a sudden course, mounting a great horse, he flew away. So great rashness did confidence in his own forces and those of his confederates suggest to count Hugh: but how easily in one summer Louis subdued these powerful adversaries will appear from what follows.

[467] The holy King, the count's insolence being heard, prepared himself for war, and besides the copious army which he studiously collected, Both sides prepare for war, Louis here, the confederates there: set some galleys before La Rochelle against the English, on the testimony of Paris, page 394, lest on that side they might be able to invade Poitou. Likewise the king of England was preparing himself diligently with his brother Richard: nor less the count of La Marche and the Poitevins. Concerning whom, at page 396, Paris writes these things: They fortified their cities and castles, they blocked up the steep places of the mountains with barriers of millstones and with bars of trees cut down, where an approach into their country lay open for doing harm: they rendered the paths and roads impassable with barriers of rocks or of stakes: the vineyards which they believed would profit the enemy they cut down with the orchards: they stopped up the wells, disturbed the springs and their streams, and also poisoned some: the pastures of herbs and the sustenance of fruits lying open to their adversaries they exterminated: and every kind of victuals, or receptacles for resting, they overturned root and branch, that thus at least they might drive from their borders the French as they came, wasting away with manifold penury. These things being premised, let us hear how Louis attacked Hugh count of La Marche; for the truce with the English was not yet broken, although on both sides the kings were preparing themselves for war.

[468] Louis, having entered the count's dominion, storms certain castles Nangis, page 337, thus sets about narrating the King's expedition: In the year therefore of the Lord's Incarnation MCCXLII King Louis, not unmindful of the pride and hateful presumption of Hugh count of La Marche, gathered the whole soldiery of his kingdom against him about the beginning of the year. And then with an infinite multitude of warriors, both horse and foot, with whom the face of the earth was covered as with locusts, he entered the land of the count of La Marche. And first, besieging the castle which is called Montreuil-Bonnin in the Gâtine ,*

and staying a few days in the siege, he in a short time subjugated it to himself by powerful strength. Then, turning himself to the tower of Béruges , which was most strong and most excellently fortified, his tents and royal pavilions being pitched, he straightway ordered his mangonels and very many other engines to be raised round about that tower. But the defenders of the tower, bearing themselves bravely, manfully sustained the onsets of the Franks. Nevertheless, a little time having elapsed, he took that tower with all its arms and with the very great store of victuals which was in it. Afterwards the King, considering that the aforesaid tower had brought many evils upon his men, and could still bring them, caused it to be pulled down and hastily reduced to nothing. These things were snatched from the count of La Marche himself: now, certain things taken from his kinsman and confederate, he goes on thus to narrate:

[469] in a short time: he escapes the peril of poison sent against him: After the taking of Montreuil and of the tower of Béruges made upon the count of La Marche, the King, seeing that the Lord was with him whithersoever he walked, most powerfully establishing his kingdom, began strongly to storm another castle, namely Fontenay , which Geoffrey of Lusignan held, who was in the help of the count of La Marche; and, the interval of a short time having elapsed, he brought it into his power. Then another most strong castle of the same Geoffrey, which is named Vouvant , he powerfully subjected to himself. These things against Geoffrey of Lusignan, whose name Nangis not a little dislocated: but in what manner he was reconciled to the King, and received part of what he had lost by his mercy, Chaize narrates, page 327. But while these things succeed so prosperously, the King came into the utmost peril of life, which an impious woman contrived for him, as, after Vincent of Beauvais, book 30, chap. 148, the praised Nangis thus narrates: But the countess, wife of the count of La Marche, seeing that her husband the count was not able to resist the King, sent servants enticed by gifts and promises to the King's court with poison, that those whom her husband the count could not conquer by arms—the King and his brothers— she herself might slay with a poisonous draught. But what she had thought to do secretly she could not accomplish. For the King ordered the messengers, being caught with the poison, to be consigned to a most dreadful prison.* Hence leading us to the chief stronghold of the count of La Marche, the author thus continues:

[470] The King indeed, seeing his army exceedingly great and strong, he takes by force the count's most fortified castle, and most ready for war, like a lion prepared for prey, caused Frontenay the most strong castle, walled with two pairs of walls, and made firm with most strong and great towers, to be most powerfully besieged. But those who defended the castle received the King's army nobly. Whence the King, considering the strength of the castle and the valour and boldness of the defenders, ordered wooden towers to be raised forthwith, that through them his army might be able more strongly to fight against the defenders of the castle. The wooden towers therefore being raised, and stone-throwers, mangonels, and other engines being set up round about, the King began manfully to storm the aforesaid castle. But those who were within for the defence of the castle, as noble defenders, powerfully sustained the conflict of their enemies. Whence a certain crossbowman, casting a bolt at the tower, gravely wounded the King's brother the count of Poitou in the foot. Which being seen, the King, vehemently angered, ordered the said castle to be more sharply assailed. At whose command the knights of France, most strong warriors, attacking that castle more strongly and most fiercely, in a short time surrendered the castle*

with its defenders—namely one of the sons of the count of La Marche, who was not born of lawful matrimony, with forty-one knights, and four score sergeants, and very many others of lesser rank—to the most excellent King Louis their lord. Whom the King ordered to be diligently guarded partly at Paris and partly elsewhere in divers places. But the castle he causes forthwith to be destroyed and overturned to the last stone.

[471] The most brave storming of this castle Matthew Paris no less commends, page 398, and clemently spares the count's son and the others taken in it: writing that it was stormed within fifteen days against the opinion of all the Poitevins. But no less does he commend the King's Christian fortitude in what he subjoins concerning the captive son of the count brought to Louis. Receive his words: Who when he was presented to the sight of the triumphing King with his fellow-captives, and many of the Franks urgently demanded that for the terror of others they should straightway be hanged, the King said, being made as it were the advocate of that same son of the faithful count: He is not guilty of death if he obeyed his father's precepts even unto death: nor his accomplices, who, faithfully serving their lord, obeyed: but let them be sent to Paris to be imprisoned. Which was so done. So far did victory neither render Louis insolent, nor did his own peril from poison, or his brother's wound, so embitter him, but that it was equally ready for him, with Christian charity and reason as guide, to conquer his own mind and to restrain his wrath, as to storm the camps of his enemies.

[472] Further, that by the occupation of this castle terror was struck into the Poitevins, he occupies very many other castles and towns. and that many castles and strongholds were occupied with easy labour, Paris subjoins. But let us hear again Nangis, narrating these things briefly: Afterwards, he says, the King, passing on thence, powerfully subjected to himself the castle of Villiers , with those who were within for the defence of the castle. That castle indeed was Guy's of Rochefort, who adhered to the count of La Marche, and therefore the King caused it to be hastily pulled down. Which being destroyed, another castle, whose name is Briou , encircling it with his army, he swiftly subjugated to himself. Which being subjected, he passed on as far as the castle which they name Saint-Gelais : which, besieging it, he acquired within a few days. Then he came to another castle, which is called Tonnay upon the Boutonne , and, taking it, a short time having elapsed, he placed his own garrison in it. And then the most serene King, feeling and truly weighing that the Lord was directing his journey and accompanying him, came to Matha , a castle of the count of La Marche, which, storming it, he utterly overturned and destroyed the tower which was there, most strong. But the tower being overturned and reduced to nothing, he came as far as Thoré the castle of Ebulo of Rochefort. But those who guarded the castle, knowing the strength of the King, and weighing that they could in no way resist there, fearing to incur his anger, going out of the castle naked and unarmed, all their own being left behind, humbly surrendered the castle to King Louis. But the King, fortifying it with his own people, hastened against Aucerre, which, subjecting it to himself when not many days had rolled by, he commanded to be utterly pulled down. Thus far we have seen Louis acting against the rebel count, before the help of the English was at hand; now we shall see him warring against the king of England, joined to the count, when however we shall have set forth on what pretext the king of England broke the truces which he had covenanted with Louis.

Poitou Auvergne Saumur Alphonse that is, about to profess clientage that is, liege homage, as they call it Montreuil-en-Gâtine la Tour de Béruge that is, engines Fontenay-le-Comte de Lusignan Vouvant Frontenay-l'Abattu that is, thick that is, a shorter dart Villers perhaps Briou Saint-Gelais * Tonnay

the river Boutonne that is, a garrison Matha, in Valois Matas. Thoré § XXXIX. War declared upon St. Louis by the king of England: Louis's twin victory over the confederates: towns taken: the count of La Marche and many other nobles subject themselves to the King. [Louis offers most honourable conditions of peace to the king of England declaring war:] The wrong of the count of La Marche joined to his rebellion had compelled Louis to take up arms, as we have seen: but how great a lover of peace he was he brilliantly declared at this time, when to Henry king of England he offered most honourable conditions of peace, which he nevertheless, allured by a vain hope of recovering the provinces lost in France, declined to accept. Westminster, cited before, testifies this, page 308, in these words: At that same time also, the most pious and most excellent King of the Franks, touched with a spirit of mercy and tranquillity, offered to the lord king of England an excellent form of peace, because he was his kinsman, and his wife the queen was the sister of the queen of England. But the king of England, seduced by the false promises of the count de la Marche, utterly refused it, asserting that he would never depart from the counsels of the said count, whom he called his father after his custom. And straightway in hostile fashion and inconsiderately he defied the King of the Franks himself, that is, declared war. Matthew Paris, page 398, agrees with these things, and sets forth some things more distinctly, which I shall give in summary. There were sent to Louis legates of the king of England, while he was besieging Frontenay, whom the King most honourably received and admitted to his own table.

They complained that the truces were broken by Louis: he denied that he had done anything against the truces, since the count of La Marche was not comprehended in them, nor was he a client of the king of England: and he added that the Englishman had rather violated the truces, because he had undertaken to defend subjects rebellious to him. Nay, that he offered Poitou and the greatest part of Normandy the said author writes; which nevertheless I should not believe he did merely that the truces might remain, but that peace might be established, and the Englishman might cede his right in other provinces. Nor do I judge that so honourable conditions of peace were offered by Louis because he was troubled by some religious scruple of an oath once rendered by his father in England, as Paris feigns: but on account of the bond of affinity, and out of love of peace, as Westminster reports: for that for these very causes he afterwards ceded not a few things to the Englishman we shall narrate in its place. But whatever it was, the Englishman declared war more promptly than he afterwards waged it.

[474] The army of each King came together in the province of Saintonge near Taillebourg , a town of the said province, The columns of the two kings meet, divided only by a river: yet so that by the river Charente , which Nangis names Charanta, Paris Charenta, they were divided from one another. There appeared there the highest fortitude of Louis in crossing the river, and equal humanity toward the enemy in readily granting a truce. But let us hear the ancient authors. Nangis, page 338, thus continues his narration: But afterwards, when he was causing bridges to be raised there nearby in a certain marsh , that he might be able to cross over toward the king of England, who was lying hid in the city of Saintes , without great inconvenience, on account of the difficulty of the crossing, no counsel of crossing being had, he returned on the vigil of the Magdalene toward Taillebourg, the castle of Geoffrey de Rançon, situated upon the water of the Charente. And when he had pitched his tents there upon the bank of that water, the crossbowmen of the English, who stood on the other bank, and Henry king of England likewise with his brother Richard, and Hugh count of La Marche, and Simon of Montfort, with his other knights and a great multitude of Englishmen,

whom together with their king the count of La Marche had caused to cross the sea as a garrison against the King of France their lord, withdrawing from the bank of the water—although the king of England was prepared for battle, yet, greatly fearing his lord King Louis, he drew himself back with his knights the distance of two crossbow-shots, and more.

[475] Not without some conflict do the English seem to have withdrawn from the river bank: a battle in the crossing of the river, for indeed Matthew Paris, page 399, teaches that the river near Taillebourg was joined by an excellent bridge; then, the king of England awaiting nothing else than the onset of war, that certain of the English kept the bridge. But Joinville writes, num. 38, that the French attempted the crossing partly with ships, partly by the bridge with huge peril, And they began, he says, to charge upon the English, and straightway strong blows were given. He adds that the King himself mingled with the others and cast himself into notable hazard, because the enemy were superior in number by an immense interval where he had crossed by the bridge. Guiart also in du Cange, page 137, acknowledges a battle: but no conflict do Westminster, Paris, and Nangis describe, so that I should easily believe that the conflict was not long, but that almost the whole contest was in winning the bridge, which being lost, the English drew themselves back some space, and Richard came to ask a truce of the King, by whose industry Westminster confesses that the king of the English was snatched from the peril of disaster. The English could also have withdrawn from the river bank on account of the French crossbowmen, who across the narrow river could have inflicted no light inconveniences upon them.

[476] But for whatever cause they gave ground, the French followed, the English yielding, Richard as Nangis subjoins in these words: Which the French perceiving, five hundred sergeants with the crossbowmen and a great multitude of armed footmen they caused most swiftly to cross by the aforesaid bridge. Whom seeing, the brother of the king of England, count Richard, straightway, his arms being laid aside, hastening toward the French, asked that the count of Artois be called, that with him he might speak of taking a truce. But then not to count Richard, but rather to King Louis his brother, the count of Artois went for counsel to be had upon this. And straightway the English, being stricken with exceeding fear, not awaiting the answer of the count of Artois concerning the taking of a truce, fled toward Saintes with a most swift course. But that the English only fled toward night, and that after a truce of one day had been obtained, the English writers will have—namely Paris and Westminster. But whether the English fled later or sooner, it is established that they fled. For to the victory of the French and the flight of the English there comes as witness a coin, which James de Bie, fol. 24, thus expressed.

[477] obtains a one day's truce from Louis: Nor yet does it seem to be doubted that Louis, most humane toward enemies, granted a truce of one day: for these Paris reports in the following manner, page 400: But when count Richard had heard all these things, he disarmed himself, and, one staff being taken in his hand, crossed the bridge,

to speak of peace or truces. For the taking of the king of England was manifestly imminent. Now it was Sunday. And when he had come to the army, he was received with the highest honour by the French, and many called him their redeemer, because by a composition of peace he had freed them in the Holy Land. And entering to the King of France, he was reverently called. And when he had set forth his desire to the King, namely concerning the obtaining of truces, truces were granted him scarcely until the morrow. And this he obtained, both because he was a person favoured by the French, for the said freeing of the nobles in the Holy Land, and because he was the kinsman of the lord King of the Franks, and because it was Sunday. And when the count had withdrawn, the King, saluting him, said to him as he withdrew: Lord count, lord count, I have granted you truces this day with the following night, that in the meantime you may deliberate with yourselves what is henceforth more salutary for you to do: for the night has counsel. To whom the count: For that reason I asked the truce which I obtained. From these things you may perceive that the holy King, who entered battle with a mind utterly undaunted, nor feared perils, did not even in the very conflict lay aside his accustomed kindness and love of peace.

[478] But the flight of king Henry and of the whole army the same author subjoins after the return of count

Richard, and a dinner speedily taken, the baggage being packed up at sunset, then, the English fleeing, the French cross the river. when darkness began to fall. Which, he says, when the King of the Franks had learned—which nevertheless he could scarcely believe—on that same night with his whole army he peacefully crossed the bridge, and in the same place in which the king had been, on the next day the French pitched their tents very early in the morning. That Monday was given partly to the rest of the soldiers, partly to carrying over the baggage of the whole army, as is gathered from the following words of the author: For the army was coming up and increasing: for the wagons and carts, carrying the engines and victuals, took up a way of three miles which were estimated at a thousand and six hundred. But truly on the following Tuesday an atrocious battle arose, since neither the English expected it nor the French. The cause was Hugh count of La Marche, who well enough perceived that it was all over with him unless by a happy conflict he should restore the matter: for a grave contention had blazed up between him and Henry king of England, because Henry complained that he had not found so great a force of knights as the count had promised: but the count denied that he had promised more than he had furnished, as

Joinville at num. 39, and more fully Paris has at page 399 and the following.

[479] Hence the count perhaps, fearing lest he should be deserted by the English, A sharp battle, arisen from the foragers, chose rather to undergo the die of fortune and to catch at an occasion of battle. Hear Paris, page 400: But on the next following Tuesday, the King of France with his army pursued the king of England. And when he had drawn near to Saintes, certain of the French were running about, intent upon the profits of victuals, which commonly is called to forage . Whom the count de la Marche met in hostile fashion, the king of England not being consulted, nor his army. And, an encounter being made, it was cried out terribly: To arms, to arms. On this side, Royal, royal; on that, Montjoy, Montjoy— namely the ensign of each king. And the shout ascended as far as Saintes, to the king of England and his army, and it was said that the count de la Marche had begun the battle, wishing either to lose his life or to redeem his fame. And each army was stirred, and a most bitter conflict began outside the city of Saintes, among the vineyards in the narrows of the roads. But the English in their anger briskly received the French with the edge of the sword, entering upon a most grave contest: so that if on that day they had been equalled to them in number, as the French themselves also attested after the contest, they would, gaining their wish, have gloriously triumphed over the French. With this little glory at least the English author wished to soften the disaster of his own men.