Part 378

"The establishment of the commune of Mans, towards the year 1070, was not a fact, isolated, and without respect to what passed in the rest of France; it was, on the contrary, a symptom of the great revolution which was working in the opinions, the manners, and the condition of the mass of the people; a symptom which, bearing a certain date, must serve to establish the epoch of a crowd of analogous efforts made in the other towns of France. History has not preserved the memory of these different efforts, but it has shown us the results. During the two following centuries, the cities ceased not to obtain charters, to found or secure by legitimate authority, the immunities and franchises which constituted the communal rights. … All, or nearly all had, however, already conquered liberty; they had experienced how advantageous it was to be governed by themselves, and the high price which they put upon the favor they solicited, bears witness to their experience. The enfranchisement of the communes is almost universally reported in the … reign … of Louis the Fat; and the honor of this great revolution, which created the third estate [tiers-état], and liberty in France, has been given either to the generosity or the wise policy of that prince. There is doubtless some truth in this opinion, since we find in France no communal charter anterior to the reign of Louis VI., and he is also the first king who was seen to ally himself with the burgesses, to make war on the nobility. However, the idea which is formed of this event, when one attributes it to the act of the monarch's will, or the effect of his system, is completely erroneous. The French people owed whatever degree of liberty it enjoyed in the middle ages, to its own valor; it acquired it as liberty must always be acquired, at the sword's point; it profitted by the divisions, the imprudence, the weakness, or the crimes of its lords, lay or ecclesiastic, to seize it from and in spite of them. … The origin of every commune was, as indicated by the different names by which they are designated, a communion, a conjuration, or confederation, of the inhabitants of a town who were mutually engaged to defend each other. The first act of the commune was the occupation of a tower in which was set up a clock or belfry; and the first clause of the oath of all the communers, was to repair in arms, when the bell sounded, at the place assigned them, to defend each other. From this first engagement resulted that of submitting to magistrates named by the communers: it was the mayors, echevins, and juries, in northern France, and consuls or syndics in southern France, to whom the consent of all abandoned the sole right of directing the common efforts. Thus the militia was first created; the magistracy came afterwards. … The reign of Phillip I. had been but a long anarchy. During those forty-eight years the royal government had not existed, and no other had efficaciously taken its place. At the same time, greatly differing from the other feudal monarchies, all legislative power was suspended in France. There were no diets like those of the kingdoms of Germany and Italy, no parliament like that of England, no cortes like those of Spain, no field of March like that of the antient Frankish kings, no assemblages, in fine, which bound by their acts the great vassals and their subjects, and which could submit them to common laws. {1161} The French had not desired a participation in the sovereignty which they could only acquire by sacrificing their independence. Thus, two great vassals, or the subjects of two great vassals, could scarcely believe themselves compatriots. … The anarchy which was found in the great state of the French monarchy, because all the relations between the king and the count were relaxed, was found also in the petty state of the county of Paris, or of the duchy of France; for the lords and barons of the crown's domains no better obeyed or respected more the prerogatives of their lord, than the great vassals those of the suzerain. The anarchy was complete, the disorder seemed carried to its height, and never had the social bond in France been nearer to being broken: yet never had France made so real a progress as during these forty-eight years. Phillip, at his death, left his son quite another people to that which he had received from his father: the most active monarch would never have done so much for France as she had without him done for herself during his sleep. The towns were more numerous, more populous, more opulent, and more industrious; property had acquired a security unknown in the preceding centuries; justice was distributed between equals, and by equals; and the liberty of the burgesses, conquered by arms, was defended with energy."

_J. C. L. S. de Sismondi, France under the Feudal System, chapters 9 and 12._

"Liberty … was to have its beginning in the towns, in the towns of the centre of France, which were to be called privileged towns, or communes, and which would either receive or extort their franchises. … All coveted a few franchises or privileges, and offered to purchase them; for, needy and wretched as they were, poor artisans, smiths and weavers, suffered to cluster for shelter at the foot of a castle, or fugitive serfs crowding round a church, they could manage to find money; and men of this stamp were the founders of our liberties. They willingly starved themselves to procure the means of purchase; and king and barons rivalled each other in selling charters which fetched so high a price. This revolution took place all over the kingdom under a thousand different forms, and with but little disturbance; so that it has only attracted notice with regard to some towns of the Oise and the Somme, which, placed in less favorable circumstances, and belonging to two different lords, one a layman, the other ecclesiastical, resorted to the king for a solemn guarantee of concessions often violated, and maintained a precarious liberty at the cost of several centuries of civil war. To these towns the name of communes has been more particularly applied; and the wars they had to wage form a slight but dramatic incident in this great revolution, which was operating silently and under different forms in all the towns of the north of France. 'Twas in brave and choleric Picardy, whose commons had so soundly beaten the Normans—in the country of Calvin, and of so many other revolutionary spirits—that these explosions took place. Noyon, Beauvais, Laon, three ecclesiastical lordships, were the first communes; to these may be added St. Quentin. Here the Church had laid the foundations of a powerful democracy. … The king has been said to be the founder of the communes; but the reverse is rather the truth: it is the communes that established the king. Without them, he could not have beaten off the Normans; and these conquerors of England and the Two Sicilies would probably have conquered France. It was the communes, or, to use a more general and exact term, the bourgeoisies, which, under the banner of the saint of the parish, enforced the common peace between the Oise and the Loire; while the king, on horseback, bore in front the banner of the abbey of St. Denys."

_M. Michelet, History of France, book 4, chapter 4._

See, also, COMMUNES.

The following comments on the passages quoted above are made by a good authority: "The general view taken of this subject of the enfranchisement of the communes by historians who wrote at the middle of the century is now being seriously modified. The studies of Luchaire have shown, I think, that such statements as Sismondi's, which attribute everything to the people, are exaggerations. 'Liberty,' as it existed in the communes, was only corporate or aristocratic privilege. As for the national assemblages, there were great councils held, such as those which existed under the Norman monarchs in England, and they issued the 'assizes,' which was a common form of legislation in the Middle Ages. It was not, of course, legislation, in its modern sense. Michelet is quite too flowery, poetical, democratic, to be safely followed."

FRANCE: A. D. 1096. Departure of the First Crusaders.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

FRANCE: A. D. 1100. The extent of the kingdom.

"When Louis [VI.] was adopted by his father in 1100, the crown had as its own domain only the county of Paris, Hurepoix, the Gatinais, the Orléanis, half the county of Sens, the French Vexin, and Bourges, together with some ill-defined rights over the episcopal cities of Rheims, Beauvais, Laon, Noyon, Soissons, Amiens. And even within these narrow limits the royal power was but thinly spread over the surface. The barons in their castles were in fact independent, and oppressed the merchants and poor folk as they would. The king had also acknowledged rights of suzerainty over Champagne, Burgundy, Normandy, Brittany, Flanders, and Boulogne; but, in most cases, the only obedience the feudal lords stooped to was that of duly performing the act of homage to the king on first succession to a fief. He also claimed suzerainty, which was not conceded, over the South of France; over Provence and Lorraine he did not even put forth a claim of lordship."

_G. W. Kitchin, History of France, volume 1, book 3, chapter 5._

FRANCE: A. D. 1101. Disastrous Crusade of French princes and knights.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1101-1102.

FRANCE: A. D. 1106-1119. War with Henry I. of England and Normandy.

See ENGLAND: A. D. 1087-1135.

{1162}

FRANCE: A. D. 1108-1180. The reigns of Louis VI., Louis VII. and accession of Philip II. Gain and loss of Aquitaine.

"Louis VI., or 'the Fat' was the first able man whom the line of Hugh Capet had produced since it mounted the throne. He made the first attempt at curbing the nobles, assisted by Suger, the Abbot of St. Denys. The only possibility of doing this was to obtain the aid of one party of nobles against another; and when any unusually flagrant offence had been committed, Louis called together the nobles, bishops, and abbots of his domain, and obtained their consent and assistance in making war on the guilty man, and overthrowing his castle, thus, in some degree, lessening the sense of utter impunity which had caused so many violences and such savage recklessness. He also permitted a few of the cities to purchase the right of self-government. … The royal authority had begun to be respected by 1137, when Louis VI. died, having just effected the marriage of his son, Louis VII., with Eleanor, the heiress of the Dukes of Aquitaine—thus hoping to make the crown really more powerful than the great princes who owed it homage. At this time lived the great St. Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux, who had a wonderful influence over men's minds. … Bernard roused the young king Louis VII., to go on the second crusade [see CRUSADES: A. D. 1147-1149], which was undertaken by the Emperor and the other princes of Europe to relieve the distress of the kingdom of Palestine. … Though Louis did reach Palestine, it was with weakened forces; he could effect nothing by his campaign, and Eleanor, who had accompanied him, seems to have been entirely corrupted by the evil habits of the Franks settled in the East. Soon after his return, Louis dissolved his marriage; and Eleanor became the wife of Henry, Count of Anjou, who soon after inherited the kingdom of England as our Henry II., as well as the duchy of Normandy, and betrothed his third son to the heiress of Brittany [see AQUITAINE: A. D. 1137-1152]. Eleanor's marriage seemed to undo all that Louis VI. had done in raising the royal power; for Henry completely overshadowed Louis, whose only resource was in feeble endeavours to take part against him in his many family quarrels. The whole reign of Louis the Young, the title that adhered to him on account of his simple, childish nature, is only a record of weakness and disaster, till he died in 1180. … Powerful in fact as Henry II. was, it was his gathering so large a part of France under his rule which was, in the end, to build up the greatness of the French kings. What had held them in check was the existence of the great fiefs or provinces, each with its own line of dukes or counts, and all practically independent of the king. But now nearly all the provinces of southern and western France were gathered into the hand of a single ruler; and though he was a Frenchman in blood, yet, as he was King of England, this ruler seemed to his French subjects no Frenchman, but a foreigner. They began therefore to look to the French king to free them from a foreign ruler; and the son of Louis VII., called Philip Augustus, was ready to take advantage of their disposition."

_C. M. Yonge, History of France (History Primers), chapter 1, sections 6-7._

FRANCE: A. D. 1180-1224. The kingdom extended by Philip Augustus. Normandy, Maine and Anjou recovered from the English kings.

"Louis VII. ascended the throne [A. D. 1137] with better prospects than his father. He had married Eleanor, heiress of the great duchy of Guienne [or Aquitaine]. But this union, which promised an immense accession of strength to the crown, was rendered unhappy by the levities of that princess. Repudiated by Louis, who felt rather as a husband than a king, Eleanor immediately married Henry II. of England, who, already inheriting Normandy from his mother and Anjou from Ins father, became possessed of more than one-half of France, and an over-match for Louis, even if the great vassals of the crown had been always ready to maintain its supremacy. One might venture perhaps to conjecture that the sceptre of France would eventually have passed from the Capets to the Plantagenets, if the vexatious quarrel with Becket at one time, and the successive rebellions fomented by Louis at a later period, had not embarrassed the great talents and ambitious spirit of Henry. But the scene quite changed when Philip Augustus, son of Louis VII., came upon the stage [A. D. 1180]. No prince comparable to him in systematic ambition and military enterprise had reigned in France since Charlemagne. From his reign the French monarchy dates the recovery of its lustre. He wrested from the count of Flanders the Vermandois (that part of Picardy which borders on the Isle of France and Champagne), and, subsequently, the County of Artois. But the most important conquests of Philip were obtained against the kings of England. Even Richard I., with all his prowess, lost ground in struggling against an adversary not less active, and more politic, than himself: But when John not only took possession of his brother's dominions, but confirmed his usurpation by the murder, as was very probably surmised, of the heir, Philip, artfully taking advantage of the general indignation, summoned him as his vassal to the court of his peers. John demanded a safe-conduct. Willingly, said Philip; let him come unmolested. And return? inquired the English envoy. If the judgment of his peers permit him, replied the king. By all the saints of France, he exclaimed, when further pressed, he shall not return unless acquitted. The bishop of Ely still remonstrated that the duke of Normandy could not come without the king of England; nor would the barons of that country permit their sovereign to run the risk of death or imprisonment. What of that, my lord bishop? cried Philip. It is well known that my vassal the duke of Normandy acquired England by force. But if a subject obtains any accession of dignity, shall his paramount lord therefore lose his rights? … John, not appearing at his summons, was declared guilty of felony, and his fiefs confiscated. The execution of this sentence was not intrusted to a dilatory arm. Philip poured his troops into Normandy, and took town after town, while the king of England, infatuated by his own wickedness and cowardice, made hardly an attempt at defence. In two years [A. D. 1203-1204] Normandy, Maine, and Anjou were irrecoverably lost. Poitou and Guienne resisted longer; but the conquest of the first was completed [A. D. 1224] by Louis VIII., successor of Philip."

_H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 1, part 1._

ALSO IN: _K. Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings, volume 2, chapter 9._

See, also, ENGLAND: A. D. 1205; and ANJOU: A. D. 1206-1442.

FRANCE: A. D. 1188-1190. Crusade of Philip Augustus.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1188-1192.

FRANCE: A. D. 1201-1203. The Fifth Crusade, and its diversion against Constantinople.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1201-1203.

A. D. 1209-1229. The Albigensian wars and their effects.

See ALBIGENSES.

FRANCE: A. D. 1212. The Children's Crusade.

See CRUSADES: A. D. 1212.

FRANCE: A. D. 1214. Nationalizing effects of the Battle of Bouvines.

See BOUVINES.

FRANCE: A. D. 1223. Accession of King Louis VIII.

{1163}

FRANCE: A. D. 1226-1270. Reign and character of Louis IX. (Saint Louis). His great civilizing work and influence.

"Of the forty-four years of St. Louis' reign, nearly fifteen, with a long interval of separation, pertained to the government of Queen Blanche of Castille, rather than that of the king her son. Louis, at his accession in 1226, was only eleven; and he remained a minor up to the age of twenty-one, in 1236, for the time of majority in the case of royalty was not yet specially and rigorously fixed. During those ten years Queen Blanche governed France; not at all, as is commonly asserted, with the official title of regent, but simply as guardian of the king her son. With a good sense really admirable in a person so proud and ambitious, she saw that official power was ill suited to her woman's condition, and would weaken rather than strengthen her; and she screened herself from view behind her son. He it was who, in [1236], wrote to the great vassals bidding them to his consecration; he it was who reigned and commanded; and his name alone appeared on royal decrees and on treaties. It was not until twenty-two years had passed, in 1248, that Louis, on starting for the crusade, officially delegated to his mother the kingly authority, and that Blanche, during her son's absence, really governed with the title of regent. … During the first period of his government, and so long as her son's minority lasted, Queen Blanche had to grapple with intrigues, plots, insurrections, and open war; and, what was still worse for her, with the insults and calumnies of the crown's great vassals, burning to seize once more, under a woman's government, the independence and power which had been effectually disputed with them by Philip Augustus. Blanche resisted their attempts, at one time with open and persevering energy, at another dexterously with all the tact, address, and allurements of a woman. Though she was now forty years of age she was beautiful, elegant, attractive, full of resources and of grace. … The malcontents spread the most odious scandals about her. … Neither in the events nor in the writings of the period is it easy to find anything which can authorize the accusations made by the foes of Queen Blanche. … She continued her resistance to the pretensions and machinations of the crown's great vassals, whether foes or lovers, and she carried forward, in the face and in the teeth of all, the extension of the domains and the power of the kingship. We observe in her no prompting of enthusiasm, of sympathetic charitableness, or of religious scrupulousness; that is, none of those grand moral impulses which are characteristic of Christian piety and which were predominant in St. Louis. Blanche was essentially politic and concerned with her temporal interests and successes; and it was not from her teaching or her example that her son imbibed those sublime and disinterested feelings which stamped him the most original and the rarest on the roll of glorious kings. What St. Louis really owed to his mother, and it was a great deal, was the steady triumph which, whether by arms or by negotiation, Blanche gained over the great vassals, and the preponderance which, amidst the struggles of the feudal system, she secured for the kingship of her son in his minority. … When Louis reached his majority, his entrance upon personal exercise of the kingly power produced no change in the conduct of public affairs. … The kingship of the son was a continuance of the mother's government. Louis persisted in struggling for the preponderance of the crown against the great vassals; succeeded in taming Peter Mauclerc, the turbulent count of Brittany; wrung from Theobald IV., count of Champagne, the rights of suzerainty in the countships of Chartres, Blois, and Sancerre, and the viscountship of Châteaudun; and purchased the fertile countship of Mâcon from its possessor. It was almost always by pacific procedure, by negotiations ably conducted, and conventions faithfully executed, that he accomplished these increments of the kingly domain; and when he made war on any of the great vassals, he engaged therein only on their provocation, to maintain the rights or honour of his crown, and he used victory with as much moderation as he had shown before entering upon the struggle. … When war was not either a necessity or a duty, this brave and brilliant knight, from sheer equity and goodness of heart, loved peace rather than war. The successes he had gained in his campaign of 1242 [against the count of La Marche and Henry III., of England, whose mother had become the wife of La Marche] were not for him the first step in an endless career of glory and conquest; he was anxious only to consolidate them whilst securing, in Western Europe, for the dominions of his adversaries as well as for his own, the benefits of peace. He entered into negotiations, successively, with the count of la Marche, the king of England, the count of Toulouse, the king of Aragon, and the various princes and great feudal lords who had been more or less engaged in the war; and in January, 1243, says the latest and most enlightened of his biographers [M. Felix Faure], 'the treaty of Lorris marked the end of feudal troubles for the whole duration of St. Louis' reign. He drew his sword no more, save only against the enemies of the Christian faith and Christian civilization, the Mussulmans.'"

_G. Masson, Saint Louis and the Thirteenth Century, pages 44-56._