sign in sign up
<<
Home , Blanche of Castile, Henry III of England, Henry II of England, Isabella of England, Jean de Joinville, Louis IX of France

Reading Power in the Sources

Student Research on Political Figures in the Thirteenth Century

Edited by: J. Lucien D. Houle

Cover Image courtesy of a Wikimedia Creative Commons License: ACA. Canc. Pergamins de Jaume I d'Aragó. n 935 d. Accessed March 28, 2018 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Quia_super_limitibus_Cathalonie_et_Aragonum.jpg.

2018, University of Florida Institutional Resources, Gainesville, FL.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or sold without prior written permission of the editor, except that the authors retain all rights to their work.

For my parents and parents-in-, David and Cathy Houle, Jo Ann Alderman, and George Alderman.

Table of Contents Introduction 1 J. Lucien D. Houle Isabella of : the Forgotten Diplomat 3 Errol Nelson and the Role of the Queen- 11 Madeline Fine Religion and Family: Louis IX and Rulership in Medieval Europe 18 Kelly Northcraft Marshall: Political and Social Ideology 24 Cameron Rough Gregory IX Enforces Conformity in Medieval Western Europe 30 Lainey Williams

1

Introduction

J. Lucien D. Houle

When Thomas Bisson, one of the foremost scholars in the field of medieval lordship, wrote about medieval power and politics, he mused about how the study of this kind of history changed from one generation to the next. Between the time of his parents’ generation and that of his own, historians who were concerned with power began to recognize the importance of women and started to ask questions about regular people, not just kings. His awakening came when he read the primary sources themselves. Bisson wrote, “What I found in the sources was not the '' of my teachers: was not so much what power looked like as what it felt like in an age of castles... Power meant lordship and nobility... It was realized in submission, alliance, paternity, friendship, and ceremony... It was felt as violence.”1 Today’s generation of young people has their own unique perspective as well, as I discovered in the fall of 2017, when I taught an undergraduate course entitled “Medieval Power and Politics.” Along with 23 students, roughly 60% history majors and 40% from other fields, including journalism and engineering, we sought to explore how political figures exercised power in thirteenth-century England, , , and Spain. Along the way, following the global teaching methods of Antoinette Burton, I hoped to “develop skills in our students that are methodological as well as additive;” that is, learning how to do history in addition to knowing history.2 Therefore, I decided that as much as possible we ought to rely on primary sources and be deliberate and purposeful in our analysis of them. When we did read secondary sources, I chose scholars who were transparent about how they used and interpreted their primary evidence. For example, in his chapter about medieval notaries and their signs, Alan Friedlander wrote about how notarial documents were used within medieval society and how they can be used by scholars today. He even reproduced many of the pictographic signs within his chapter.3 With this in mind, I chose Bjorn Weiler’s monograph from 2007, Kingship, Rebellion and Political Culture: England and Germany c. 1215 – c. 1250 to be the main text for the course, accompanied by a primary source for each week, along with articles and chapters when appropriate. Weiler’s work, while challenging reading for undergraduates, has the dual advantages of relying heavily on primary sources, particularly German chronicle sources that have been too rarely used in Anglophone historiography, and being very explicit about how these sources were used, both in the medieval period and by modern scholars. The course combined teaching methods such as small group discussion and formal debates to bring out the nuances of primary sources from the Constitutions of Melfi to the Chronicle of Salimbene. The final project for the course was for each student to write a biographical research paper about a different political figure from the time and place we were studying.

1 Thomas N. Bisson, The Crisis of the Twelfth Century: Power, Lordship, and the Origins of European Government (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009) viii-ix. 2 Antoinette Burton, A Primer for Teaching World History: Ten Design Principles (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2012), 63. 3 Alan Friedlander, “Signum Meum Apposui: Notaries and their Signs in Medieval ,” 93-120 in The Experience of Power in Medieval Europe: 950-1350 edited by Robert F. Berkhofer, Alan Cooper, and Adam J. Kosto (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2005). 2

My original vision for assigning each student a different biography was to create a collection of brief biographies of understudied figures. However, over the course of the semester it became increasingly clear to me that thinking about primary sources in a critical way – taking into consideration their origin, transmission, authorship, audience, and potential biases – was something with which these students had little experience. Lack of experience, however, was balanced by a wealth of creativity and curiosity that made the weekly primary source activities immensely productive. With this in mind, I asked the students to be very transparent about how they interacted with their primary sources when writing their final papers. While many of the students wrote excellent biographies, the five essays collected here represent the most insightful efforts at reading power in the sources. The students experienced, like Bisson, how medieval power was “felt”, and in doing so, they tackled a range of issues. Many of these essays emphasize the role of the public in shaping or delimiting the decisions of those in power. In addition, the students highlight the importance of advisors, family members, and close associates in creating a network of support. Cameron Rough’s biography of Richard Marshal demonstrates how the primary sources documenting the Marshal Rebellion take their narrative cues from their anticipated audiences. The work of Madeline Fine and Errol Nelson show how familial connections formed bonds of trust that were necessary to maintain power, particularly for women, as they explore the careers of Blanche of Castile and , respectively. Kelly Northcraft’s biography of Louis IX builds on the recent insights of William Chester Jordan to show how his inner circle formed a political cadre that helped him advance his agenda. Finally, Lainey William’s essay on Pope Gregory IX demonstrates how concern over public perception shaped even the politics of the medieval Church. These essays represent a resource for future study, particularly for figures such as Isabella of England and Richard Marshal, who do not have scholarly biographies of their own, and who barely have Wikipedia pages. Secondly, the students in this volume point towards the next wave in medieval historiography. The next generation of scholars will generate a perspective shaped by a keen understanding of interpersonal relationships and social networks, as well as the reciprocal relationship between different segments of society, in this case between the rulers and the ruled. Finally, this volume shows that undergraduates can accomplish great things when they are given the chance to work with primary sources and the freedom to think creatively. I am proud to present this collection, in the hopes that readers may learn half as much from my students as I have.

3

Isabella of England: The Forgotten Diplomat

Errol Nelson

In the summer of 1235, the city of Worms, Germany was in an uproar. A great procession was to be held in honor of the Holy Roman Emperor, King of Germany, and King of Frederick II taking a new bride. Rumors would have filled the streets as commoners and nobles alike packed the streets that led to the impressive , hoping to glimpse a peek at the soon-to-be Empress. Astride a magnificent mare, is the beautiful sister of the English king. Isabella of England, granddaughter of the first Plantagenet King, now rides in ceremoniously in a wedding procession that will capture the imagination of people for hundreds of years. In a public display, the crowd is frenzied with delight as the Princess removes her veil so the adoring masses can see the face of the new Empress. With the young woman ride the hopes of her family, desperate for an alliance, and by extension the entire nation who paid to get her there. The medieval world was one of relative uncertainty, between constant battles against the forces of nature, disease, and an ever-shifting political climate that could see a once-prominent family unseated and deposed from the throne. Therefore, for powerful personages to maintain their power they had to employ all the mechanisms and tools at their disposal. Born amidst the volatile turmoil of thirteenth-century England, the heirs of John “Lackland” I of England were forced to rely on familial bonds in a way that was unique to the Plantagenet as the first monarchial branch to be checked by the baronial regulations of the . The sibling relationship between Isabella of England (who would later become the Queen consort of Sicily, and the Empress of the entire through her political match with Frederick II) and her brother King III was an effective demonstration of how sibling and familial relationships were important vehicles and tools of power in the medieval world. According to historian Theresa Earenfight, the traditional ideals of thirteenth-century medieval monarchy should expand to include all the familial parts of a dynastic system of government. While the patriarchal dominance of the English monarchy can hardly be denied, Earenfight argues that it was the complete balance of family structures that helped to keep medieval monarchies in power4. In order for continuance and survival, a monarchy needed all of its components; a strong paternal male figure, a maternal component vital for producing living heirs, as well as support from those closely related. In the case of Henry III, an often-overlooked component of his power is his reliance on familial relationships with his brother and sisters. Many modern scholars take particular care to portray Henry III as a family man, who held special relationships with his wife, children, in- and siblings. In particular, this strong sibling bond is evidenced through the relationship with his younger sister Isabella of England. Isabella of England, sometimes stylized as Isabel to distinguish her from her mother, was the fourth child and second daughter of I and his queen Isabelle of Angoulême. Her older siblings were Henry III, , and Joan—who would eventually become queen consort to Alexander of Scotland, her youngest sibling, only by a year, was , the Countess of Pembroke. On the onset of her birth, the future of the Plantagenet line was stuttering

4 Theresa Earenfight, Queenship in Medieval Europe (New : Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 7.

4 and unsure, called into question particularly after an expensive, prolonged, and eventual failed campaign in France to regain ancestral lands in . The once vast empire founded by the first Plantagenet King, Henry II that stretched from Scotland to the Pyrenees mountain range had fallen into French hands. It is this obsession with regaining monarchial holdings in France that becomes almost a dynastic mission that would continue to be a goal and source of tension for of the English monarchy for decades to come. In fact, it was likely that this failed campaign heavily contributed to the baronial uprisings of the following year. In short, Isabella was born when the future of the Plantagenet line was on the brink of chaos. Born in 1214 in like her sister, some accounts reckon that Queen Isabelle was relocated there due to the tense political climate in . Isabella was born just a few short months before the of England forced her father to sign and agree to the limiting political collar of Magna Carta. The primary function of the Magna Carta intended to restore peace to the realm, however, civil unrest was ripe by 1215 and complete civil war broke out. By the summer of 12165, John I scornfully named Lackland by his opponents, was fighting invaders and rebellious barons in what would become known as the First ’s War. In October of that year, John died of in Newark. As a result, this left the leadership of the Plantagenet dynasty in the hands of Isabella’s nine-year-old brother Henry III. Therefore, Isabella’s relationship with her parents was almost non-existent. Her father, the king, dying at aged two, and her mother departing England never to return at age three. One of the most puzzling pieces of the young Princess Isabella’s life regards the involvement, or complete lack thereof, of her mother; her only surviving parent. Susan Abernathy writes on her website that describes the life of Isabelle of Angoulême, “She made three grants for salvation of John’s soul and never mentioned him again. She either had no interest in a role in the ruling of England or came to the realization she never would be allowed to participate. She appears to have desperately wanted to go home. She demanded vociferously from the regency council that she be given all she was entitled to from her marriage settlements and from being, queen and they did relent and release her properties to her. She left four of her children in England and returned to Angoulême in 1217, taking her daughter Joan with her, ostensibly to deliver her to her betrothed.” 6 From this outlook on the lack of parental involvement, it is fair to ascertain that responsibility for the care of the royal children would have been one of the responsibilities that Henry’s provisional regency council oversaw. Though the Magna Carta, at the time of its inception, may have been seen as the decline royal prestige and power, according to Louise J. Wilkinson, a biographer of Isabella of England asserts that it did little to deter the Princess from learning her station as a member of the royal family. “From infancy Isabella was raised within a culture of conspicuous consumption as befitted a sister of the King of England”.7 Wilkinson also asserts that is very likely that Isabella and her sisters were raised in the “English tradition of queenship” and have been instructed in the “trappings of royal rank” in households, which they were placed at the center, as domestic head. Wilkinson suggests that based on common

5 "The First Barons' War." TimeRef - Medieval and History Timelines: http://www.timeref.com/episodes/the_first_barons_war.htm. Accessed November 29, 2017. 6 Susan Abernethy, "Isabelle of Angoulême, Queen of England," The Freelance History Writer, May 15, 2015: https://thefreelancehistorywriter.com/2015/05/15/isabelle-of-angouleme-queen-of-england/. Accessed November 28, 2017. 7 Liz Oakley-Brown and Louise J. Wilkinson, The Rituals and Rhetoric of Queenship: Medieval to Early Modern (: Four Courts, 2009), 27. 5 languages she shared with her later husband, Frederick II, it can be assumed that she would have been educated in at least English and French most likely from an early age. The financial records from Henry III’s reign 8 give another interesting view into the private life of Isabella. One record suggests that an English noblewoman by the name of Margaret Biset was compensated as the nurse of the princess, and appears again within the same record years later as being given 40 pieces of silver for her return journey after accompanying Isabella to her marriage ceremony with Frederick II. Could this be the closest maternal figure in Isabella’s life? Faithful servant from crib to marriage bed? Would Margaret Biset ultimately serve as the namesake for Isabella’s only daughter? With her mother remarried in a union that would produce nine additional half-brothers and sisters to the Plantagenet, there seems to be little evidence to support the idea that Isabella’s own natural mother played a large influence in her life or the arrangement of her marriage. Perhaps the most convincing argument for the importance of medieval sibling relationships arises in the arrangement of marriages for the sisters of Henry III. In her book Brothers and Sisters in Medieval European Literature, historian Carolyne Larrington examines the type of relationships that existed between siblings, and in particular, notes that in a case similar to that of House Plantagenet in which siblings may likely outlive their parents, the eldest brother would make provisions for the marriages of his siblings. “If the father were dead, brothers arranged for their sister’s marriages, exercising a ‘fraternal authority’”9 Larrington also asserts that marriages often carried medieval women far from their paternal families, especially in families where marriage alliances were essential to maintaining peace among different sovereign states. This is assuredly the case for Isabella as Henry III sought to increase his power and influence within Europe. To aid in this goal Henry and his minority government arranged for the release of his eldest sister Joan who had been originally intended to wed Hugh X of Lusignan, but was returned to England after his mother married her second husband. Instead, Joan was married to Alexander II of Scotland and becomes Queen Consort of Scotland. Their sister, Eleanor, was just nine when she was married to William Marshal the Younger, of Pembroke and according to Wilkinson, “one of the wealthiest magnates in England”10. Wilkinson is careful to point out that despite the successful arrangements of marriages for her elder and younger sister, this in no way indicates that Isabella was glanced over, but rather points to consistent failings to pin down an appropriate suitor. In fact, sources point out that Isabella would have likely been Alexander’s bride had Joan failed to be recovered from her stepfather in Lusignan. Wilkinson also points out that, “In January 1225, in the face of growing Capetian hostility, English emissaries arrived in Germany, hopeful of securing Henry III’s marriage to the duke of Austria’s daughter and Isabella’s marriage to Henry VII, and son of Frederick II. Another failed proposal centered upon a possible double marriage between Henry III and a sister of Louis IX of France, and Isabella and Louis IX.”11 In this, the evidence makes clear that the central theme of marriage is to help place familial relations in places and with personages that might be politically advantageous to their birth families. The princess Isabella would receive a personally unprecedented chance to participate in the vehicles of international politics and power in the fall of 1234, her twentieth year, as the

8 Robert C. Stacey, Politics, Policy, and Finance under Henry III 1216-1245 (: Clarendon Press, 1987). 9 Carolyn Larrington, Brothers and Sisters in Medieval European Literature (Suffolk: York Medieval Press, 2015), 33. 10 Oakley-Brown and Wilkinson, 22. 11 Ibid. 6 emperor Frederick II began to consider Isabella for his next bride. Sources suggest that Frederick’s desire for the match came at the prompting of Pope Gregory IX, who was favorable to the idea of English-imperial match in the hopes that the union would bring about another, more successful in the Holy Land.12 Frederick II seemed partial to the idea, having only just reconciled his relationship with Pope Gregory IX just four years prior according to the chronicles of Roger of Wendover.13 Wilkinson also suggests that Gregory’s interest may have lain in the hope to end the standing feud between Henry III and Louis IX over the possession of the Angevin and Norman lands that Henry’s predecessor John I had rallied so hard to regain. At the onset of Isabella’s possible engagement to Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II, it seemed like a potential match that would inspire peace between the three greatest kings in . Gregory hoped that an Anglo-imperial match would help Frederick to smooth over the decades- long tension between his ally Louis IX and his new brother in law, Henry III.14 This period would see the greatest visibility of Isabella Plantagenet in historical record, particularly in the well-documented annalistic chronicle penned by the monk Roger of Wendover. Wendover was clearly well informed of the goings-on of the , and it is his record that stands out as the preeminent surviving recording of Henry III's reign. This entry details the Princess Isabella at twenty-one years appearing before envoys and messengers of Emperor Frederick II, recorded as “a beautiful girl in her twenty-first year, distinguished by her maidenhood, and properly bedecked with accustomed trappings of royalty.”15 There seems to be some conflict and disagreement among the overarching historical narrative established during this period. It would appear that medieval chronicler Roger of Wendover was either ignorant or dismissive of the public letter that Frederick had penned in November 1234 to pursue Isabella as well as the December missive from the Pope that looked favorably on what would be Frederick’s third Empress, and instead cites the beginning of the Anglo-imperial marriage brokering beginning sometime in 1235. In either case, it is likely that around Isabella’s twentieth or twenty- first year, serious negotiations began for her marriage.

Robert Stacey, author of Politics, Policy, and Finance under Henry III: 1216-1245 reports that Isabella’s dowry was set at 30,000 marks to be paid in three installments to the Emperor.16 Stacey suggests that this is an incredible sum, while Wilkinson points that perhaps Henry did not have the political shrewdness to negotiate a more favorable deal or was too afraid that pushing Frederick too far would impede the marriage altogether.17 The sources seem very much in agreement that Henry III was keen on securing this match for his sister, and that it was integral to his foreign policy. Henry’s strategy relied very heavily on gaining possible allies against Louis IX in order to reclaim English lands in France. It is again seen how the political elite use the marriage of their siblings to maneuver, acquire, and maintain power. Wendover’s Flores Historium (The Flowers of History), reveals critical details about the motives and mechanisms of medieval marriages from a primary perspective. The Flowers of

12 Sharon Bennett Connolly, “Isabella, England’s Second Holy Roman Empress,” History...The Interesting Bits: https://historytheinterestingbits.com/2015/12/05/isabella-englands-second-holy-roman-empress/. Accessed November 20, 2017. 13 Roger of Wendover, Flowers of History. From Chronicles of the Age of Chivalry, edited by Elizabeth M. Hallam. (New York: Welcome Rain, 2000), 44. 14 Oakley-Brown and Wilkinson, 23. 15 Roger of Wendover, 54. 16 Stacey. 17 Oakley-Brown and Wilkinson, 24. 7

History is very careful to describe the long list of ostentatious gifts that Henry III gives to Isabella, and by extension Frederick. This is likely because the audience reading this chronology would probably be aware of an unpopular tax or “aide” that Henry III raised in order to cover the enormous costs of the extravagant gifts. Roger of Wendover gives special attention to the magnificence of the wedding preparation describing them as “so lavish that they seemed to exceed all the riches of the kingdom.”18 This is an important and carefully chosen phrase, which points to a subtle criticism of Henry, who was known to have trouble with managing the money of the kingdom. From the chronicles and the description of the lavish gifts Henry gave to Isabella, we can deduce that the presentation of wealth was so important that a king might even raise taxes throughout the land to afford it. The history also mentions “festal robes, which were made of silk and wool, and also of linen of different hues, decked out in all the dignity that befits an empress, Isabella shone out so that it was impossible to tell which of all her many adornments would most induce love in the emperor’s heart. All the vessels sent, whether for wine or for food, were cast in completely unalloyed silver and gold, and what seemed almost superfluous to everyone, even the cooking pots, large and small, were of the finest silver.”19 This is a very good description of the type of regality in which royal marriages for a daughter of English royalty was conducted. This passage firmly proves that medieval marriages were important events for wealthy families to display power. Notably, are important symbols of regal power and status. Wendover describes the given to her as “most skillfully crafted from the purest gold and studded with precious stones.”20 A further description by Roger of Wendover alludes to the sheer number and prestige of the escort that is gathered to transport Isabella from England to her new husband. “William, bishop of Exeter, and Ralph, the king’s steward, and other nobles of her household, aristocratic ladies-in-waiting and other high born pages who were all versed in courtly manners and suitable to serve and escort an empress.”21 Isabella’s considerably massive entourage is described by Wendover as including as many “three thousand knights” to see her off as she leaves her life as a princess of England and begins her new one as an Empress. By the large retinue and the carefully selected symbols of power and wealth described by Wendover, we can see that marriages were the perfect time for rulers of medieval society to reinforce their power. It is during the engagement period (February to May 1235) that historical records point to Isabella participating in the “rituals of Queenship” according to Wilkinson by interceding on behalf of her supporters to her brother. High in Henry’s royal favor, Isabella was able to secure a lifetime annual allowance for her nurse Margaret Biset of five marks, for her cook, and her chaplain Alfred Aloet she secured annuities of 50 silver pieces per year.22 One particularly important example that demonstrates that Isabella was a political actor in her own right is seen in Close rolls of the reign of Henry III, a primary record of financial transactions and judgments made during Henry’s reign in which “Hugh de Godeshull was pardoned for debts owed to Jewish moneylenders at Isabella’s request.”23 This demonstrates that Isabella understood and utilized the

18 Roger of Wendover, 54. 19 Ibid. 20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 Oakley-Brown and Wilkinson, 29. 23 "Close rolls of the reign of Henry III," Close rolls of the reign of Henry III, (Great Britain: Public Record Office): https://archive.org/stream/closerollsofreig03grea#page/8/mode/2up. Accessed November 24, 2017. I used Wilkinson's but tracked down the original source in . 8 mechanisms of power available to her. She understood how and when to gain patronage for those who were close to her, a view not often presented by historians. Within the chronicles, several poignant passages suggest that Henry III and Isabella might have held especially great affection for one another. The magnificent crown that Henry gave to his sister as a present held specific religious iconography. Sculpted into the crown of gold were “the four Kings of England who were confessors and and to whom King Henry had especially commended the care of his sister’s soul.”24 It is reasonable to suppose that the stresses and trauma of growing up amidst civil war, death of their father, abandonment of their mother, and the early departure of their sister may have brought the remaining royal heirs of John I, Henry, Richard, and Isabella and Eleanor closer together. In the chronicles, Roger takes a particular note of the emotional good-byes of a brother and sister whose duty to increase the prestige and power of the English royal family and to each other will see them separated. Perhaps there was a sad and solemn knowledge between the siblings that they would likely never see each other in person again.

“The empress and the archbishop of , with the nobles and ladies-in-waiting assigned to her service, embarked on 11 May; the sails of their huge ships unfurled, and they entrusted themselves to the open sea. There were no tears wanting when the king parted from the empress, a brother from a sister.”25

At the onset of her official marriage to Frederick II in May of 1235 in Worms Cathedral, the young Plantagenet Isabella became Isabella of House Staufen, Holy Roman Empress and Queen Consort of Sicily. In this capacity, Carolyne Larrington explains, “marriage created new alliances through the exchange of women, wives continued as social actors, both within the new marital family and within their birth families.”26 A prime example of this comes from Wendover. He writes that as Isabella proudly parades down the streets of Worms, that many of the citizens came forth to glimpse the new wife of their emperor.

“Accompanied by these rejoicing crowds the empress proceeded through the principal streets of the city, which had been decorated in all kinds of way against her arrival; and on, learning that everyone, and especially the noble of the ladies of the city, who sat in the balconies, were desirous of seeing her face, she took her cap and hood from her head, for all to get a sight of her, for doing which everyone praised her, and after they had gazed at her gave her great commendations for her beauty as well as her humility”27

This is perhaps one of the few accounts of Isabella of England in which modern historians get to see her own personality. Details of her personality are largely absent from the historical record, however this piece of The Flowers of History suggests that Isabella was conscious of her actions and actively employed her marriage processional as a display of her own power—perhaps she knew her the power that lay in her feminine beauty— in order to win the affection of the citizens. To what extent did Isabella participate in the government of her husband? In truth, she may have had her political capabilities limited by her much older husband Frederick II who was nearly twice her age and appears to have restricted access to his young wife. However, Wilkinson argues that just because a consort, particularly women in this time, are absent from the historical record does not mean they did not wield power or influence as the legitimate bedfellow of a monarch.

24 Roger of Wendover, 54. 25 Roger of Wendover, 55. 26 Larrington, 35. 27 Roger of Wendover, 56. 9

Roger of Wendover writes that Frederick was pleased with his new bride, “the emperor sent three leopards and other precious gifts to the king of England. He also promised him advice and forces to use against the king of France.”28 While the marriage in all probability did not yield as much return in the long run as Henry might have thought, there was at least on the surface signs of diplomatic success. Historians such as Wilkinson have asserted however, that once Isabella had officially become Empress, Frederick sent the entirety of her retinue home to England and Henry never managed to establish a firm diplomatic hold in the imperial court. One historian and author Nancy Goldstone mentions Isabelle and her husband in Four Queens: the Provencal Sisters Who Ruled Europe, writing that, “An imperial alliance, while prestigious, was also alarmingly expensive. The emperor, whose traveling court included a harem and Arab dancing girls, and so did not need (or particularly want) a wife for romantic purposes,”29 This however, may reflect some of the bias that Anglo-chroniclers had against Frederick II, alleging that he was a duplicitous and secret follower of Islam. What remains absent from the imperial record is what effect Isabella’s English manners had on the rough and hardened Emperor. According to Louise Wilkinson, there is some conflict within the sources about the exact number of children that Isabella gave birth to but at least one son Henry was mentioned explicitly in a letter to Richard of Cornwall and to Henry III announcing the birth of their son.30 In this manner, there is primary evidence that Isabella acts as a link maintaining Anglo-imperial diplomatic relations. She has succeeded in at least one aspect of Queenship and medieval marriage in successfully giving birth to a son. In 1238, two years after her marriage to Frederick, the emperor writes at how pleased he is that “on the eighteenth day of the month of February, a son was born to us from the fruitful womb of our august consort, and a new nephew was given to you. His birth tends to the glory of his father and his uncle, refreshes the joy of his mother, and confirms the hope of our subjects, by this, the sound mutual affection in which we are bound by the ties of affinity, is strengthened, and tends to increase of our prosperity.”31 It is Wilkinson who argues “Frederick treated Isabella’s siblings with courtesy if they travelled through his territories…Such consideration hints at Frederick’s personal regard for Isabella as well as her role as a diplomat for English interests.32 Upon his return from crusade in 1241, Wilkinson records Richard of Cornwall as having spent time among the imperial couple, despite not being granted an immediate audience with his sister. This will be last time anyone from the royal house of England meets personally with Isabella as the records also indicate that her daughter, Margaret, Isabella’s only child to survive until adulthood would be her last born on Dec 1st, 1241. It is accepted by historians that Empress Isabella dies during complications of childbirth and according to a letter sent to Henry III, two months after her death. Wilkinson concludes the biography saying of Isabella, “her untimely end was greeted with appropriately public outpourings of grief within both the empire and her brother’s realm. Frederick himself paid fitting tribute to Isabella by arranging for her posthumous commemoration…Henry III was similarly lavish in his commemoration of his sister” In which Wilkinson goes on to describe how a bereaved Henry arranged for one hundred thousand poor English subjects to be fed in memory of Isabella. Throughout England a great many hungry

28 Ibid. 29 Nancy Bazelon Goldstone, Four Queens: the Provencal Sisters Who Ruled Europe (New York: Penguin Books, 2014). 30 Matthew , ’s English History from the Year 1235 to 1273, 18. (American Libraries): https://archive.org/stream/matthewparissen01rishgoog#page/n134/mode/2up. Accessed January 7, 2018. 31 Matthew Paris, 120. 32 Oakley-Brown and Wilkinson, 34-36. 10 people were given this special charity in her honor in the hopes to secure the “salvation of Isabella’s soul”. 33 Even in the aftermath of her death, Isabella’s political role continued. Ultimately, Isabella of England’s life is a characteristic and telling portrayal of the role that medieval noble women played in society. She represents the sort of middle ground and average person who sometime gets lost in history, but through careful research, and through a close examination of primary source documents details were able to teased out; facts and impressions about her role as a sister, role as a wife, and her role as a forgotten diplomat. Through the study of her life, we are able to see how marriage was an important function to medieval power. The most fitting way in which she is memorialized, which demonstrates her deference Anglo-Sicilian relations, was best summarized by Wilkinson, “Isabella’s continuing personal importance as an intermediary was underlined most fully shortly before her death in in childbirth at on 1 December 1241 [aged just 27] when she urged her husband to look favorably upon her brother, Henry III”.34 Finally, this proves the argument that the medieval relationship between brothers and sisters was an important bond. Isabella’s final words to her husband were of her brother, of her paternal homeland. Despite spending the previous seven years in Italy, Isabella was English at her core, a true scion of the royal house of England. The bond of familial loyalty was one that the Plantagenet dynasty especially relied on in order to maintain their fragile power in politics during thirteenth-century Europe.

33 Ibid. 34 Oakley-Brown and Wilkinson, 36. 11

Blanche of Castile and the Role of the Queen-Regent

Madeline Fine

Blanche of Castile was the Queen of France, and the wife of Louis VIII of France. She was twice the regent for France during the reign of her son Louis IX. Among medieval depictions of Blanche of Castile, particularly that found in Louis IX’s illuminated and in one of Guillaume de -Pathus’s manuscripts, she was recognized as a royal mother who was uniquely qualified to protect the interests of her children. These images demonstrate that Blanche was viewed as a powerful woman, but do not explain why she was seen as a popular secular model of intercessory queenship during medieval France. To understand how she stood out from other rulers of pre-modern France, we will look at how she used gender as a mechanism to define and strengthen her queenship during the thirteenth century. I will write Blanche’s biography by examining the births of her children, her patronage as queen-regent, her experience in marriage brokering, and her ritual roles, proving why she was known to be one of the only female traditional Capetian rulers. From the time she married Louis VIII to her death, Blanche’s practice and function as queen and regent of France gives insight into medieval power and politics. The primary sources I will be discussing are two illustrations of Blanche of Castile. In general, female rulers, including Blanche, were not frequently written about by their contemporaries, in relation to their male counterparts. Luckily, Blanche’s prominence and renowned reputation as queen, and twice regent of France, encouraged the recognition of her efforts. For this reason, some may consider Blanche an exception to the rule that historical accounts only recognize men. As author Theresa Earenfight explains in her book Queenship In Medieval Europe, “It is a mistake, however, to consider these queens the exceptions that prove the rule. For most of the Middle Ages there was no rule, simply an ancient preference for rule by a man.”1 In other words, the unconventional appearance of a powerful female figure in medieval sources did not signify her individual power as a ruler during the Middle Ages. Instead, it tied female figures to their male counterparts, whether husband or son, accrediting men for the women’s hard work, accomplishments, and political influence. The efforts that were recognized by others, as seen in Blanche of Castile’s case, were those done in the instruction and guidance of young kings. The primary sources I chose to analyze the perception of Blanche, illustrate how others understood the job Blanche had as regent of France after Louis VIII died. The sources depict the contemporary notion that the queen’s importance as a mother assured her the important role of guiding the welfare and studies of her children. The first illustration was found in an illuminated Moralized Bible that was owned by Louis IX. This bible could present a bias because it was exceptional; the bible was likely personalized just for Louis IX with the added illustration of his mother. The second illustration is found in a manuscript written by Guillaume de Saint-Pathus. This illustration has the bias of the creator because he must have been impressed by Blanche’s power and role in Louis IX’s life. As a result of the type of sources these illustrations are, special considerations should be made because visual sources can be interpreted very differently by different people. The secondary sources I will be analyzing are Ceremonial Entries, Municipal and the Negotiation of Power in Valois France by Neil Murphy, and “Blanche of Castile and

1 Theresa Earenfight, Queenship in Medieval Europe (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 3.

12

Facinger’s ‘Medieval Queenship’: Reassessing the Argument” by Miriam Shadis. These sources delve into the different factors that described what it was like to be a queen in the Middle Ages. They analyze the extent to which Blanche of Castile deserved to have been renowned by many for being a strategic and motivated regent. For example, Miriam Shadis’ essay serves as a reassessment of an argument made by Marion Facinger in her essay “A Study of Medieval Queenship: Capetian France, 987-1297.” Shadis’ essay challenges most of Facinger’s conclusions about Capetian queens and points out the absence of Blanche of Castile as a figure which would refute most of Facinger’s arguments. The other works go in depth explaining how Blanche was a prominent model of queenship and how she used gender to articulate the way she went about her regency. The combination of the primary and secondary sources mentioned above will aid us in constructing the biography of Blanche of Castile, explaining her life through the eyes of people who lived during her time and historians who have studied her life. To start, the primary sources will give us a better look at how Blanche was perceived by the public, giving insight into her reputation and how her job was understood by the masses. Blanche of Castile was born in Palencia, Castile, Spain in 1188, to her parents Alfonso VIII of Castile and Eleanor, the daughter of Henry II of England. When she was eleven years old, her grandmother Eleanor of brought her to France to marry Louis VIII, the son of King Philip II Augustus and heir to the French throne. The marriage treaty was made to create a truce between England and France to settle disputes over French territories. From soon after the time she was married, to the time she served as regent of France, she bore twelve children, but only five made it to adulthood. She and her husband ruled France beginning in 1223 until he died in 1226, leaving Blanche regent of France and guardian of their children. The oldest male was Louis IX and within three weeks of his father’s death, Blanche had Louis IX crowned in order to secure his position and her influence over French politics. Because Louis was a minor, Blanche maintained a lot of influence over his actions and studies, something that was highly recommended by contemporaries. In fact, when Louis VIII made her regent of France, he did so with little explanation because there was a widespread belief that good government was continued by the help and guidance from mothers who advise their young king- sons. In the illuminated Moralized Bible owned by Louis IX himself, there is an image that is divided into two tiers, the top showing Blanche of Castile sitting next to her son Louis IX, and the bottom showing two scribes working on a page of the bible.2 The mother and son are depicted to be in conversation while the scribes below are working.3 Both are wearing crowns and are sitting on thrones, but Louis is wearing royal regalia, which implies that Blanche is teaching or advising him on affairs of state.4 This implication demonstrates how it was a common notion that a mother’s privileged role as queen was to guide her children because the designation of a regency was a royal prerogative. In addition, one can come to understand her position high up in the illustration to demonstrate not only her royal power, but also the power bestowed on her by God because of her royalty. This draws a connection to the Virgin Mary who was one of the most popular images of purity, grace, and holiness. This depiction of Blanche advising her son supports the idea that as Louis’s mother, Blanche was inherently qualified and highly encouraged to protect the interests of her children. It is her role as the mother of a young

2 “Bible moralisé,” (The Pierpont Library, New York, MS 240, fol. 8r), reproduced in John C. Parsons, Medieval Queenship (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993), 122. 3 Ibid. 4 Ibid. 13 king that gives her the authority of a regent and separates her from other European rulers of the thirteenth century. Another primary source illustration from the time period that gives insight into medieval power and politics comes from a manuscript written by Guillaume de Saint-Pathus. The image depicts Blanche watching over her son getting a lesson from the tutor Saint-Pathus.5 This image shows Blanche on the left side, sitting in a throne.6 To her left she is watching Louis sitting at a desk across from his tutor, as he holds papers in his hands and the tutor is pointing something out or explaining something to him.7 This image refers back to her role as queen and mother to oversee her son’s education.8 The image demonstrates her role and dedication to oversee his learning by her positioning and focus on her son. Again, Blanche is drawn higher than the other two people in the illustration, reiterating her prowess marked by her royal position and experience. To her left, Louis is looking at his papers while he has a halo around his head.9 The angelic symbolism of a halo could signify how much and how quickly he is learning under the guidance of his mother. It could also have a correlation to the baby , showing Louis as the holy son of Blanche, who has been compared to the Virgin Mary. The reiteration of Blanche abiding by her motherly role reinforces the notion that motherhood was a source of political power for women of the royalty. This use of gender to not only produce children, but also oversee their education and upbringing, establishes an even stronger correlation between a mother and her children. In other words, the guidance of one’s royal children gave mothers an outlet of political power. Blanche and other royal women made sure they gave their children the best and most informed upbringings possible so that their children could successfully lead and protect their lands. In Blanche’s role of overseeing her son’s education, she can trust that he will lead a good government, but still count on her if he needs advice. The theme that kings should listen to their royal mothers is shown in these primary sources, and is also reiterated throughout secondary sources. During her son’s minority, Blanche had to deal with French baronial opposition that came about as a result of her late husband’s military expedition to England. She worked endlessly to prove to them her dedication to French interests and not those abroad, while also demonstrating her ability to deal with and convince opposing barons to fulfill their responsibilities to the crown.10 During his minority, Louis depended very heavily on his mother for guidance. In watching over her son’s interests and creating political alliances, Blanche selected Marguerite of to be Louis’s wife. It is postulated that this marriage marked the end of her first term as regent of France, and despite the switch of power her influence over him did not change, but lasted her lifetime. Louis had her join him in council meetings, meet with foreign ambassadors, write letters to citizens of cities requesting their fidelity, and even trusted her to guide him in matters of , policy, and piety.11 According Murphy, “Blanche was held up as a model of queenship and late medieval writers put a strong emphasis on the mediatory role she had with her

5 Guillaume de Saint-Pathus, Vie et miracles de Saint Louis (Paris B. N. Fr. 5716, p.16), reproduced in Parsons, Medieval Queenship (1993), 123. 6 Ibid. 7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 10 Lynn M Johnson, "Blanche of Castile," Salem Press Biographical Encyclopedia Research Starters, (2013), EBSCOhost. Accessed November 30, 2017. 11 Ibid. 14 son.”12 So much so that several municipal councils across the kingdom referenced her in their entries as an example of the model queen for French queens to emulate in the centuries to come.13 On the symbolism of the Virgin Mary, Murphy explains how the empowerment of motherhood for royal women was manifested in the symbolism of the Virgin Mary because communities sought her protection.14 The symbolism of the Virgin Mary was so important that representations of her were incorporated into ceremonial entries, like those Louis brought Blanche to, to encourage royal women to serve as the mediator with the king.15 Just like the primary sources earlier mentioned, Murphy’s entries about her role of being mediator and bringing maternal influence into the king’s dealings tell of how Blanche went above and beyond her given status as wife or mother of a king in order to secure her son’s position and expand her influence. It also is reiterated in Blanche’s involvement in uniting and strengthening their hold on French territories. Upon marriage to King Louis XIII of France, Blanche’s devotion to secure and unify French territories never wavered. In order to keep territories intact and under control, the French crown often ruled with the . This brought along an alliance with Pope Innocent who began the Albigensian Crusade, also known as the Cathar Crusade. In the beginning of the thirteenth century, Pope Innocent III deemed this crusade necessary in order to promote Catholicism and demolish , known to be a vibrant heresy that flourished in southern France.16 During the crusade, the city of Béziers, located in the heart of Cathar territory, was captured and practically massacred because the Crusaders were unable to distinguish the heretics from the real Christians.17 Despite this tragedy, the people of Béziers stayed loyal to the crown then, and again when they were threatened by Raymond Roger ’s siege of . In order to show their loyalty to the crown, they sent a letter to Blanche promising her that they had the same fidelity to her and her son during the revolts of Carcassonne, as they did during the Cathar Crusade, to which she responded. In response, Blanche used her letter to recognize that the citizens had a choice when determining who to give their loyalty to, and both applaud and thank them for their choice. She writes “we thank you for your fidelity, in whose constancy we have hope and faith”, directly thanking them for their loyalty.18 The letter was most likely received with respect and admiration by the citizens. Though this letter was addressed solely to the citizens of Béziers, it could have also been a strategic move, knowing that the letter would be shown to many, including people from other towns. Doing this would make citizens who didn’t show their fidelity to the king disappointed in themselves. In addition, the fact that Blanche even responded to a letter written by commoners, let alone thanking them with “greetings and love”, shows how she personally dealt with assuring longstanding power for her family, and stability over their territories.19 The theme of

12 Neil Murphy, Ceremonial Entries, Municipal Liberties and the Negotiation of Power in Valois France, 1328- 1589 (Leiden: Brill, 2016). 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 Marshall W. Baldwin and Thomas F. Madden, "Albigensian Crusade," Encyclopædia Britannica, May 05, 2010. Accessed October 10, 2017, https://www.britannica.com/event/Albigensian-Crusade. 17 Ibid. 18 "A letter from Blanche of Castile, queen of France (1240)," translated and reproduced online by Epistolae (Columbia University). Accessed October 12, 2017, https://epistolae.ctl.columbia.edu/letter/706.html. 19 Ibid. 15 communities seeking approval from female figures who embody the characteristics of the Virgin Mary is reiterated in this exchange of letters. She begins her letter by saying “Blanche, by the grace of God queen of France, to her beloved citizens and the whole community of Béziers, greetings and love.”20 With this introduction, she immediately correlates herself with God, points out her holy power, and implies similarities between herself and the Virgin Mary. She continues by saying, “That you bear sincere faith towards our beloved son the king and have done so in the past and will do so in the future.”21 This recognizes their past fidelity demonstrating that it did not go unnoticed, and requests their continued fidelity to her son, the beloved king. Her several references to her beloved son the king can also be correlated to Jesus, the son of the Virgin Mary. In addition, it is her proactive support that reigns alongside the Catholic Church that further associated her with divine power. With these references and carefully drafted messages, Blanche harnesses power for herself, her son, the Church, and the kingdom. The connections between the Virgin Mary and Blanche of Castile are endless, for her association with the Virgin Mary aided her in carving her own authority and power in the realm of medieval politics. In 1248, Louis left on the and granted regency to his mother, not his wife, making Blanche regent of France for her second term. According to Miriam Shadis’ essay, “Blanche of Castile and Facinger’s ‘Medieval Queenship’: Reassessing the Argument”, Blanche’s prominence in her second term as regent was shown in the negotiations surrounding the Treaty of Vendome. This treaty secured tentative peace with her opponent, Pierre Mauclerc, who was known for holding the title of Duke of for his son Jean.22 This treaty arranged the marriage of Pierre’s daughter Yolanda, with Blanche’s son Jean.23 She also arranged the marriages of her daughter Isabelle and son Alphonse with a son and daughter of Hugh de Lusignan and Isabelle of Angouleme.24 These treaties were vital in pacifying some of Blanche’s strongest opponents. These marital treaties served as political strategies because it gained her important time in securing the realm for her son while he way away.25 Shadis notes that according to Blanche’s biographer, Elie Berger, “everyone knew then that the treaties of Vendome were Blanche’s work.”26 This goes to show how Blanche’s tactical planning was recognized and respected for her dedication to her son and his realm was unwavering. Shadis’ essay gives us specific details and explanations as to why Blanche was and still is such a dominant figure when looking at royal women and regency. With this said, Shadis explains how her “access to French rule as the king’s mother is not best understood in the usual terms of a regency of a minor or absent king, but more clearly understood in the ancient Capetian tradition of morale between generations”.27 This means that unlike a less-involved queen or regent who solely sees her position as being the wife of a king, Blanche took it upon herself to make France and its territories the best it could be, and in that, providing her son and generations to come with the best futures possible. The term Capetian tradition is not usually referenced to any female leaders because it was an exclusively male phenomenon.28 This is to say that Blanche in fact can

20 Ibid. 21 Ibid. 22 Miriam Shadis, “Blanche of Castile and Facinger’s “Medieval Queenship”: Reassessing the Argument,” in Capetian Women, edited by Kathleen Nolan (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003). 23 Ibid. 24 Ibid. 25 Ibid. 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibid. 16 be compared to traditional male leaders of the , where the heir to the throne usually looked up to what their father accomplished during his time in power, but instead Louis IX looked up to Blanche and her efforts. Shadis continued her essay by explaining the special place gender had in the access to power in medieval Europe. She explains, “During the Middle Ages, routes to power were gendered. Medieval rulers could achieve lordship through election, succession, conquest, and marriage, but medieval woman became queens in two ways”: inheriting the throne, and marrying the throne’s occupant.29 This shows how many more options men had when trying to find a way to power. The ways in which women became queens were either inheriting the throne from a deceased male relative as the last option, or marrying the heir to the throne, thereby limiting her access to power. When comparing these dismal options to what Blanche accomplished, it can be seen how she demonstrated one avenue of becoming a queen, but went above and beyond to keep and expand her power as regent, and secure her son’s position. The ways by which she kept and established her power was through her unique positioning as a female, for there was more to Blanche’s queenship than her familial relations to kings. Shadis explains in her essay that adulthood was an important aspect of queenship because it signified the ability to reason, govern maturely, and because it represented reproductive potential and motherhood.30 Motherhood, in other words, would combine a queen’s practical role of reproducing and political significance of being able to help govern a realm and raise children to eventually take over that realm.31 Blanche covered all angles of what was expected of a successful queen and more. Shadis explained that during the 23 years in between her marriage to Louis VIII and their accession to the throne, and even during his three-year ruling, Blanche fulfilled her primary role in providing royal heirs, for which she had significantly more successful pregnancies than any other Capetian queen.32 While dealing with the physical demands of motherhood, Shadis explains that Blanche truly did stay present in the public sphere and did not give up on her duties as queen.33 She didn’t withdraw from politics like Facinger argued, but instead Blanche used her motherhood “to pawn her own children to raise the money to fund Louis’s campaign in England”.34 In addition, it was through her children that Blanche bonded to the French court.35 This is to say that through her unique position as a mother, she opened a political space for herself and won prominence over and respect from other lords of France.36 According to Shadis, “Louis VIII’s and Louis IX’s preference for her as regent suggests that the political space she created for herself enabled her successful rule”.37 This proves how motherhood was an essential step in establishing her political identity. In addition, Shadis mentioned that while running the household, she bought jewels not just for adornment, but also for gifts to bind the recipient to the king; ergo, reinforcing her role as mediator.38 Her clever manipulation of material culture and position as a royal representative was a sign of patronage that was open to women but not achieved by all. These actions give insight into how queens gained medieval power beyond the status of being married to a king or an heir.

29 Ibid. 30 Ibid. 31 Ibid. 32 Ibid. 33 Ibid. 34 Ibid. 35 Ibid. 36 Ibid. 37 Ibid. 38 Ibid. 17

Before her son could return from his crusade, Blanche died in 1252 from falling ill during a period of working to maintain peace and send her son money in the East. Her portrayal as a powerful regent who went beyond many other royal women to secure a future for her son and carry on her husband’s legacy can be seen in the analyses of other historians. The use of her gender to demand respect and finagle prowess proved that there was a spot for royal women in medieval politics, and refutes the idea that medieval power was completely male-dominated in the thirteenth century. Blanche of Castile’s experiences as queen during her children’s births, her patronage, marriage brokering, and her ritual roles of being mediator show the practice and function of successful queenship during the thirteenth century. All of these experiences were achieved by the use of her gender as an avenue to harness power and respect. This analysis fits with the arguments of several other historians who also believe her special position as a royal woman who could produce children gave her political power in medieval Europe.

18

Religion and Family: Louis IX and Rulership in Medieval Europe

Kelly Northcraft

Louis IX, also known as Saint Louis, was the King of France and the husband of Marguerite of Provence. Among medieval sources, particularly in ’s biography, he was portrayed as a powerful religious ruler who was dedicated to Christian virtues and relied on consultation with family members and close advisors. Modern writers have a pretty similar view and show the importance of the men around Louis IX and his participation in the . These perspectives can help us get a pretty good idea of who Louis IX was as a person and how important religion and family connections were to medieval power and politics. Louis kept his family close in addition to key people in the community and church, resulting in him being a very powerful and important ruler in the thirteenth century. In this essay, I will use evidence from biographers and chroniclers as well as a primary source from Louis IX himself to his son Phillip III to argue that connections to family members and important community members in addition to and Christian values are important to medieval rulership and the structure of medieval power and politics. The first primary source that I have chosen is Louis IX’s advice to his son Philip III about how to rule the kingdom after he takes over as king. This is a good choice to illustrate the theme of my essay because Louis points out the importance of being devoted to both the church and to family members to rule in a way that is just and best for the kingdom. This source is also important because even if Louis didn’t actually write down the advice it does provide insight as to the importance of things like the church and familial ties. This source is a letter that was from Louis IX to his son Philip III so there can be a bias in the fact that during this time it is well known that these letters would be seen by people other than just their correspondent. There is also, as I previously mentioned, the fact that someone else may have actually been writing down the letter. However, it is still a good source because it reveals some important things that a young king needs to know to be a good ruler and we can be pretty certain that these views are fairly consistent with what Louis IX thought was important for medieval rulership. The other primary source that I will be looking at in this essay is Jean de Joinville’s medieval biography of Louis IX. This is a good source because it is by a well-known medieval biographer and it provides insight as to how Louis IX was seen at the actual time of his rule. This source is also important in showing how the crusades were important to Louis’ rule and show his connection with Christianity. This source is a biography, so it is important to note that it only includes the major events in Louis’ life and after his life when he was canonized as a saint. This means it will not include detailed information about less important events and more local matters. However, it is still a good source because the information is being written down shortly after the events occurred and therefore will probably be more accurate than a modern biography written many years after the occurrences. The secondary sources I will be looking at include four different sources, two of them are from William Jordan and the other two sources are from Jacques Le Geoff and Fred S. Kleiner. The book Men at the Center: Redemptive Governance under Louis IX from Jordan looks at the men who were positioned around Louis IX in the framework of medieval power and politics. This connects to my theme of the importance of family connections in ruling a kingdom in medieval Europe. The book Louis IX and the Challenge of the Crusade: A Study in Rulership 19 from Jordan looks at the crusades and Louis IX as a saintly Christian ruler. This will tie into my argument about the importance of religion to rulership and specifically the crusades. The book Saint Louis from Le Geoff will be more important in offering background for the context of my primary sources and providing biographical information about Louis IX. This is important in providing the backbone of my paper by giving details about Louis’s life when they are needed. The last book, Gardner’s Art Through the Ages: A Global History, is interesting because it is an analysis of a medieval painting of Louis IX. This ties into the importance of religion and the depiction of medieval figures regarding them being holy beings endowed by God with rulership. My theme has not been ignored by historians and in fact many of the sources I mentioned above have a similar goal of trying to prove either the importance of religion or the importance of political and familial connection to rulership. I would say that my sources agree with me about the importance of religion and connections in ruling a medieval kingdom. They have looked at my sources from different viewpoints though, such as by looking at art and by looking at people around Louis rather looking directly at Louis himself. Therefore, I will be using these sources to back up my argument and provide additional insight from new perspectives. To summarize, I am going to use the sources mentioned above to prove that religion and connections ranging from familial to political are important to the concept of medieval rulership. The rest of my essay will look at the two primary sources in great detail and use the four secondary sources to provide support and background information that will help to prove my thesis. In this endeavor my goal is to prove that religion and family connections were not only employed by Louis IX, but they were important to the broader context of medieval rulership as a whole. We will begin by looking at a source from Louis IX himself in the form of a letter written to his son Phillip III about what to do when he takes over as king. Louis was married in 1234 at 19 years old to Marguerite of Provence after the pope lifted the ban on consanguine marriages (marriages between two people who are closely related) due to the “urgent and clearly useful necessity for a union that would help to bring peace to a region ravaged by heresy and the war against heretics.”1 This shows the importance from the beginning of this marriage as both a religious union and political union. This is important in light of the primary source I’m about to discuss because since Louis’ marriage was a religious and political union it makes sense that in his letter to his son he tells him to respect the authority of God and also to respect ties to family members. When looking at this letter from Louis IX to his son Phillip III you can clearly see the influence of Louis’s own life in what he is telling his son. This helps prove my point that religion and strong family connections are important in medieval rulership because Louis IX married for these reasons and clearly thinks it is working out well enough that he advises his son to follow in his footsteps. In this analysis, we will be looking at St. Louis’s letter to his son Philip III which gives the prince some advice about how to rule when he becomes king. In this source Louis IX focuses heavily on religion due to his highly religious nature. Louis wants to make sure the kingdom remains holy after his death and stresses to his son the importance of being “Devoted to the Church of ”.2 He also stresses the importance of keeping family happy in being a good ruler. He advises to Philip to have “Love and reverence [for] your father and your mother” as well as to “Love your brothers, and always wish their well-being and their good advancement”.3

1 Jacques Le Geoff, Saint Louis (Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2009), 86. 2 Louis IX to Phillip III, in Internet Medieval Sourcebook, edited by Paul Halsall (New York: Fordham University, 1996), sec. 31. 3 Ibid, sec. 24-25. 20

Louis IX assumes that religion is key to ruling a kingdom and that pleasing the church and God were both crucial factors to being a good king. A lesser assumption Louis makes in the document is that pleasing your family (specifically his parents and brothers) is important to ruling. This shows the importance of familial ties to Louis and gives insight into how power relationships work between father and sons before and after the heir takes over. Philip was even told to in the letter “be to them in the place of a father” after he becomes king.4 Therefore, this primary source shows that religion and familial ties were essential to medieval power and politics. Often in the medieval period religion and politics were intertwined, as the rulers frequently felt that their power was given to them by God. Therefore, it would make sense that Louis IX would advise his son to rule by following strict religious guidelines. Louis tells Philip to “fix [his] whole heart upon God” and “shun everything which you believe to be displeasing him”.5 This stresses the fact that God should be in complete control of what a ruler does and that acting in any way contrary to God should not even be considered. Louis warns against making war unnecessarily and states that if war needed to be made and the person asks for mercy “[He] ought to pardon him, and accept his amends, so that God may be pleased with [Him].”6 This shows how a good ruler should try not to make war and must try to settle matters peacefully if possible. This is looked upon by God as being the proper way to deal with conflict when it arises to maintain peace. Louis additionally advises Philip to “Love dearly the clergy… by whom God is most honored and served”.7 Louis wants Philip to pay specific attention to what the clergy wants because they are the Godliest people and would know best what God wants for the kingdom. Throughout Louis’s letter to his son he emphasizes the importance of following the will of God as that is essential to him being a fair and just ruler over the kingdom. Another essential component to being a good ruler is to keep your family happy because your power is rooted in familial ties. These ties are very important when it comes to making political deals and without the support of family ruling can become very difficult. Louis tells his son to “willingly remember and keep [his parents’] commandments, and be inclined to believe their good counsels”8 This is important in pointing out that Philip’s power comes from Louis’s power (and Louis’s from God) and Philip should listen to what his parents believe is right and what their “good counsels” instruct. Philip is told, regarding his brothers, “to instruct them in all good. But be watchful lest, for the love which you bear to one you turn aside from right doing, and do to the others that which is not meet”.9 This is important because Philip, as the oldest and as king, needs to teach his brothers the way of God. However, he must be careful not to show one more love than another because it creates unnecessary conflict within the kingdom that will interfere with Philip’s ability to rule efficiently. These combined factors show how important family was in the realm of medieval power and politics. Without the respect of your family how will you earn the respect of your subjects? Secondary authors who have discussed themes relevant to this primary source include Jordan’s work Louis IX and the challenges of the crusade: A study in rulership and Kleiner’s Gardner’s Art through the Ages. In Jordan’s work we see a very similar portrayal of Louis IX as a pious ruler who puts God and Christianity above all else, this is seen by the fact that his

4 Ibid, sec. 25. 5 Ibid, sec 3-4. 6 Ibid, sec 28. 7 Ibid, sec 23. 8 Ibid, sec 24. 9 Ibid, sec 25. 21

“expenditures for religious devotion were enormous” and that “confiscations of money and property” went to either the crusade or to the “charitable uses of bishops.”10 This supports what Louis said in his letter to his son about putting God above all else because Louis is putting all of his wealth back into religion in order to serve God as God has served him. Kleiner’s book describes Louis as being a personification of the “chivalric virtues of courage, loyalty, and self- sacrifice” and refer to him as having “the best qualities of the Christian Knight, the benevolent monarch, and the holy man.”11 This is relevant to this source because Louis tells his son to be loyal to his family, “have a pitiful heart for the poor”, and in suits against him “be always for him and against yourself.”12 Crucial to medieval power and politics are the obedience of God and strong family connections. A ruler needs to follow the rule of God because that’s where his right to rule comes from. Good rulers listen to religious authorities and try to maintain peace throughout the kingdom by only going to war when it is absolutely necessary to go. Familial ties are another important factor that every good king should pay attention to. In the spirit of having an orderly kingdom it is important to make sure to not upset your father or brothers. Your father oversees you and ultimately your power and authority to rule is because of him and in turn because of God. Therefore, upsetting him could result in him taking away power from you. Brothers need to be loved equally so as to not have a rebellion or fight for the throne. They need to respect the king’s authority and right to rule to not cause internal troubles within the kingdom. To be a good ruler you must pay close attention to God and to your family. These themes can be seen throughout the letter that Louis IX wrote to his son as while as in the secondary sources discussed above. This section helps us to understand who Louis IX was because religion and family were both an important part of Louis’s life and thus important to his kingship respectively. Due to his religious and familial nature Louis gave his son advice that made sense for someone with those views. Louis spent a large part of his life on crusades and taking part in religious devotion because he truly believed in the concept of God above all else. Louis also devoted a large amount of his time keeping up with familial and political alliances because he believed that it was essential to be a good ruler. Louis IX saw these things as essential to medieval power and politics in the thirteenth century and I completely agree with him. Now we will look at another primary source from Jean de Joinville who was a medieval biographer. Louis IX lived his entire life acting in accordance with Christianity and was rewarded posthumously by being given the designation of saint. This was due to his extreme piety during his lifetime and his extreme amount of worship that “encompassed all the existing forms of devotion: services, confession, communion… and ascetic practices.”13 Louis also made sure to “instruct himself in matters of religion despite not being an intellectual.”14 This shows just how important religion was to Louis and how it was a core value to him. This is important to the primary source I am about to discuss because it discusses the crusades in great detail and shows Louis’ strong connection with Christianity. When looking at the dialogue between Joinville and Louis it is clear that Louis places a high value on faith and on respecting God. This is important

10 William Chester Jordan, Louis IX and the Challenge of the Crusade: A Study in Rulership (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979), 183-184. 11 Fred S. Kleiner, Gardner’s Art Through the Ages: A Global History (Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2013), 385. 12 Louis IX, sec. 9 and 19. 13 Le Geoff, 610. 14 Ibid, 617. 22 to my thesis because Louis believed his power was ordained by God and therefore places a high level of importance on religiosity for ruling a medieval kingdom. In this primary source it is important to note that the author actually knew Louis IX on a personal level and is not writing from an outside point of view. The purpose of this work is to inform the audience of his experience when he was with Louis IX on one of his crusades to show the piety and selflessness of the king. The tone is very personal and sincere as he describes what Louis did and said during their time together. The language is very simple and makes use of humor making it a more personal account of Louis’s holiness rather than a standard biography full of facts of exactly what happened during the crusade or after the fact. The main message that Joinville is trying to get across is that Louis was a really great king because of his benevolence and Godly nature. An example that shows Louis’s belief that God set an example for us to follow and that you shouldn’t question God is seen when he says “You should never scorn to do what our Lord Himself did as an example for us. So, I beg you, first for the love of God and then for the love of me, to accustom yourself to washing the feet of the poor.”15 He feels so strongly for God that he felt that if “anything in [his] heart or [his] body that is displeasing to Him, shall [be gotten] rid of without delay.”16 This is very similar to what Louis said to his son in the letter he wrote him. A secondary source that discusses relevant themes is Jordan’s Men at the Center of Redemptive Governance. This book relates to the primary source by showing the redemptive quality of Louis IX’s Christian rulership and also showing the importance of people surrounding the king. In the book, Jordan uses the men whom Louis encountered to show Louis’s pious and caring nature and to show the fact that Louis lived by the motto “A king should imitate Christ, do justice, and preserve peace among Christians.”17 This is important because it shows just how important religion is to ruling in a manner that is just and right. This is key to once again proving my thesis to be an accurate assessment of qualities required to be an effective medieval ruler. Louis’ pious nature was inarguably essential to his rulership seeing as he acted in accordance with Christianity in everything he did and how he was even named a saint after he died. It is clear through the sources I have discussed above that Louis loved religion so much that he always made sure people knew what God did for them and told them they needed to appreciate God. He also demonstrated model behavior of a good Christian ruler which explains why he can’t stress enough the importance of God when he wrote his letter to his son. This section helps to understand the nature of Louis IX from a person who actually knew him and spent a fair amount of time from him. This is reliable for understanding how Louis lived his day to day life in order to best serve God and Christianity. This attitude towards God helped Louis lead an effective kingdom as a benevolent and kind ruler, this shows just how much influence religion can have on the effectiveness of a ruler in thirteenth century Europe. Now we will bring things to a close by reviewing the most important points we have discussed. Louis IX lived a holy life starting from the day he was born, and he was brought up with a good Christian education and a good understanding of kingship from an early age. This holy life placed him historically connected to the church and to high officials in the community. This led to the balance of Christianity and the importance of keeping close family connections in

15 Joinville & Villehardouin, Chronicles of the Crusades, translated by M.R.B. Shaw (England: Penguin Books, 1963), 169. 16 Joinville & Villehardouin, 172. 17 William Chester Jordan, Men at the Center: Redemptive Governance under Louis IX (Budapest, Hungary: Central European University Press, 2012), 102. 23 order to have a secure kingdom. These values were ingrained in Louis’s self and in the concept of medieval rulership during that period because you had to have connections religiously, politically, and hereditarily in order to create an effective kingship. My portrayal of Louis IX as a pious man surrounded by many family members and advisors to help him rule is not unlike many of the sources I have looked at and discussed above. Some of the sources look at Louis as he was seen in art or interaction with other important people around him which is different from how I mostly looked at him personally. The most important evidence is Louis’s specific instructions to his son Philip to rule with devotion to the church and reverence for his parents and respect for his siblings. This clearly proves my thesis that the concept of familial ties and religion are connected to running a medieval kingdom in a smooth fashion. The other primary source is good for showing Louis from a more personal perspective that gives us more details on his strong devotion to Christianity by looking at things he would say and do on a daily basis. This is proving just how dedicated Louis was to Christianity and how that dedication led to him being and strong a capable ruler. My argument fits pretty flawlessly with the arguments of the other authors I have discussed in the paper because they focus a lot on the crusades and on the political connections Louis had and use it to argue that these aspects of rulership made Louis a good king. Other rulers who followed these same guidelines were sure to be a good ruler by the standards of medieval power and politics. Further questions could be asked about how far reaching this effect of family connections and religion reached during the medieval times and how important other factors were in relation to the ones I’ve already mentioned. Although this would be an interesting topic to consider, I feel that my essay has proved my thesis about the importance of family and Christianity to Medieval rulership. Therefore, I will leave this topic to be investigated further in the future by other scholars and intellectuals that come after me.

24

Richard Marshall: Political and Social Ideology

Cameron Rough

Born in 1191 to William Marshal, the 1st and regent to King Henry III, Richard Marshal grew up alongside his brother the 2nd Earl of Pembroke, owning lands in Longueville, , and .1 Although much of his life, particularly his childhood, is not well documented, he would later gain power with his inheritance of the office of the Earl of Pembroke and Lord Marshal of England from his brother;2 this inheritance would lead to the increased inclusion of the new Earl in the royal court, and further lead to the activity of the Earl in serving the king through the court, while attempting to administer to his own lands as well as preserving the inherited lands of his late brother, which, as will be explored, came under threat of reduction from King Henry III. Most notably in his life, Richard Marshal was the primary belligerent and leader of the Marshal Rebellion in England which took place from 1233-1234. This paper will examine a selection of sources largely based around the Marshal Rebellion (documentation of the life of Richard Marshal outside of the rebellion are lacking) including the Fine Rolls, the financial records of the royal court which display the contrasting viewpoints of the king and Marshal during the rebellion. While most modern historians follow the portrayal of Marshal as a hero, borrowing from the main narrative source of Roger of Wendover's Flowers of History, Orphen’s Ireland Under the provides a rare opposing view on Marshal’s actions shared only by the royal documents. Radding’s “The Origins Of Bracton's Addicio De Cartis” follows the more traditional approach. Roger of Wendover's Flowers of History, as edited by Mathew Paris following the author’s death is a chronicle of the events of the Marshal Rebellion. Paris, usually critical of Marshal, provides an account of the Earl’s actions which describe the honor and tragedy of a rebellion against a tyrannical king. All of these sources are put into conversation with Weiler’s Kingship, Rebellion and Political Culture: England and Germany, c. 1215 - c. 1250, which provides a mostly unbiased portrayal of the events of the Marshall Rebellion, though he does take some liberties with the informal explanation of the relations of the king and Marshal through metaphorical comparison, revealing the events that occurred because of the king’s and the Earl’s actions. Bringing all of this together, I will show that the rebellion was portrayed very differently by the two sides, but that surprisingly, the Marshal’s view of himself as a hero standing up for won out in the public consciousness despite the fact that he was defeated on the battlefield. This shows that in medieval power and politics, public memory was more complex than the common notion that “history is written by the winners”. In doing so, Richard Marshal will serve as an example for a richer understanding of the relationship between medieval monarchs and the public, and the methods that rulers employed to construct these relationships. The contrasting perception of Richard Marshal’s actions as recorded by contemporary documents originating from government chanceries and public records exemplifies this. Further, Marshal is an example of growing nationalist sentiment in thirteenth-century England as a result of discontent with foreign influence at the royal. The way Marshal was portrayed by his supporters tells us how a medieval audience imagined justice, loyalty, and honor. With the relatively small amount of historical research available on the life or

1 "Earl Richard Marshall 3rd of Pembroke." 2017. Venitap.Com. http://www.venitap.com/Genealogy/WebCards/ps39/ps39_038.htm. 2 Ibid. 25 even rebellion of Richard Marshal, the themes and questions that will be explored in this paper have been ignored by other historians, who have covered the material and context of the rebellion but have not examined specifically the more intricate political and social aspects of the conflict nor how these details are outlined especially by the actions of Richard Marshal, including his usefulness in the exploration of such a topic. Examining the available information and exploring the provided sources will piece together a more complete view of Marshal’s life and how his actions outlined both broader and more intricate underlying social and political ideologies of the time. As stated above, the life of Marshal prior to his assumption of the office of the Earl of Pembroke and Lord Marshal is briefly documented and uneventful save for the death of his father and, later, brother, leading to his rise to power. During his time as the Earl and during the reign of King Henry III (1216-1272), a series of political dealings between the king and European neighbors over perceived English territories such as those in Northern France, and the consolidation of power through political marriage, in particular with France, lead to an increased presence of foreigners within the royal court who held considerable influence over the king.3 The monarch not only abided by the advice of these courtiers, but notably elected Poitevin to a powerful office of the land as Bishop of ,4 in addition to allowing the presence of the Bishop’s cousin Peter de Rivaux as a courtier. Des Roches was not only a foreigner but had previously opposed Richard's father William, when William was regent for the young Henry III.5 This led to rivalry between Richard Marshal and the Bishop, and played a major part in the reasoning behind the coming rebellion. Throughout his tenure, Des Roches also maintained a fierce rivalry with the of England and influential member of the King’s court Hubert de Burgh; this antagonism continued until des Roches was able to remove the Justiciar from office and eventually also imprison him by calling for a financial investigation into de Burgh. De Burgh’s imprisonment is important as it signifies the attempts at consolidation of influence by foreign members of the court, particular des Roches, and would have caused further discontent within the public with the state of the king’s court. As a pretext specifically to analysis of Richard Marshal’s relationship to the king, the context behind the rebellion, and the social and political implications of the conflict, it is important to understand the precedent already set by the royal court. Throughout his reign, King Henry III attempted to consolidate his power in a strong court to effectively administer the kingdom. In his endeavors to do so he increasingly restricted the power of his barons relative to the court, replacing their presence with foreign courtiers such as Peter des Roches and de Rivaux as previously mentioned. The question of baronial rule and lordship and the place of kingly rule became prominent as the king increasingly relied on foreigners within his court. This strained relations between the King’s court and his barons, and provided an already strained background from which Richard Marshal would further be provoked. Richard Marshal grew up largely in France, but the redistribution of power and land by King Henry III through international deals (most often through marriage) left the lands administered by Marshal as part of the inheritance of his brother the late William Marshal, 2nd Earl of Pembroke, in danger of being severely curtailed.6 As one of the entrusted keepers of

3 Bjorn Weiler, Kingship, Rebellion, and Political Culture: England and Germany, c.1215-c.1250 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007), 18. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 6 Ibid. 26

Hubert de Burgh after his imprisonment in 1232,7 the efforts of the Marshal were largely unrecognized, and the King’s repeated actions in ruling in favor of Marshal’s opponents on matters of land and income only increased the discontent of the Earl and strained his relationship with the court further, resulting in his withdrawal from the court. In 1233, upon receiving the request of King Henry III to attend his court at Oxford, Richard refused to obey the command for fear of his adversary des Roches and the treachery of the foreign advisors in the King's Court.8 His absence at court angered Henry, who in that year declared him a traitor and took out several fines against him and several others, including Gilbert Basset and William Ferrers, who would become allies of Marshal during the rebellion.9 Here is seen the first example of the context provided by Marshal that outlines the disparity between the king's court and the people. King Henry’s rule, as with the rule of all English Kings, balanced upon careful application and distribution of power. Unlike the empires of his contemporaries, the economic, ideological, and political heart of Henry’s kingdom were all located in England, thus a drop in one of these aspects could lead to a drop in the others as a result of loss of popularity and vice versa. Thus, it was imperative to maintain positive public image, and to portray threats to royal rule as traitorous regardless of the context or reasoning behind the opposition. With this understanding, we can then analyze the Marshal’s actions in revealing the standing of the king in the view of his court and in that of his people. The Royal English Chancery, throughout the reign of King Henry III, recorded the various political and socioeconomic dealings concerning the king, useful among these and examined herein are the Fine Rolls, a collection of financial records detailing the fines owed the king and the concessions the king would grant in return. The Fine Rolls, and the events recorded therein by the English Chancery throughout the reign of King Henry III of England and concerning the Marshall Rebellion, provide an account of the events of the rebellion from the royal point of view, and act as a political message from the king by those who directly record his actions and who answer to him. Records 311-315 of the Fine Rolls present the events of the Marshal Rebellion in short and concise order, detailing the financial results of the actions of both parties. Record 311 specifically outlines the basis for the proceeding fines levied and it is here that the bias of royal organization can be analyzed. As part of his rebellion, Richard Marshal, Earl of Pembroke at this time, took control of several castles, barricading them from the king’s access and from his forces. Despite these actions being treasonous to the rule of Henry III, as was the nature of rebellion, they represented defiance of the supposed tyranny and corruption of Henry and his court, which favored foreigners over the country’s people, and portrayed Marshal as a hero. Particularly, the case of the freeing of Hubert de Burgh by Richard Siward, an ally of Marshal’s, demonstrated the incompetence of Henry's forces once more.10 Despite these facts, the Fine Rolls record a rather different view of the events that took place. They presume Richard Marshal to be an anarchist and antagonist of both the king’s court and the people of England. They describe the Marshal’s acts as “seizures” and being done directly with “hostile intent toward the king”. The emotive nature of this entry clearly portrays Marshal as a villain against the peaceful and righteous king. When ordered to put himself and his men at the king’s mercy,

7 Charles M. Radding, "The Origins of Bracton's Addicio De Cartis". Speculum 44, 2 (1969): 244. 8 Weiler. 9 Fine Rolls of Henry III: 17 HENRY III (28 October 1232–27 October 1233). [online] Available at: http://www.finerollshenry3.org.uk/content/calendar/roll_032.html#it311_003 [Accessed 2 Oct. 2017]. 10 Weiler. 27 the Fine Rolls note that “neither the earl nor any of his men cared to come to the king,” attempting to exaggerate the king’s mercy as infinite and his time as short for what can justifiably be considered the biggest threat to his rule of the time. Entry 311 lacks details as to the consent or willingness of the residents of the seized lands but rather surmises their helplessness at the hands of the cruel Richard Marshal, again utilizing emotive word choice.11 The bias presented within this source indicates some key points about the king. Primarily, the king intended for these documents, once read by the public, to be a representation of his rule and his desire to promote his ideology of power both to his contemporaries and, through the understanding that these records are kept after death as had historically happened, for posterity. The events of the time and that of historical accounts clearly opposing the king's actions had to be offset by the king’s subtle promotion of his rule through royal documents, even within the financial records not likely to be explored as deeply as most other materials. This dedication to providing a positive view of the king at such a specific level suggests that the writers believed the king would angered by an objective account of events rather than an obviously biased portrayal in the king’s favor, further suggesting the major insecurity of the king to scrutiny and a bad public image of his reign, understandable given the bleak view given by the events of his rule at this time and the public's opinion of him. The events that took place as part of the Marshal rebellion and the information we gain from them are made more interesting by the observation that had bitterness not existed between Marshal and des Roches, it is likely the former would not have absconded court and thus been declared a traitor, leading to the rebellion. In 1234, with the need of the king to make peace quickly with Marshal and the Marshal’s own plans to continue his campaign, a truce was agreed upon. Richard Marshal agreed to end hostilities with the King’s forces upon the removal of Peter de Rivaux, the nephew of Bishop Peter des Roches, from the royal court. Des Roches himself also fell out of favor at this time due in part to his long rivalry with Marshal’s ally and former Justiciar Hubert de Burgh. The end of the rebellion on the terms of decreased foreign influence in court reflected not only the reasoning behind the rebellion as a whole but also a growing nationalist sentiment within England. Throughout the rebellion Marshal drew support from the public as he succeeded in his quests against what is noted by Weiler as a corrupt, tyrannical king. The ideology behind the rebellion was at its base the result of xenophobic feelings against the influence of foreigners who were not truly loyal to England. Following the close of the rebellion and the resolution of conflict between the King and Richard Marshal, a new threat arose when the Marshal’s brothers fell into strife with the King’s supporters in Ireland. Despite the truce reached just prior with King Henry III, Richard Marshal chose to assist his brothers in Ireland. His choice makes clear that despite the success of his campaign in achieving its political goals, the Marshal was protective, and easily provoked into violence, this nature lends itself to his involvement in the Marshal Rebellion and possibly to a predisposition to violence somewhat admired by a population tired of corruption within the royal court, preferring the spontaneity of aggressive action to solve their problems. In 1234 Richard Marshal crossed to Ireland to assist his brothers and the Llewelyn in the conflict. During the struggle, at the Battle of the Curragh, the Earl was mortally wounded and taken to his castle, where he died of his wounds 15 days later.12 Richard Marshal’s

11 Fine Rolls. 12 Maurice Powicke and George Norman Clark, The Thirteenth Century, 1216-1307 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998). 28 death was mourned by the people of England, who had lost a symbol that stood up to tyrannical rule, yet was heralded by Henry III, who rewarded Marshal’s opponents for their part in his death. Examining the rebellion and Marshal’s actions, it is reasonable to infer that the Earl’s tactical knowledge and ability to utilize and rally the public to his cause would have only provided further strife to the king,13 and possibly a real danger to his monarchy in England. His death also gave a boost to the ideology Richard Marshal represented, des Roches was rumored to have instigated the conflict that drew Marshal to his death,14 this lead to increased distaste for the presence of foreign courtiers and played a part also in the rise again of Hubert de Burgh, opponent of des Roches and newfound ally of the late Marshal. Throughout the life of Richard Marshal documented by historians, he acted to preserve the justice and responsibility of royal rule through the inclusion of baronial rule and the blocking of consolidation of power by the king and foreigners within the court. His actions fostered nationalistic pride and, more than likely, some xenophobia in England. His rebellion was the conflict between monarch and people coming to a head and through the lens of source analysis, the underlying knowledge of the king of his public standing, his desire to be justified, and failure to admit he was wrong point to a sensitive, unstable government, and that those working within did not believe in its stability in the face of further public opposition (as evidenced by the biased records on all levels recording the incident, including financial documents not contemporarily relied on for historical information). The royal court of Henry III was arguably almost collapsed by Richard Marshal and his allies, and only his death in Ireland saved Henry further embarrassment. Nationalism has long been a major proponent of change throughout the world, discontent finds an outlet most often in blaming those who are different; the success of Richard Marshal in his rebellion and in gaining the support of the people lay within these ideals. Whether openly acknowledged or not, on some level the public of the time must have possessed this dissatisfaction with foreign influence and were openly unhappy with the king, thus through examination of Marshal’s life we find evidence of both private, royal sentiment and the greater underlying social beliefs of the country. Although ultimately unsuccessful in his most direct goal in the rebellion, the sharing of power by the king, which was largely reconsolidated by the king. Historians who have provided insight into Richard Marshal’s life have presented a similar view on the Earl as is supported within this paper: that the man served as an excellent example of justice and accountability of the royal court to its barons and to its people, loyalty to individual and group ideology in opposing contradictory rule, and the honor of doing so. Indeed, honor has played a major role in the success of the Marshal, further allowing him to represent the ideals and goals of the public as an honor-bound public servant protecting the people against a tyrannical king. Despite this, historians have stopped just short of exploring the implications of Richard’s actions, and therefore the value of his place and part in the rebellion is not realized, nor are the conclusions drawn in this paper reflected as true from the sources used. Likely, historians would agree with this analysis if presented in the context of other information pointing to the same conclusion at this time. Historians have yet to fully explore this path and may not do so for some time, however, the information presented from the culmination of various reliable primary and secondary sources in this paper should be utilized alongside other historical research in investigating social and political standings and beliefs of the time. Does this growing sense of nationalism within the country present a threat to other, more local rulers? Can disruptions in

13 Weiler. 14 Roger of Wendover's Flowers of History, (London: G. Bell & Sons, 1892), 566-581. 29 monarchial rule or public peace be traced back to this sentiment? Does the public find another representative of their ideology after Richard Marshal is martyred and how are their beliefs reflected in similar movements throughout history? How does this reflect more subtly aspects of the social and political dogma of the time? These questions, while having yet to be answered within the context of the information presented here, may help lead historians to better understanding of power and politics, as well as the inclusion of public and power ideology throughout the medieval period and beyond.

30

Pope Gregory IX Enforces Conformity in Medieval Western Europe

Lainey Williams

Ugolino di Conti was elected by the College of Cardinals in 1227. He took the name Pope Gregory IX and remained the leader of the Holy See until his death in 1241. The thirteenth century was the beginning of a generation of Christians who placed a greater emphasis on the salvation of their individual souls; this view was not condoned by the leaders of the Church.1 The thirteenth century was also a time when rulers felt that their divine right to rule gave them the authority to challenge the Pope’s authority. During Gregory IX’s papacy, the traditional medieval aversion to individualism was challenged by the rise of new monasticism and powerful secular rulers.2 Concern that trending individualism would provide a breeding ground for heresy within the Church was a major issue for Gregory IX’s pontificate. The pope’s attempt to maintain conformity among church members and secular political leaders is evident in the letters he exchanged with Agnes of Prague and the Lombard League. Gregory IX’s letters to Agnes of Prague3 and the Lombard League4 are primary sources that allow researchers to look into the language and methods the pope used when trying to enforce conformity among church members and secular leaders. Each letter provides insight into a different religious or political situation that the pope attempted to maintain under the Church’s full influence. The pope’s letter to Agnes of Prague provides an example of how the Church handled the growth of monastic rules during the medieval period. Interestingly, people expressed their religious individuality by selecting specific monastic groups. It is important to note that individuality in the context of this paper refers to the emphasis that people placed on their own personal salvation and the decisions they made to bring about that salvation.5 These individuals were looking for more than just the guidance that was offered by their local church on Sundays. They sought out this religious enlightenment by joining monastic groups with similar goals and desires.6 This letter discusses Church policy on the introduction of new monastic rules and also shows how the Church attempted to placate the nuns and monks whose rules had not been approved. Gregory IX’s letter to the leaders of the Lombard League shows another perspective on how the Holy See attempted to maintain control and conformity over secular leaders. In his October 10th, 1230 letter, Gregory informed the league members that Frederick II was no longer excommunicated and that they were to abide by Frederick’s rule and protection for the time being. This letter provides an example of how the pope handled political situations, so that he would be the party in power on both of the opposing sides. These two primary sources reveal

1 J. F. Benton, "Individualism and Conformity in Medieval Western Europe," in Individualism and Conformity in Classical Islam, edited by Amin Banani and Speros Vryonis, Jr. (Wiesbaden, 1977), 145-158 2 Ibid, 145-148. 3 Pope Gregory IX to Agnes of Prague, 11 May 1238, in Bullarium Franciscanum Romanorum Pontificum, ed. J. H. Sbaralea, (Rome: Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide, 1759, repr. Santa Maria degli Angeli: Proziuncola, 1983), 242-44, ep. 264. 4 Epistola Gregorii IX ad Rectores Societatis Lombardiae, No. 149 in Constitutiones et Acta Publica Imperatorum et Regum: 1198-1272, edited by L. Weiland, MGH Leges Sectio IV, 2 (Hanover, 1896), 183. Translated by Luc Houle. 5 C. W. Bynum, "Did the twelfth century discover the individual?" in Jesus as Mother: Studies in the Spirituality of the (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982), 82-109. 6 Ibid, 82-109. 31

Gregory IX’s consistent method for handling church conflict and the rise of individual religious and political thought among Europe’s secular rulers. However, researchers must keep in mind that these letters were meant for more readers than just their named recipients. Gregory’s letters were meant for public eyes, so that they would set a precedent for the rest of the period’s religious people and rulers to follow. Modern historians look back at the thirteenth century as a time of transition in both church and secular governments. People were evolving from “subjects to citizens”7, and more prominent individuals were taking their faith and salvation into their own hands. This conflict of conformity and individuality was evident during the medieval period. John F. Benton explains in his essay, “Individualism and Conformity in Medieval Western Europe,”8 that the thirteenth century was the beginning of the end of the “stable, unified” Christian Middle Ages. Benton claims that while Christian society was based on conformity, the rise of individualistic thought brought on new challenges against the Church’s hold on Europe. These challenges can be seen in the rise of new monasticism and growing influence of secular rulers, like Frederick II. “Individualism and Conformity in Medieval Western Europe,” provides a background and an explanation of the underlying causes of Gregory IX’s papal agenda and what drove him to write letters like the above mentioned primary sources. Before Ugolino di Conti was ordained Pope, the major theme of his papal agenda originated 23 years earlier during the Fourth Lateran Council.9 Focusing primarily on the recapture of the Holy Lands and Church reform, this council set the tone for the Catholic Church in the early thirteenth century. Maintaining Church control over Western Europe was now a major priority. Constitutions 12 and 13 specifically discuss the regulation of already existing and the prohibition of the creation new monastic rules. Constitution 12, On General Chapters of Monks, requires that abbots meet every three years to discuss existing rules and realign each ’s teachings to maintain conformity. The chapter goes on to say, “They shall treat carefully of the reform of the order and the observance of the rule,”10 meaning that reform or change to a rule is something to be taken seriously and approached in a cautious manner. The council’s thirteenth constitution is most applicable to the following letter stating, “Lest too great a variety of religious orders leads to grave confusion in God's church, we strictly forbid anyone henceforth to found a new religious order.”11 This statement is central to Gregory IX’s future agenda. It applies specifically to this letter between Gregory IX and Agnes of Prague, because it validates the pope’s rejection of her new Rule for the sake of preventing the Church from falling into confusion and heresy. Pope Gregory IX’s letter to Agnes of Prague12 provides an example of how the pope enforced his papal agenda of conformity in an amicable manner. By opening the letter with “To his beloved daughter Agnes, handmaid of Christ and glorious virgin blessed among women,” Gregory reinforces his position authority not only as Agnes’s pope, but also as her spiritual father. The Holy Father also stresses the importance of obedience and respect for God’s will before he informs Agnes that the new monastic Rule she proposed would not be brought to conclusion13. Gregory IX makes it clear that Agnes should not stray

7 J. F. Benton, "Individualism and Conformity in Medieval Western Europe," 145-158. 8 Ibid, 145-148. 9 Fourth Lateran Council, Constitutions 12 and 13, (1215). Available online from Papal Encyclicals Online: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum12-2.htm. 10 Fourth Lateran Council, On General Chapters of Monks, Constitution 12, (1215). 11 Fourth Lateran Council, A Prohibition Against New Religious Orders, Constitution 13, (1215). 12 Pope Gregory IX to Agnes of Prague. 13 Ibid., ep.246 32 from the Catholic Church’s established rules, while providing her with a new Vatican approved Rule for her monastery to follow. The pope’s provision of an already existing Rule for Agnes to follow is consistent with the Fourth Lateran Council’s Constitution 13 statement: “Whoever wants to become a religious should enter one of the already approved orders. Likewise, whoever wishes to found a new religious house should take the rule and institutes from already approved religious orders.”14 Although Gregory IX does not reference the council, it is clear that it has a major influence over his papal agenda and how he chose to address Agnes’s request. The pope’s reluctance to allow Agnes’s implementation of a new Rule is rooted in something much deeper than his disliking of its stipulations; Gregory IX’s motivation for disallowing the Rule was his need to maintain Vatican control or conformity over all aspects of the Catholic Church. The driving force behind Gregory’s need for religious conformity was the growing frequency of heresy in Western Europe. During a time that the Church considered to be rampant with heresy, it makes sense that the Pope would want monasteries, which were capable of influencing entire communities outside of papal reach, to be teaching a uniform rule that did not conflict with the Vatican’s religious and political message. In her letter, Agnes of Prague cites Clare of Assisi, an abbess who had been given special permission by the preceding Pope, Honorius III, to act outside of typical monastic rules with her Order of Poor Ladies.15 Clare of Assisi is an example of a medieval Christian individual who sought the salvation of her soul through the nonconformist rejection of wealth.16 This abandonment of worldly possessions was quite the statement during this period of time, because medieval monasteries typically housed large amounts of church wealth and benefitted financially from the community that they serviced. According to Benton, the nonconformists who chose a monastic lifestyle, like Clare of Assisi, were accommodated by society.17 These monastic people were spreading the idea of individualistic religious thought through their writings and examples regarding the salvation of souls. Prior to the spread of monasticism and the desire for individual salvation, there was a prevailing belief in collective punishment for individual sins. This belief system kept entire communities in check with the Church’s approved teachings on moral behavior out of fear that if someone in the community violated Church teaching, the community would be collectively punished by God. With the rise of individualism, church members began to believe in the nurturing of a personal relationship with God. The issue was that a personal relationship with God cut out Christianity’s earthly middle man, the Pope and his Church. Clare of Assisi was already very well known by the time Pope Gregory IX was ordained, but he could not have new Rules popping up all over Europe encouraging Christians to look within themselves for the salvation instead of looking to the Church. The Pope needed to maintain conformity among the monasteries that were out influencing his flock. For that reason, he rejected Agnes’s citation of Clare of Assisi as a reason for him to allow her new Rule to be implemented. The spread of heresy was a major issue during the medieval period. If every monastic order was demonstrating a different interpretation of doctrine to their respective communities, confusion among people could likely develop into heresy. This was the prevailing idea among Church leadership following the Fourth Lateran Council. When Gregory cites Agnes’s devotion to and obedience of her faith, Gregory IX is driving home the point that she must adopt the Rule that he is setting forth even if she’s only doing so out of her love for God. Pope Gregory IX’s

14 Fourth Lateran Council, A Prohibition Against New Religious Orders, Constitution 13, (1215). 15 Pope Gregory IX to Agnes of Prague, 11 May 1238 16 Joan Mueller, The Privilege of Poverty: Clare of Assisi, Agnes of Prague, and the Struggle for a Franciscan Rule for Women (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1956). 17 J. F. Benton, "Individualism and Conformity in Medieval Western Europe," 145-158. 33 rejection of Agnes of Prague’s newly proposed Rule demonstrates his desire to maintain conformity throughout the entire Church community while still being seen as a positive figure. It can be inferred from this letter that Gregory IX is making no exceptions, not even for one of his “spiritual daughters.” It is likely that the Pope, having dealt with outbreaks of heresy in the past, saw complete control as necessary in order to protect the Church. This conformity was not just necessary for the sake of protecting religious doctrine. The straying of monasteries from the Vatican’s central teachings could be seen as an act of opposition towards the Vatican and Pope Gregory IX, which would politically weaken the impression of strong church unity he used when dealing with Europe’s individualistic, nonconformist rulers18. Gregory IX not only dealt with difficulties holding on to conformity within his own Church. Europe’s rulers were leaning less and less heavily on papal approval. Starting with ’s rule in the early ninth century, rulers were relying less on the Pope’s approval of their right to rule. Instead, rulers focused more on their own divine right to rule. This investiture of power directly from God once again cut out the Pope as a middle man for granting divine power to Europe’s leaders. This trend gave rise to the popularity of claiming divine right and rulers began to intervene in Church matters that in the past had not concerned them. had to use their abilities to invest divine power through /church appointments and to take away divine power through excommunication to maintain a higher position of power over the individualistic leaders of the time. Gregory IX’s predecessors Leo IX and Gregory VII reformed the Church and its priests by implementing a reform movement that targeted clerical marriage (nicolaitism) and the buying of church offices (simony).19 This movement, later called the “Gregorian Reform”, separated the churchmen from knights and magistrates of the time. The elevation of the character of these churchmen in the eyes of the public caused the Pope to be held to a higher level of respect and importance than the monarch who commanded the ill-behaved knights and magistrates. This way of thinking along with the doctrine that the Pope was Saint Peter’s successor gave rise to what historians refer to as “papal supremacy”.20As a result, popes felt they were hierarchically superior to monarchs of the time. The “papal monarchy” often butted heads with European monarchy. Western European monarchs eventually grew tired of the overwhelming papal influence over happening in their own countries, The “” is one of the first instances in which the papacy and a secular monarchy came into conflict over control of church matters within a respective country. Henry IV, king of Germany (r.1056-1106), put an archbishop into office without first consulting the pope at the time, Gregory VII.21 When the king did not respect the pope’s authority, Gregory VII encouraged the princes to rise up against their king and Henry IV was excommunicated from the Church. It was not until the king prostrated himself before the Pope in the cold of winter for three whole days that he was allowed back into the Church. This instance is the beginning of a trend of popes using papal supremacy and excommunication to enforce conformity among European monarchs during the medieval period. The Investiture Controversy introduced the idea that rulers had no right to be involved in Church affairs, because they were simply lay people.

18 Pope Gregory IX to Agnes of Prague. 19 Barbara H. Rosenwein, A Short History of the Middle Ages, 3rd Edition, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009) p. 187-193. 20 Ibid., p. 187-193 21 Ibid., p. 187-193 34

This “papal primacy” laid the groundwork for the constant struggle for power that would later on ensue between Frederick II and Pope Gregory IX. Frederick II’s rule was a threat to the power held by Gregory IX; therefore, the Holy Roman Emperor threatened the pope’s ability to maintain control over conformity among Western Europe’s Christians. Frederick II believed in divine right. He justified this belief by tying himself to the image of Charlemagne, and making the argument that the Holy Roman Emperor had divine right without the pope’s permission22. Not only was Frederick’s lack of respect for “papal primacy” an issue with the Pope, but Frederick also had control over Sicily as well as being elected the Holy Roman Emperor. With Frederick’s territory surrounding Rome, Gregory IX felt that the papal monarchy was threatened. By demanding that Henry (VII) be appointed as King of the Germans in order for a papally-ordained to take place, Gregory IX attempted to restrain the influence of the far more physically powerful emperor could have over the “papal monarchy”.23 Creating stipulations for Frederick II to abide by in order to have the Vatican’s support for his coronation and rule was Pope Gregory IX’s way of demonstrating the superiority of the” papal monarchy” over all secular monarchies. The Pope needed to be at the highest-level of authority so that he could continue to maintain a conformed Christian Europe. When Frederick II failed to go on a crusade after five years of promising Gregory IX that he would, the pope excommunicated Frederick II from the Church. Frederick was no longer abiding but the “papal monarchy’s” wishes, so his power was taken away by pope. In reality, excommunication did not take away Frederick’s power. It did open of the opportunity for his son, Henry VII, in Germany and the Lombard League in Northern Italy to rebel against Frederick with support from the Pope. This excommunication did not have the same effect as it did on Henry IV, because Frederick II’s political heartland was not limited to one territory and was too strong for minor rebellions to disrupt his power in other areas of the Holy Roman Empire. Instead of being powerless, Frederick II negotiated the return of the Holy Land territories without war. The Pope was outraged considering someone who was excommunicated could not represent Christian interests. Frederick’s showing of strength even after being excommunicated exposed some gaps in the idea of “papal primacy.” Frederick even had his own coronation in which he crowned himself King of without any assistance from the Pope. In order to maintain the appearance of having the highest power, Frederick II was welcomed back into the Church. With Frederick II back under the influence of the Church, the Pope could continue to perpetuate the idea the European monarchs who conform to the pope’s agenda are the most successful and favored by God. Gregory IX’s letter to the Leaders of the Lombard League24 provides an example of the Pope’s attempt to perpetuate the idea of “papal supremacy” and conformity to Church rule after welcoming Frederick II back into the Church. Much like his letter to Agnes of Prague, Gregory opens this letter with a statement that reaffirms not only his position as leader of the Church but also as a spiritual father: “Gregory, bishop, servant of the servants of God to his beloved sons the leaders of the Lombard League, good health and apostolic blessings.”25 The Pope creatively

22 Bjorn Weiler, Kingship, Rebellion, and Political Culture: England and Germany, c.1215-c.1250 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007). 23 Ibid. 24 Epistola Gregorii IX ad Rectores Societatis Lombardiae, No. 149 in Constitutiones et Acta Publica Imperatorum et Regum: 1198-1272, edited by L. Weiland, MGH Leges Sectio IV, 2 (Hanover, 1896), 183. Translated by Luc Houle. 25 Ibid. 35 phrases the Frederick II’s return to the Church as a king’s return to favor and power saying, “…when our most beloved son in Christ, the illustrious and always august emperor of the Romans and king of Sicily Frederick [II] chose the more prudent road of peace, he humbled himself to such an extent that by returning to the church so reverently, he earned his freedom from the chains of excommunication...”26 Gregory IX is trying to appear strong to the Italian city states that he encouraged to rebel against Frederick just a few years earlier. In reality, the pope has no choice, but to accept Frederick II back into the Church after his success in negotiating with the Muslims over Holy Land territories. This letter was meant for all of Europe to read including the Holy Roman Emperor. Appearances are everything when it comes to maintaining power; therefore, it was crucial that the Pope gave the impression that he was metaphorically reopening the doors of the Church to Frederick II. If this impression was not given in such a public manner, other leaders may have seen Frederick’s return to the Church as more of as an undeniable and forced reentry after successes abroad. The idea that a leader could push past the authority of Gregory IX could have caused major problems for the Pope in dealing with other leaders who were already keen on the idea of a divine right to rule. The Pope was making the point that it was a privilege for Frederick II to be welcomed back into the fold. The tone of this letter hints at the fact that Gregory IX is once again placing himself in a position of authority over Frederick II. In conclusion, Pope Gregory IX spent his papacy enforcing a papal agenda that was influenced by his predecessors and the Fourth Lateran Council. Using conformity among church people and secular monarchs, Gregory was able to slow the spread of heresy and maintain power over one of Europe’s most individualistic monarchs. The primary and secondary sources used in this paper are meant to provide context for the underlying theme of Gregory IX’s papal agenda: conformity. The letters written by the pope provide insight into the image he was trying to portray to all of Western Europe, while the secondary sources used in this piece provide context regarding what was actually going on religiously, politically, and ideologically at the time. This paper supports Benton’s assertion that much of the Church’s power in the Middle Ages came out of conformity to the will of the Holy See. It is important to note that the secondary sources concerning conformity and individuality that are used in this essay were written in the 1980s. There is still much that can be done to further investigate this topic. It would be interesting to see if conflicting themes, like conformity and individuality, arise during each period in European history.

26 Ibid.