INFORMATION to USERS This Manuscript Has Been Reproduced

Home , Avranchin, Battle of Bouvines, Carolingian dynasty, Charles IV of France, Enguerrand de Marigny, Laigny

INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from aiy type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photogrq>hs, print bleedthrou^ substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.

Photogr£q)hs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for aiy photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

UMI A Bell & Howell Information Com pany 300 North Z eeb Road. Ann Arbor. Ivll 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600

Order Number 9517109

Unofficial histories of France in the late Middle Ages. (Volumes I and n)

Zale, Sanford C., Ph.D.

The Ohio State University, 1994

UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106

UNOFFICIAL HISTORIES OF FRANCE IN THE LATE MIDDLE AGES Volume I

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

Sanford C. Zale, B.S.F.S., M.A.

*****

The Ohio State University 1994

Dissertation Committee: Approved by

Dr. Joseph Lynch Dr. John Rule ” Adviser Dr. Timothy Gregory Department of History Copyright by Sanford C. Zale 1994 To My Parents

11 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I express sincere appreciation to the Graduate School of the Ohio State University for helping to fund my dissertation research in France. I thank Dr. Franklin Pegues for his instruction, Dr. John Rule and Dr. Timothy Gregory for sitting on my dissertation committee and for their useful comments, and Bernard Guenee and Colette Beaune for their insightful suggestions. Above all, I thank my adviser. Dr. Joseph Lynch, for his guidance throughout my research. 1 wish to thank them all not only for their invaluable assistance in bringing this dissertation to completion, but also, and especially, for the friendship which they showed me along the way.

Ill VITA

August 25,1964 ...... Born - Brooklyn, New York

198 6 ...... B.S.F.S., Georgetown University, Washington, D.C.

198 7...... Licence, Université de Nice, Nice, France

1989-1993...... Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1990...... M.A., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1993-199...... 4 Instructor, Department of History, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois

1994-presen t...... Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: History

Studies in medieval history (Dr. Joseph Lynch, Dr. Franklin Pegues), ancient history (Dr. Timothy Gregory), and early modern history (Dr. John Rule).

IV TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION...... il

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... iii

VITA...... iv

LIST OF TABLES...... viü

CHAPTER PAGE

I. INTRODUCTION...... 1

II. THE SOURCES...... 54

Introduction...... 54 (A) B.N., fr. 49 4 0...... 57 (B) B.N., fr. 1707...... 61 (C) B.N., lat. 14663 ...... 66 (D) B.N., fr. 5697 ...... 69 (E) B.N., fr. 23019...... 78 (F) B.N., fr. 1623 ...... 83 (G) B.N., lat. 5027 ...... 87 (H) B.N., fr. 9688 ...... 90 (I) B.N., fr. 10468 ...... 94 (J) B.N., fr. 10139...... 98 (K) B.N., n.a. fr. 7519...... 104 (L) B.N., fr. 4 9 9 1...... 107 (M) B.N.,n.a.fr.4811 ...... 108 (N) B.N., fr. 1233 ...... 113 (0) B.N., n.a. fr. 4209...... 116 (P) B.N., fr. 24976...... 120 (Q) B.N., fr. 5734 ...... 122

V (R) B.N.,fr. 10137...... 124 (S) 5195 ...... 128 (T) B.N.,fr.5696 ...... 134 (U) B.N.,fr. 5704 ...... 136 (V) B.N., fr. 49 5 4...... 140 (W) B.N., fr. 5709...... 142 Collective Portrait of the Unofficial Histories 145 Conclusion...... 168

III. CLOVIS THE BASTARD...... 170

Introduction...... 170 The Reign of Childeric 1...... 174 B.N., fr. 10468 ...... 196 The glossed version of "A tous nobles'...... 206 Louis 111 and Carlom an...... 215 Conclusion...... 225

IV. THE FRENCH KILL THEIR KINGS...... 229

Introduction...... 229 Regicide in the Unofficial Histories...... 242 Noël de Fribois...... 253 B.N., lat. 5195 ...... 257 The Assassination of Childeric 11...... 262 Conclusion...... 289

V. THE RANSOM OF SAINT LOUIS...... 292

Introduction...... 292 Les aventures depuis deux cents ans ...... 296 B.N., fr. 9688 ...... 303 B.N., fr. 5704 ...... 310 Louis Le Blanc, I...... 320 Louis Le Blanc, II...... 347 Etienne Le Blanc...... 353 B.N., fr. 10468, B.N., fr. 1233, and B.N., fr. 24976...... 366 B.N., lat. 5195 ...... 370 B.N., n.a. fr. 7519 and B.N., fr. 4990...... 375 Conclusion...... 378

VI VI. LISTS OF THE FRENCH KINGS, I ...... 394

Introduction...... 394 "Cy aprez fait mencion de tous les roys de france combien ilz regnerent"...... 400 Le Dit des Rovs...... 403 "Ce sont les noms de tous les roys qui ont este en france puis quelle fu fondée" 405 "Ce sont les noms des roys de france anciennement nommes gaule"...... 407 "S'ensuit les noms des roys de france" ...... 412 "Les noms des roys de france" ...... 416 "Le huytiesme livre de ceste cronique est du regne des treschrestiens roys de france". .420 Conclusion...... 423

VII. LISTS OF THE FRENCH KINGS, II...... 428

Introduction...... 428 The Merovingians...... 428 The Reign of Gilles...... 433 The Sons of Clovis...... 437 The Sons of Chlotar ...... 1 443 The Sons of Clovis II...... 447 The Last Merovingians...... 455 The Carolingians...... 461 From the Death of Louis II to the Accession of Louis r v...... 462 Charles of Lorraine...... 476 The Capetians...... 482 Conclusion...... 488

VIII. CONCLUSION...... 494

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 511

Vll LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

L Regicide in the Unofficial Histories of France...... 241

2. The Kings of France According to "Cy aprez fait mencion de tous les roys de france combien ilz regnerent" (B.N., fr. 4948)...... 402

3. The Kings of France According to Le Pit des Rovs (B.N., fr. 1707)...... 404

4. The Kings of France According to "Ce sont les noms de tous les roys qui ont este en france puis quelle fu fondée" (B.N., fr. 1623) ...... 406

5. The Kings of France According to "Ce sont les noms des roys de france anciennement nommes gaule" (B.N., lat. 5027) ...... 411

6. The Kings of France According to "S'ensuit les noms des roys de france" (B.N., fr. 1965) ...... 415

7. The Kings of France According to "Les noms des roys de france" (B.N., fr. 1965) ...... 419

8. The Kings of France According to the eighth book of the universal chronicle contained in B.N., fr. 5709...... 422

V lll CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

While twentieth-century states have developed and profited from qualitative refinements in the art of shaping public opinion, they invented neither propaganda in general nor historical propaganda in particular. If anything, medieval rulers felt the need to mold the convictions of their subjects more urgently than do modem ones, and history played a more prominent role in their efforts than in it does in those of their modern successors. Like modem states, medieval states engaged in formidable efforts to cultivate the consent of their subjects, to win their loyalty by propagating beliefs and emotions favorable to the state and to win their support by mobilizing public opinion behind its policies. However, whereas modern states also have at their disposal the administrative and military means to compel the obedience of the govemed, medieval states did not. That is why effective propaganda was perhaps even more essential to the success of the latter than it is to that of the former. Indeed, "in a world where political powers had such weak means of constraint at their disposal, to diffuse ideas on which to base oneself and through which to justify oneself, to win over minds, to 'propagandize', had to be a fundamental concern of every intelligent ruler. Throughout the Middle Ages, whoever wanted a solid power needed an active propaganda." ^ Like the propaganda of modern states, the propaganda of medieval states usually contained an historical element. However, whereas historically-based themes and appeals to the past represent one type of argument among many in modem propaganda, history played a central role in the propaganda efforts of medieval states. It did so because the subjects of medieval rulers assumed that novelty was bad and that tradition was good, that the present ought to be like the past, that the legitimacy of the state was a function of its antiquity, and that the validity of its present policies depended upon their continuity with its past ones. In the words of one modern scholar, "It is only by understanding how deeply this attitude of piety toward the past ran in medieval society that we can begin to understand the use it made of history. It is not a question of the mindless repetition of tradition, of an inability to innovate or create, but of a compelling necessity to find in the past the means to explain and legitimize every deviation from tradition." 2 In the words of another, "A noble was noble because his ancestors were. A custom was good because it was ancient. A king was no doubt legitimate because he held his power from God, because he had the necessary virtues, or because he was in possession of the crown, but that he

1 Bernard Guenee, Histoire et culture historique dans l'Occident medieval. Paris 1980,332.

^Gabrielle M. Spiegel, "Political Utility in Medieval Historiography: A Sketch," History and Theory 14(19751 315-16. was of royal blood still remained his best argument. In a world where the past was the best justification of the present, it was natural that history be the best argument of propaganda, the best prop of political power." 3 No medieval rulers comprehended the political utility of history better than the late-medieval kings of France. While most late-medieval rulers sponsored the composition of official histories designed to promote certain historically-based political convictions among their subjects and/or invoked and saw to the diffusion of historical arguments designed to buttress particular claims, to justify particular political ambitions, or to persuade their subjects of the justness of particular policies, none used history for these political purposes more comprehensively or profitably than they. In pursuit of these goals, the French monarchy sponsored a considerable amount of historical propaganda throughout the thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth centuries. This historical propaganda took many different forms. The late-medieval kings of France justified their legislation by invoking history in their ordonnances. They grounded their present policies and their future ambitions in the past by using historical arguments in their speeches. They sponsored the production of royal genealogies designed to demonstrate the ancient and prestigious pedigree of the French kings and the fact of dynastic continuity in the history of France. They sought to persuade the educated by inspiring the composition of political tracts that underlined their

^Guenée, Histoire et culture historique dans l’Occident médiéval. 333. 4 rights by demonstrating the antiquity of their exercise and by seeing to the production and diffusion of treatises that demonstrated their good right in contemporary conflicts by finding historical precedents for their claims and for their conduct. They sought to persuade the less educated through the visual arts, through miniatures, paintings, sculptures, funeraiy monuments that sought to inspire the loyalty of their subjects by instilling in them certain beliefs about the French past and certain historically-based ideas about the French monarchy. In addition to making use of historical arguments in these and other ways, the French monarchy also attempted to muster the past in support of the present in a much more fundamental way. It sought to create a past that was favorable to its present political needs and ambitions by sponsoring historiography itself. In the late Middle Ages, the monarchy patronized historians whose histories of France and whose chronicles of the reigns of one or more of her kings served not only to paint the personalities and the deeds of the kings of France in a positive light, but also to propagate a royalist interpretation of the whole of French history designed to promote royalist sentiments among their subjects. In short, the most fundamental and comprehensive form of royal historical propaganda was official history. While the late-medieval French monarchy sponsored many historical works, none matched the importance of Les Grandes Chroniques de France, the official history of France that the monks of Saint-Denis progressively wrote between the thirteenth and fifteenth 5 centuries.4 It was the Grandes Chroniques that shaped most of the other historical works sponsored by the monarchy, and it was from the Grandes Chroniques that the monarchy drew many of the historical propaganda themes articulated through royal ordinances, speeches, genealogies, political tracts and treatises, manuscript miniatures, paintings, sculptures, and other media.5 Because the officially-sanctioned authors of the Grandes Chroniques at once formulated and propagated a comprehensive interpretation of French history in the service and to the glory of the Capetian and Valois kings, their official history of France was the centerpiece of the late- medieval French monarchy's historical propaganda. Because it achieved widespread diffusion in late-medieval France and because

‘^There is some dispute as to the proper use of the term "official history" because, while the monks of Saint-Denis styled themselves royal historiographers as early as the beginning of the thirteenth century, the office of royal historiographer was created only in 1437, in favor of the Dionysian monk Jean Chartier: see Guenée, Histoire et culture historique dans l'Occident médiéval. 337-46, and GabrieUe M. Spiegel, The Chronicle Tradition of Saint-Denis: A Survev. Brookline 1978, 127-30. The distinction is a juridical one that fails to consider two important facts. As we shall see in this chapter, the intervention of the kings of France played an essential role in the genesis and the diffusion of the Grandes Chroniques. Furthermore, as Guenee, Histoire et culture historique. 339, indicated, Frenchmen believed that the Grandes Chroniques were official writings well before the creation of the office of royal historiographer. To refer to the Grandes Chroniques as "official history" is warranted, and is the standard practice of contemporary scholars. For example, Colette Beaune, The Birth of an Ideology: Mvths and Svmbols of Nation in Late-Medieval France, trans. Susan Ross Huston, ed. Frederic L. Cheyette, Berkeley 1991, 8, defined the Grandes Chroniques as "the official account of the reigns of French kings that the monks of Saint-Denis produced generation after generation."

^Spiegel, The Chronicle Tradition of Saint-Denis. 131, noted that "The political utility of Dionysian historiography is demonstrated by royal propaganda, which drew heavily upon the claims embedded in the chronicles of Saint- Denis." 6 it gained general acceptance as the authoritative account of French history - because "Frenchmen believed in the Grandes Chroniques as in the Bible"^ - the official history represented the most important and the most successful véhiculé by means of which the monarchy pressed history into its service. However, even as the prestige and popularity of the Grandes Chroniques signalled the French kings' success in propagating an interpretation of French history favorable to themselves, the official history was by no means the only history of France that circulated in their kingdom. Other powers besides the monarchy sought to profit from the exceptional political utility attached to history in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, and other individuals besides officially-sponsored historians wrote histories of France. Indeed, the purpose of my work is to study late-medieval histories of France that were not patronized by the monarchy, unofficial histories neither sponsored nor approved by the state. Before turning to the unofficial histories it will be useful to discuss the official one. Because the fact that late-medieval France had an authoritative and popular official history constitutes the essential background to my study of the unofficial histories of the late-fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, it is necessary, by way of introduction, to discuss the Grandes Chroniques. In particular, it will be useful briefly to summarize what modern scholars 3 learned about the history of the text, what they have discerned about the character of the official history, what they have concluded about the

^Guenee, Histoire et culture historique dans l’Occident médiéval. 339. 7 place that the Grandes Chroniques held in late-medieval French historical culture, and what they have argued about the role that the Grandes Chroniques played in the political life of late-medieval France. Long the subject of heated scholarly debate, the date and authorship of the initial installment of the Grandes Chroniques are no longer controverted. Modern scholars concur in viewing Saint Louis IX (1226-1270) as the monarch who gave impetus to the production of a vernacular national history by asking Primat, a monk of Saint- Denis, to write a history of France in French.^ Louis IX's commission represented the conjuncture of three long-standing historical developments, namely, the close and mutually-beneficial relationship between the French kings and the monks of Saint-Denis,® the writing of royal (and royalist) history at

^The essential modem scholarly works on the history of the Grandes Chroniques are GabrieUe M. Spiegel, The Chronicle Tradition of Saint-Denis: A Survev. Brookline 1978, and Bernard Guenée, "Les Grandes Chroniques de France. Le Roman aux roys (1274-1518)," in Pierre Nora (éd.). Les Lieux de mémoire. II. La nation 1. Paris 1986, 189-214, and "Histoire d'un succès," in François AvrU, Marie-Thérèse Gousset, and Bernard Guenée, Les Grandes Chroniques de France. Reproduction intégrale en fac-similé fies miniatures de Fououet. Manuscrit français 6465 de la Bibüothèque nationale de Paris. Paris 1987, 81-138,286-289. The standard edition of the Grandes Chroniques is Jules Viard (éd.). Les Grandes Chroniques de France. 10 vols., Paris (Société de l'Histoire de France) 1920-1953. Viard's edition contains the text of the Grandes Chroniques from the Trojan origins of the Franks to the death of Philip VI ( 1350). For the remainder of the tpct, that is, for the years 1350-1380, see R. Delachanel (ed.). Chronique des règnes de lean U et de Charles V. 4 vols., Paris (Société de l'Histoire de France) 1910-1920. Primat's account of the Merovingian period of French history has been translated into English by Robert Levine, France Before Charlemagne. A Translation from Les Grandes Chroniques. Lewiston 1990.

®On the history of the monastery of Saint-Denis and on the development of its special relationship with the French monarchy, see Spiegel, The Chronicle Tradition of Saint-Denis. 11-37; "The Cult of Saint Denis and Capetian 8 Saint-Denis, where, for example, Suger had written his Vita Ludovic! Grossi in the middle of the twelfth century and Rigord had composed his Gesta Philioni August! at the turn of the thirteenth century,9 and

Kingship," Tournai of Medieval History 1 (1975) 43-69; and Colette Beaune, The Birth of an Ideology: Mvths and Svmbols of Nation in Late-Medieval France. trans. Susan Ross Huston, ed. Frederic L. Cheyette, Berkeley 1991, Chapter 1, "Saint Denis," 20-69. By the time of the composition of the Grandes Chroniques. Saint-Denis had come to serve as the French royal necropolis and the depositary of the royal insignia as well as the foremost center of royal historiography. The monks had succeeded in raising Saint Denis himself to the status of patron saint of the French monarchy. Several of the abbots of Saint-Denis, notably Suger during the reigns of Louis VI and Louis VII and Matthew of Vendôme during the reign of Louis K, had played prominent roles in the royal government.

90n the writing of French history at Saint-Denis prior to Primat, see Spiegel, The Chronicle Tradition of Saint-Denis. 39-72, of which what follows is a summary. The Gesta Gentis Francorum. a universal chronicle with emphasis on the history of France from the Trojan origins to the accession of Louis VI (1108), was written between 1114 and 1131 and represented "the first effort at writing national history attempted at Saint-Denis". The same time span was covered by the monk of Saint-Denis who wrote the Abbreviatio Gestorum Franciae Regum sometime before 1152/1154 and by the author of the Nova Gesta Francorum written at Saint-Denis in the last two decades of the twelfth century. Suger, abbot of Saint-Denis from 1122 to 1151, wrote his Vita Ludovici Grossi sometime between 1138 and 1145, and was at work on a life of Louis VII at the time of his death. Odo of Deuil, abbot of Saint-Denis from 1152 to 1162, composed liis De Profectione Ludovici VII in Orientem in 1148. Rigord, a monk of Saint-Denis, completed the first redaction of his Gesta Philippi Aueusti no later than 1196, composed a second redaction around 1200, and was at work on a third redaction at the time of his death in 1206. He also wrote a work known as the Short Chronicle of the Kings of France in 1196. Guillaume le Breton, who was not a monk of Saint-Denis but who conceived his work as a continuation of Rigord and whose Gesta Philinoi Augusti entered the chronicle tradition of Saint-Denis, composed the first redaction of his work shortly after 1214, the second sometime between 1216 and 1220, and the third no later than shortly after 1226. Finally, around 1250, the monks of Saint-Denis gathered together all of the Latin sources useful for writing French history from the Trojan origins to the death of Philip n in the volume now known as Paris, B.N., ms. lat. 5925. This manuscript included the works of Suger, Rigord, and Guillaume le Breton, and "served as the fundamental text guiding the translator-author of the Grandes Chroniques". 9 the rise of vernacular historiography in thirteenth-century France, lo In turning to Saint-Denis and in commissioning a national history written in French, Saint Louis looked to a well-established school of royalist Latin historiography to produce an authoritative and royalist history of France accessible to a lay audience. Primat concluded his work, a compilation and translation of previously-written works bearing on the history of France, several years after Louis’ death. He presented his vernacular history of France from the supposed Trojan origins of the French to the death of

Philip II (1223) to Philip 111 in 1 2 7 4 .H For a full century thereafter, the diffusion of the Grandes Chroniques was quite modest. By 1350, it had been copied into only a dozen manuscripts. While some of them simply reproduced Primat's text to 1223, others updated it by the addition of translations of more recent historical works produced at Saint-Denis in the last two decades of the thirteenth century, such as the anonymous Gesta Ludovici Octavi. Guillaume de Nangis' Vita Ludovici

the rise of vernacular historiography in thirteenth-century France, see Spiegel, The Chronicle Tradition of Saint-Denis. 72-76; "Genealogy: Form and Function in Medieval Historical Narrative," Historv and Theorv22 (1983) 43-53: "Pseudo-Turpin, the Crisis of the Aristocracy, and the Beginnings of Vernacular Historiography in France," Tournai of Medieval Historv 1211986) 207-23; "Social Change and Literary Language: the Textualization of the Past in Thirteenth-Century Old French Historiography," Tournai of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 17 (1987) 129-48; "History, Historicism, and the Social Logic of the Text in the Middle Ages," Speculum 65 (1990) 59-86: Romancing the Past: The Rise of Vernacular Prose Historiograohv in Thirteenth-Centurv France. Berkeley 1992; and Diana B. Tyson, "Patronage of French Vernacular History Writers in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries," Romania 100:2:398 (1979) 180-222.

1 ^Spiegel, The Chronicle Tradition of Saint-Denis. 72-89. 10 IX and Chronique abrégée des rois de France, and continuations of the latter. Around 1360, under the direction of Richard Lescot, the monks of Saint-Denis produced a version of the Grandes Chroniques updated to 1350 by adding to Primat's original text translations of the Gesta Ludovici Octavi. Guillaume de Nangis' Vita Ludovici IX. Gesta Philippi 111, and universal Chronicon. as well as continuations of the latter composed at Saint-Denis during the first half of the fourteenth centuiy. This initiative, however, did not result in the widescale diffusion of the updated history, which is known to survive in only four manuscripts. 13 By 1375, the Grandes Chroniques. - whether in the form of the original work of Primat, in the form of various prolongations of his work made prior to 1350, or in the form of the comprehensive continuation to 1350 executed at Saint-Denis around 1360 - had been copied into less than twenty manuscripts, almost all of which were Parisian in origin. 14 After a century of mediocre success, the fortunes of the Grandes Chroniques were reversed not by the monks of Saint-Denis, l^Guenée, "Les Grandes Chroniques de France. Le Roman aux roys (1274- 1518)," 195-6. On the Gesta Ludovici Octavi. written at Saint-Denis around 1286- 1287, the works of the monk of Saint-Denis Guillaume de Nangis (d. 1300) - that is, the Vita Ludovici IX. the Gesta Philipoi III, the Chronique abrégée des rois de France, and the universal Chronicon - and on continuations of the latter two works, see Spiegel, The Chronicle Tradition of Saint-Denis. 96-112. l3Guenee, "Les Grandes Chroniques de France. Le Roman aux roys (1274- 1518)," 197-201. l^Ibid.. 196.202. 11 but by a king of France. In 1375, Charles V, a well-educated monarch who was interested in history and who understood the value of historical propaganda, ordered the execution of a copy of the version of the Grandes Chroniques to 1350 prepared at Saint-Denis under the direction of Richard Lescot. In 1377, Charles commissioned his chancellor, Pierre d'Orgement, to write the history of the reign of his father, John 11 (1350-1364), and that of his own reign. He then had a copy of d'Orgement's work added to his copy of the Grandes Chroniques. During the lifetime of Charles V, the narrative was continued to April 1379 on several blank leaves at the end of the manuscript. After his death in 1380, the text of this royal edition of the Grandes Chroniques fell into the hands of the booksellers of Paris, who added several chapters in order to continue the narrative to the death of Charles V and the first events of the reign of Charles VI.is

1 Sibid.. 201-2. Charles V s recognition of the value of the Grandes Chroniques as historical propaganda, and the fact that they served as such, are well illustrated by certain changes introduced into the text of the royal edition of 1380, on which see A.D. Hedeman, "Valois Legitimacy: Editorial Changes in Charles V’s Grandes Chroniques de France." The Art Bulletin 66 (1984) 97-117, as well as Guenée, "Les Grandes Chroniques de France. Le Roman aux roys (1274-1518)," 201, and "Histoire d'un succès," 118. The edition of 1380 included new material designed to underline the vassalage of the kings of England towards the kings of France. It also altered the treatment of the accession of Philip of Valois contained in previous versions of the Grandes Chroniques by downplaying the discussion of the rights of Edward III of England and of Louis d'Evreux and by minimizing the role of the French barons in selecting their king. With regard to the work of Pierre d'Orgement, Spiegel, The Chronicle Tradition of Saint-Denis. 122-3, noted that "It is at this point that the Grandes Chroniques are transformed from the authoritative annals of a monastic house, written at the instigation of the throne but conducted with relative independence, into the official product of a royal historiographer, responsible as a servant to the king." 12 Unlike the versions of the Grandes Chroniques that had emanated directly from Saint-Denis during the previous century, Charles Vs edition of 1380 enjoyed "immediate and considerable" success. Whereas the Grandes Chroniques are known to survive in less than twenty manuscripts executed prior to 1375, the edition of 1380 was reproduced in some fifty surviving manuscripts during the reign of Charles VI (1380-1422). With only minor exceptions, the manuscript copies of the late- fourteenth and early-fifteenth centuries were luxurious and expensive ones produced at Paris. Their known possessors were almost exclusively members of the royal family and great nobles who resided in the Ile-de-France and in the North of France. Thus, while the Grandes Chroniques achieved more success and popularity during the reign of Charles VI than they had during the first century of their existence, their social and geographic diffusion remained rather limited during the four decades of his reign. It was during the second half of the fifteenth century that the Grandes Chroniques reached the peak of their popularity. While the production of copies of the official history slackened during the troubled years between the death of Charles VI and the end of the Hundred Years' War, the restoration of peace brought with it a renewed interest in national history. Forty copies of the Grandes Chroniques were produced between c.1450 and c.lSOO.

^ ^Guenée, "Les Grandes Chroniques de France. Le Roman aux roys (1274- 1518)," 202-4. l^ibid. 13 While some of them reproduced the texts of manuscripts anterior to the edition of 1380, many more of them reproduced the text of the 1380 edition. Still others updated the latter by the addition of more recent texts including the last products of the chronicle tradition of Saint-Denis, namely, Jean Juvenal des Ursins' vernacular history of the reign of Charles VI, which was based on the Latin history of that reign authored by the monk of Saint-Denis Michel Pintoin, and the Chronique de Charles VII composed by Jean Chartier, Charles VII's official historiographer and a monk of Saint- Denis. In addition to these numerous manuscripts, the Grandes Chroniques also circulated in print. A first printed edition of the official history appeared in 1477, a second in 1493, a third in 1513, and a fourth in 1518. What is more, the social diffusion and the geographic dispersion of the Grandes Chroniques now surpassed their previous confines. Copies came into the hands not only of princes and nobles, but also of royal officials and even merchants. The Grandes Chroniques came to be known not only in the Ile-de-France and the North, but also in Brittany, Normandy, Champagne, and Burgundy, in short, throughout the entire northern half of the kingdom.is Bernard Guenee, upon whose work this summary of the history of the Grandes Chroniques is based, cautioned scholars not to exaggerate the success and popularity of the official history of late- medieval France. In addition to drawing attention to the tardiness of its widespread social and geographic diffusion, he noted that "this

*Sibid.. 204-8; Spiegel, The Chronicle Tradition of Saint-Denis. 121-6. 14 work written in 1274 had to wait more than a century to find true success. The 'massive' diffusion of the Chroniques de France only began at the end of the fourteenth century and finished as soon as the beginning of the sixteenth." ^9 indeed, just as the peak period of the popularity of the Grandes Chroniques had begun rather suddenly in 1380, so did it end quite abruptly after the first two decades of the sixteenth century. The chronicle tradition of Saint-Denis ended with Jean Chartier's Chronique de Charles VII and the 1518 edition of the Grandes Chroniques found no successors for, as Katherine Davies noted, by the early-sixteenth century, "the impersonal medieval chronicle has worn itself out as a style, to be replaced on the one hand by the formal classical rhetoric of the Humanists, on the other, by the subjective contemporary records of the memorialists."20 However, Guenee did not hesitate to describe the position of the Grandes Chroniques in the historiography of France as "dominant", especially during the period from 1380 to the first decades of the sixteenth century. For all of the nuances of their

J^Guené^e, "Les Grandes Chroniques de France. Le Roman aux roys (1274- 1518)," 209-11.

20Katherine Davies, "Late Fifteenth Century French Historiography as exemplified in the Compendium of Robert Gaguin and the De Rebus Gestis of Paul us Aemilius," (Ph.D. thesis, Edinburgh, 1954), 55, cited by Spiegel, The Chronicle Tradition of Saint-Denis. 125. In a somewhat different vein, Guenee, "Histoire d'un succès," 138, viewed the sudden decline of interest in the Grandes Chroniques after the first decades of the sixteenth century less as a result of changes in the style of historical writing than as a result of the facts that the Grandes Chroniques did not satisfy certain commonly-held convinctions and that they had been outmoded by advances in historical knowledge. As an example of the first, he noted that the Grandes Chroniques did not mention the Salic Law. As an example of the second, he noted that by the beginning of the sixteenth century, historians were calling into question the Trojan origins of the French, wliich the Grandes Chroniques did narrate. 15 temporal, spatial, and social diffusion, it remains that the Grandes Chroniques represented the most comprehensive, the most prestigious, and the most widely-diffused history of France in the late-medieval period. In spite of the fact that many other histories of France were written and read by late-medieval Frenchmen, it is the case that none of them rivalled the status and popularity of the official history and that many of them were derived from the Grandes Chroniques or from related products of the historical school of Saint-Denis, such as the Chronique abreaee des rois de France of Guillaume de Nangis. In the words of Guenee, the late-medieval period saw "a multiplication of more or less complete, more or less scholarly histories of France, but the Grandes Chroniques de France often inspired them and dominated all of them ."21 A prestigious authority that, directly or indirectly, informed late-medieval Frenchmen's knowledge of the national past, the Grandes Chroniques constituted "the very foundation of the historical culture of Frenchmen" in the late-fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. 2 2 in short, in late-medieval France, the official history was the dominant history. As such, the Grandes Chroniques played an essential role in shaping the dominant interpretation of national history in late-

21 Guenee, "Les Grandes Chroniques de France. Le Roman aux roys (1274- 1518)," 209-11; "Histoire d'un succès," 138.

22Guenée, "Histoire d'un succès," 89. Likewise, Gabrielle M. Spiegel, "Political Utility in Medieval Historiography: A Sketch," History and Theory 14(1975) 314: the monks of Saint-Denis "became, in a very real sense, the historical voice of France." 16 medieval France. Despite the fact that they were composed in several stages over a long period of time and despite the fact that they incorporated the works of many different historians, most but not all of whom were monks of Saint-Denis and each of whom impressed his own particular viewpoints and emphases upon his work, the Grandes Chroniques did offer a coherent and comprehensive interpretation of French kingship and French history. On one level, the unity of the official history stemmed from the royalist perspective that all of its authors shared and that permeated their collective effort to give form and meaning to the French past. Gabrielle Spiegel, who studied all of the historical works produced at Saint-Denis, noted that from the twelfth century onward, "the royalist perspective would remain for centuries the distinguishing characteristic of Dionysian historiography, setting it apart from other medieval chronicle traditions. No other monastery in medieval Europe so consistently recounted royal deeds and few so devotedly advocated the monarchy's point of view." Indeed, she concluded that from the time of Suger in the twelfth century to that of Jean Chartier in the fifteenth, the historical school of Saint-Denis consistently conceived historiography "as an instrument of monarchical politics" and that the body of works that it produced, most of which were incorporated into the Grandes Chroniques, was remarkable for "the persistence of its focus on the king, and its commitment to the fate of the monarchy." In short, she singled out its "royalist perspective" and "the legitimizing, myth-making aspect of royal history that 17 characterizes Dionysian historiography" as its defining characteristics.^^ On another, related level, the Grandes Chroniques presented a unified, coherent vision of the French past precisely because the "royalist perspective" common to the authors of the official history and the "legitimizing, myth-making aspect" of their historical enterprise led them consistently to infuse their work with certain ideas and themes that served simultaneously to provide an interpretive framework for French history and to place a glorified monarchy squarely in its center. These ideas and themes, which ran throughout the Grandes Chroniques, lent unity and consistency both to the work itself and to the history of France that it narrated. 24 Bernard Guenee, Gabrielle Spiegel, and Colette Beaune have studied the structure and the content of the Grandes Chroniques in order to discern the major elements of the interpretation of French history

23spiegel, The Chronicle Tradition of Saint-Denis. 11-12, 45. Similarly, Spiegel, "Political Utility in Medieval Historiography", 314: "The chronicles of Saint- Denis formed the most extensive and consistently royalist historical corpus in medieval France, if not anywhere in the Middle Ages."

24spiegel, The Chronicle Tradition of Saint-Denis. 45, spoke to this point in stating that "The chronicles of Saint-Denis embrace a triple purpose: to narrate, explain, and legitimize the deeds of the French kings; to preserve them for the instruction and moral edification of future generations; and to provide an authoritative interpretation of the role of the Capetian monarchy in the destinies of France. By inserting the history of the troisième race within the history of France as a whole, the chroniclers could describe French history as a coherent evolution and use the past to legitimize contemporary political life." Guenée, "Histoire d'un succès," 102, maintained that the constant repetition of certain themes gave unity to the Grandes Chroniques, and that their late-medieval audience was struck far more by the unity of the work than by the various nuances of interpretation that distinguished its different parts. 18 that its authors at once formulated and propagated in the service of the French crown. The Grandes Chroniques began by recounting the supposed Trojan origins of the French, a myth of national origin that served to show Frenchmen that they had constituted a distinct nation from time immemorial and to inspire in them the sentiment of national p rid e .2 5 Having established the antiquity and cohesiveness of the nation, that is, having taught Frenchmen that they belonged together and that they shared a common past, the Grandes Chroniques went on to establish the kings of France as the focal point of the nation's history and as the guiders of its destiny. The structure of the Grandes Chroniques both reflected and promoted the conviction that the history of France was inseparable from the history of her kings, indeed, that it was the history of her kings. In this regard, the manner in which the authors of the Grandes Chroniques chose to organize their history of France was of the utmost significance.

25Guenee, "Histoire d’un succès," 109-11, who stated that "Le premier héros des Chroniques de France est un héros collectif. C'est le royaume de France, et les Français qui le peuplent. Et le premier sentiment que les Chroniques inspiraient aux Français, c'était la fierté de leurs origines." On the Trojan origins of the French, and on the importance of the myth in late-medieval French historical culture and political life, see Colette Beaune, "L'utilisation politique du mythe troyen à la fin du Moyen Age, in Images médiévales de Virgile. Rome 1982,331-55, and The Birth of an Ideology. Chapter 8, "The Political Uses of the Trojan Myth," 226-244, as well as André Bossuat, "Les origines troyennes: leur rôle dans la littérature historique du XVe siècle," Annales de Normandie 8 ( 1958) 187-97, and Ariette Jouanna, "La quête des origines dans l'historiographie française de la fin du XVe et du début du XVIe siècle," in Bernard Chevalier and Philippe Contamine (eds.). La France de la fin du XVe siècle. Renouveau et Apogée (Actes du Colloque International du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Tours, 3-6 October 1983), Paris 1985,301-11. 19 For one thing, unlike such previous "national" historians as Gregory of Tours, Fredegar, Hugh of Fleury, and Aimoin of Fleury, the chroniclers of Saint-Denis from Suger onward opted to present the history of France not within the context of a universal chronicle, but on its own terms, as a subject of intrinsic interest worthy of intensive study. At the same time, unlike most previous historians of France, they chose to organize the history of France not annalistically, but in terms of royal reigns.ZG Taken together, these two innovations at once manifested and served to impress upon readers the chroniclers' belief that the kingdom of France and the reigns of her kings were, respectively, the natural spatial unit and the natural temporal unit within which all Frenchmen lived and within which their collective history unfolded. In identifying their kingdom and their reigns as the context of the history of France, the Grandes Chroniques unambiguously placed the kings of France at the center of French history and at the center of the historical consciousness of late-medieval Frenchmen. In the words of Gabrielle Spiegel, the chroniclers of Saint-Denis composed not royal biographies, but "king-centered histories" in which "the focus on the king is no longer restricted to a biographical study but takes on a more official perspective, in which the king figures as the representative of the realm." z?

26spiegel, The Chronicle Tradition of Saint-Denis. 46-7.

27ibid..47. 20 An effort of imagination is required to appreciate the innovation represented by, and the ideological content embedded in, the structure of the Grandes Chroniques, for we today are accustomed to studying the history of medieval France as the history of a territorial unit ruled by a king and to studying it in terms of royal reigns, which modern historians tend to conceive as coherent periods. Such, however, is not the only possible way to conceive and to recount the history of France. The essential point is that the historical school of Saint-Denis pioneered this conceptual framework, and that it did so with tremendous success. Through their influence on historical writing, the Grandes Chroniques led late-medieval Frenchmen to conceive the very subject of French history in royalist terms. While some fourteenth and fifteenth-centuiy French historians recounted French history within the context of universal chronicles, many more wrote histories of the kingdom. While a few of them related French history annalistically, the overwhelming majority cast their material into the mold of the reigns of the kings of France. In short, the structure of the Grandes Chroniques prompted Frenchmen to identify themselves with the kingdom of France, and to identify the kingdom of France with her kings. In addition to its structure, the content of the Grandes Chroniques also served to single out the kings of France as the central figures of French history and the monarchy as the focal point and embodiment of the national destiny. In general terms, both Gabrielle Spiegel and Bernard Guenee noted that the authors of the 21 Grandes Chroniques intently focused their narratives on the persons and actions of France's monarchs, thereby making them the most important actors in French history and, indeed, confounding the history of France with the deeds of her kings.28 Furthermore, detailed analyses of the manner in which the Grandes Chroniques presented certain important events have underlined this characteristic of the official history. For example, in studying the fourteenth-century historiography of the battle of Poitiers (1356), Elisabeth Carpentier noted that, in contrast to other accounts of John IPs disastrous defeat, the Grandes Chroniques sought to focus their readers' attention on the person and actions of the king by emphasizing John's valiant behavior and by stressing that, throughout the campaign, the king acted as the primary initiator and mover of events.29 Likewise, in studying fourteenth-century accounts of the Jacquerie (1358), Marie-Thérèse de Medeiros noted that the account of the peasant revolt in the Grandes Chroniques differed from all other contemporary accounts in that the duke of Normandy and regent of France, the future Charles V, figured prominently in it. Whereas in all other contemporary chronicles Charles played no role whatever in the suppression of the uprising, in the Grandes Chroniques he figured as a highly effective guiding intelligence, the central player in the organization of the repression of the peasants.

46-7; Guenee, "Histoire d’un succès," 120-21.

29see Elisabeth Carpentier, "L'historiographie de la bataille de Poitiers au quatorzième siècle," Revue Historique 263 ( 19801 21-58. 22 In short, "there is a constant concern in the text to have the regent intervene, to underline his presence and his participation in the repression," so as better to present "an image of centralized royal power, an image of an efficaciousp o w er ." 30 While these examples could be multiplied, they suffice to illustrate that i n addition to elaborating their history of France within a royalist structure, the authors of the Grandes Chroniques filled their work with a royalist content by identifying French history with the deeds of the kings of France. What is more, at the same time that they focused attention on the persons and actions of individual kings, they presented the French monarchs and their deeds as examples of certain general truths about the French monarchy as an institution. In other words, the historical school of Saint-Denis infused its work with, and thereby propagated, certain beliefs about the French monarchy itself. One of the beliefs dear to the chroniclers of Saint-Denis was the notion that the kings of France in particular, and their kingdom in general, enjoyed the special protection of Saint Denis himself. In the words of Gabrielle Spiegel, "it is clear that the monks sought, from the twelfth century onwards, to present Saint Denis as the supreme patron of the royal house by consistently underlining his protective role in all circumstances when Capetian kings found themselves in danger. The theme is so pervasive that it functions almost as an

30gee Marie-Thérèse de Medeiros, Tacaues et Chroniqueurs. Une étude comparée de récits contemporains relatant la Tacauerie de 1358. Paris 1979, 151-74. 23 organizing principle of the abbey's vast historical works, both Latin chronicles and the vernacular Grandes Chroniques.''^ i The chroniclers of Saint-Denis repeatedly emphasized Saint Denis' direct and effective concern for the physical well-being of the French monarchs. They consistently attributed the victories that they won under the oriflamme, the banner of Saint-Denis that the kings of France took up in times of national emergency from the twelfth century onwards, to the intercession of the saint. In sum, by producing a history of France replete with "concrete, specific examples of the saint's intercession on behalf of the monarchy and people of France," the authors of the Grandes Chroniques "sought to persuade the reader that the history of the saint and that of the kingdom were inextricably linked." They used history to elevate their monastery's saint to the status of patron of the monarchy and of the kingdom, in short, to make of Saint Denis the French national sainL^z Because their view of the relationship between Saint Denis and the French monarchy won general assent in late-medieval France, the interpretation of French history articulated by the authors of the

^^Gabrielle M. Spiegel, "The Cult of Saint Denis and Capetian Kingship," in Stephen Wilson (ed.). Saints and their Cults: Studies in Religious Sociology. Folklore and History. Cambridge 1983,148.

^^This paragraph is a summary of Spiegel, "The Cult of Saint Denis and Capetian Kingship". On the role of Saint-Denis in the Grandes Chroniques and in the historical and political culture of late-medieval France, see also Guenee, "Histoire d'un success," 109, and Beaune, The Birth of an Ideology. Chapter 1, "Saint Denis," 20-69. In elevating Saint Denis to the status of national saint, the monks also served themselves by tying their monastery to the kings of France and to the kingdom itself. 24 Grandes Chroniques surrounded the French monarchy with a formidable spiritual aura. It convinced Frenchmen that they were governed by kings who enjoyed the special protection of a prestigious and powerful saint. It furthered the reputation of the French kings as devout monarchs by identifying them with Saint Denis. That identification, coupled with the conviction that Saint Denis acted as the protector not only of the monarchy but also of the kingdom as a whole, allowed the kings of France to claim "not only the saint's exalted position as national patron and protector, but also a community of feeling with all Frenchmen who similarly recognized the role of Saint Denis in their well-being." In sum, by linking Saint Denis to the monarchy and by assigning him a central role in the history of France, the Grandes Chroniques offerred an interpretation of the French past that served to enhance the legitimacy of the monarchy, the loyalty of its subjects, and the national identity of late-medieval Frenchmen.33 While the national saint played a central role in the Grandes Chroniques and in the dominant late-medieval interpretation of French history, the official history articulated a vision of the French past in which heavenly solicitude toward the French monarchy extended well beyond the protection afforded it by Saint Denis. When late-medieval Frenchmen read the Grandes Chroniques, they learned that God himself had always manifested a pronounced affection for the kings of France, in the furtherance of whose policies He regularly performed miracles. While most medieval chroniclers

33spiegel, "The Cult of Saint Denis and Capetian Kingship," 157-60. 25 were quick to see the hand of God at work in the world, the authors of the Grandes Chroniques distinguished themselves from all others by the consistency with which they interpreted the French kings to have benefited from divine favor and, conversely, their political enemies to have suffered His wrath.34 This divine favor was well-deserved, for the French kings were themselves inclined to advance God's design through their own actions. The authors of the Grandes Chroniques generally painted the kings of France as pious men who, animated by the love of God and by a proper understanding of the spiritual functions of kings, persistently strove to protect the clergy of their kingdom, to defend the Church against its enemies both temporal and spiritual, and to foster and propagate the Faith both within their realm and beyond. It is difficult to underestimate the importance of the role that the official history's constant repetition of these themes played in shaping the dominant interpretation of French kingship and French history in the late-medieval period. The notion that the kings of France were Most Christian monarchs, that is, that the French monarchy had a special spiritual character that made it dearer to God than any other, and the belief that the kingdom and the people over which they presided were endowed with a special spiritual destiny, that they represented the new Holy Land and the new Chosen

^^Guenee, "Histoire d’un succès," 102, 108. 26 People, were nourished and justified by the vision of French history elaborated in the Grandes Chroniaues.^s This cluster of beliefs about the spiritual nature and mission of the French monarchy, and, through the monarchy, of the nation as a whole, were historically-based convictions that achieved widespread assent in fourteenth and fifteenth-century France. In a deeply religious society, they served to enhance both the legitimacy and prestige of the monarchy and the national pride of the French, which, in the view of French history propagated by the Grandes Chroniques. were inextricably related. Having inclined Frenchmen to associate themselves with the kingdom and to associate the kingdom with the monarchy, the Grandes Chroniques encouraged them to view themselves as participants in the spiritual movement that the French kings were destined to conduct. In addition to using the past to encourage them to perceive themselves as the Most Christian subjects of the Most Christian of all kings, the Grandes Chroniques also taught late-medieval Frenchmen to view themselves as the subjects of an ancient and unchanging monarchy. In the words of Bernard Guenee, the authors of the Grandes Chroniques sought to propagate the notion that "the king of France descended directly from the Trojan Marcomir. He was not simply his direct successor, he was also of the same blood as

these and related themes in official French historiography and historically-based political propaganda, see Joseph R. Strayer, "France, the Holy Land, the Chosen People, the Most Christian King," in T.R. Rabb and J.E. Spiegel (eds.). Action and Conviction in Early Medieval Europe. Princeton 1969, 3-16, and Colette Beaune, The Birth of an Ideology. Chapter 6, "The Most Christian King and Kingdom," 172-93. 27 Pharamond as Clovis as Charlemagne as Louis IX." One of their primary objectives was to prove that "the history of France was all continuity." 36 To establish dynastic continuity by proving that the French had always been ruled by a single, uninterrupted, hereditary line of kings was a difficult task, given the realities of French history, notably the changes of dynasty in 751 and 987. The deposition of Childeric 111 necessitated that Merovingian blood be found for Pepin and the Carolingians, and the coup d'etat of 987 necessitated that Carolingian blood be found for Hugh Capet and his successors. On the one hand, the Merovingian origin of the Carolingians was well-established by the time Primat wrote the initial installment of the Grandes Chroniques. As early as the ninth century the Carolingians had forged themselves a blood tie to the dynasty that they had displaced by claiming that Pepin was descended from Blitilda, an imaginary daughter of the Merovingian king Chlotar 1. On the other hand, the Carolingian origin of the Capetians was a much more recent and fragile creation. It was only at the very end of the twelfth century that the elaborate historical-political construction known as the Reditus resni Francorum ad stirpem Karoli Masni had taken form. This theory, which was actively advanced by the court of Philip 11 and later by the court of Saint Louis, held that because both Louis VII (1137- 1180) and Philip II (1180-1223) had married descendants of Charlemagne, the kingdom of France would "return to the race of

36Guenee, "Histoire d’un succès," 118-20. 28 Charles the Great" upon the accession of Philip's son, Louis Vlll (1223-1226), who was of Carolingian blood on both the maternal and paternal sides. It sought to enhance the legitimacy and prestige of the third French dynasty by establishing that, as of 1223, the Capetians were Carolingians.^^ While the historical school of Saint-Denis did not originate the concept of the Reditus resni. which was first fully articulated by the historian André of Marchiennes in 1196 and which Vincent of Beauvais explained in his Speculum historiale in 1244, it did play a crucial role in popularizing it. Indeed, Bernard Guenee has suggested that to do so was the fundamental purpose of the history of France that Louis IX commissioned Primat to write. Guenœ noted that the idea that the kingdom had returned to the descendants of Charlemagne in 1223 was "a fundamental point of the political thought of Saint Louis," who "had a constant concern to impose it on everyone." He argued that the passage of the Grandes Chroniques in which Primat outlined the Reditus resni "can be considered as the heart of his work." He also ventured that it was not by accident that

the Reditus reeni. see Karl Ferdinand Wemer, "Die Legidmitat der Kapetinger and die Entstehung des 'Reditus regni Francorum ad stirpem Karoli'," in his Structures politiques du monde franc (VIe-XIle siècles). Etudes sur les origines de la France et de l'Allemagne. London 1979, 203-25, Gabrielle M. Spiegel, "The Reditus Regni ad Stiroem Karoli Magni: A New Look," French Historical Studies 7 (1971) 145-74, Bernard Guenee, "Les généalogies entre l'histoire et la politique: la fierté d'être Capétien, en France, au Moyen Age," Annales: Economies Sociétés Civilisations 33 (1978) 450-77, and Colette Beaune, The Birth of an Ideology 182-3, as well as Georgia Sommers Wright, "A Royal Tomb Program in the Reign of Saint Louis," The Art Bulletin 56 (1974) 224-43, and Kathleen Daly, "A Rare Iconographie Theme in a Bodleian Library Manuscript: An Illustration of the Reditus Reeni ad Stirpem Karoli Magni in MS. Bodley 968," Bodleian Library Record 11 (1982-85) 371-81. 29 Primat chose to terminate his history with the accession of Louis VIII. In sum, he concluded that the desire to abolish dynastic discontinuity through the véhiculé of the Reditus resni not only gave impetus to Louis IX's commission, but also that the Reditus reeni was itself "the major theme" of Primat's history of France.38 Through its propagation of the Reditus regni. the Grandes Chroniques helped to convince late-medieval Frenchmen "not only that the kingdom had known an uninterrupted succession of kings, but in addition that all of these kings were of one lin e a g e ." ^9 What is more, by making the notion that the kingdom had always been governed by a single, hereditary line of kings a fixture in the dominant late-medieval interpretation of French history, the Grandes Chroniques rendered a considerable service to the French crown. At a time when "blood was the foundation of legitimacy" and a convincing genealogy was an asset essential to effective government, the official history served to enhance the legitimacy of the Capetian monarchy.40 in a society that sought legitimacy in the past and where the weight of tradition was such that the customary was identified with the good,^i the dynastic continuity highlighted by the

38Guenee, "Les Grandes Chroniques de France. Le Roman aux roys (1274- 1518)," 192-4; "Histoire d'un succès," 119-20.

39Guenèe, "Les généalogies entre l'histoire et la politique," 465.

40lbid..450.

4* For a clear and cogent description of this mentality, and of its consequences for medieval historiography and for medieval politics, see Gabrielle M. Spiegel, "Political Utility in Mediev^ Historiography: A Sketch," History and Theory 14 (1975) 314-25. In essence, the fact that medieval society sought legitimacy in the past and identified the customary with the good explains both why the kings of France required a prestigious genealogy marked by dynastic 30 official history stimulated the national pride of the French and their loyalty to the monarchy by maldng "of the king of France, in the eyes of his subjects, a prestigious king risen up from the depths of time/'^z Finally, the Grandes Chronio ues also persuaded their subjects that the Idngs of France had consistently pursued just and laudatory policies throughout the past. Medieval Frenchmen took it for granted that the monarchy had a fundamental peace-keeping function, that the king was the defender of the realm, of the Church, and of the welfare of the weaker members of society. However, astute royal propagandists could and did use the theme of royal defender to justify and exalt all sorts of monarchical actions.43 Gabrielle Spiegel identified the authors of the Grandes Chroniques as such propagandists. In her words, "it was standard Capetian practice to clothe even the most transparent acts of aggression under the cloak of legality supplied by the obligation to protect the Church as a 'royal defender'. The chroniclers abetted this effort by habitually describing Capetian military undertakings as an inevitable consequence of the king's mission to protect the Church and, beyond that, to promote a Christian peace among all members of society." 44 continuity and why the Grandes Chroniques, in giving them one, enhanced their legitimacy and, thereby, the loyalty and national pride of their subjects.

42ouenee, "Histoire d'un succès," 119-20.

43This paragraph and those that follow are based on Gabrielle M. Spiegel, "Defense of the Realm': Evolution of a Capetian Propaganda Slogan," journal of Medieval Historv 3 (1977) 115-34.

44spiegel, "Defense of the Realm," 117. 31 Because the authors of the Grandes Chroniques consistently presented royal campaigns against nobles as manifestations of the kings' duty to protect the Church, "the chroniclers' accounts underscored the royal right to act in such cases and implicitly legitimized whatever means Capetian kings employed to assert their authority over their unwilling vassals."45 indeed, in the hands of the chroniclers of Saint-Denis, "'defense of the Church' became a legitimizing slogan, useful to justify a wide variety of political policies" including such diverse royal actions as foreign policy initiatives, the persecution of the Jews, and even the imposition of subsidies, all of which the authors of the Grandes Chroniques related to the proper exercise of the monarchy's protectivefunction.46 The constant repetition of the theme of royal defender served not only to justify specific royal actions, but also to enhance the prestige of the monarchy itself. Because medieval political culture valued tradition over all else, the fact that the Grandes Chroniques painted the actions of the French kings as consistent examples of a traditional and accepted ideal of monarchy was of fundamental importance. Even as the kings of France pursued radically new and controversial policies, the Grandes Chroniques simultaneously underscored the continuity of royal actions and granted them legitimacy by subsuming them within the ancient and accepted view of the king as the defender of the realm, of the Church, and of its

45lbid.. 117-19.

46lbid.. 120-25. 32 weaker inhabitants/^ in the dominant late-medieval interpretation of French history that the Grandes Chroniques did so much to shape, the kings of France were wise and just monarchs precisely because they were traditional kings who governed in the best tradition of medieval kingship. By studying the history of the Grandes Chroniques and by analyzing the major themes of the official history's interpretation of French kingship and French history, the modem historians whose conclusions are outlined above made a fundamental contribution to the study of French historical culture in the late Middle Ages. The very same scholars also made a major contribution to the political history of medieval France by arguing that, preciselv because the Grandes Chroniques dominated the historical culture of late-medieval Frenchmen, they played an essential role in the history of the late- medieval French state. The great French medievalist Marc Bloch, who considered his study of the thaumaturgical power attributed to Western European monarchs to be "essentially a contribution to the political history of Europe," claimed that "in order to understand what the monarchies were in former times, and above all to understand their long-lasting hold upon the human spirit, it will not be enough to enter into the most minute details of the workings of the administrative, judicial and financial organization that they imposed upon their subjects.

^^Spiegel, "Political Utility in Medieval Historiography,” 316, made this point in a general way: "The overall tendency of the chronicles of Saint-Denis was to assimilate past and present into a continuous stream of tradition and to see in this very continuity a form of legitimation." 33 Neither will it be enough to conduct an abstract analysis, nor to extract from a few great theories the concepts of absolutism or divine right. We must also fathom the beliefs and fables that grew up around the princely houses.’’^^ Elaborating upon Bloch's insight, Bernard Guenee persuasively argued that the history of states is inseparable from the histoiy of ideas, that "the life and the strength of states depends less on their institutions than on the ideas, the sentiments, and the beliefs of the governed."49 With regard to the French state in the later Middle Ages, Guenée argued that it deliberately sought to propagate certain ideas among its subjects and to instill within them certain emotions, and that its effectiveness in doing so contributed immensely to its own strength and success. He identified historiography in general and the Grandes Chroniques in particular as among the most important véhiculés through which the French state sought to mold the beliefs and attitudes of its subjects, and he pointed to French national identity and national pride as the most potent and politically significant sentiments to which the official history gave rise.so

'^^Bloch's work. Les rois thaumaturges. Etude sur le caractère surnaturel attribué à la puissance rovale particulièrement en France et en Angleterre. was first published in 1927. The edition that I have cited is Marc Bloch, The Roval Touch. Monarchy and Miracles in France and England, trans. J. E. Anderson, New York 1989, 4-5.

^^Bernard Guenee, "L'Enquête historique ordonée par Edouard 1er, Roi d'Angleterre, en 1291," Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (1975) 573.

SOBemard Guenée elaborated these ideas in a whole series of articles and books. See especially "L'histoire de l'Etat en France à la fin du Moyen Age vue par les historiens français depuis cent ans," Revue historioue 232 (1964) 331- 60; "Etat et Nation en France au Moyen Age," Revue historique 237 (1967) 17-30; Histoire et Culture Historique dans l'Occident médiéval. Paris 1980, Chapter 34 His argument, seconded by Gabrielle Spiegel and Colette Beaune,51 is a sound one. Indeed, Guenee's conclusion that "knowledge of the French past played a fundamental role in the development of French national sentiment in the late Middle A ges" 5 2 is readily understandable given the dominant late-medieval interpretation of French history embodied in and popularized by the Grandes Chroniques. At a time when a common origin was believed to be a necessary attribute of the members of a political community, the myth of the Trojan origins convinced the subjects of the French kings that they had constituted a distinct and prestigious nation from time immemorial and that, therefore, they belonged together in the French state. Similarly, the royalist structure of the Grandes Chroniques and its relentless focus on the persons and actions of the

VIII, "Le poids de l'histoire," 332-56; and States and Rulers in Later Medieval Europe, trans. Juliet Vale, Oxford 1985, Part I, "Intellectual Attitudes," 23-88.

51 Spiegel, "Political Utility in Medieval Historiography: A Sketch," Historv and Theory 14(1975) 314-25. and The Chronicle Tradition of Saint-Denis. 130-31, argued that the Grandes Chroniques played a fundamental role in the development of French national identity and, therefore, in the political history of medieval France. To my knowledge, the most sweeping statement of the role of the history of France in French political history was authored by Colette Beaune. One of the central contentions of her The Birth of an Ideology is that the late-medieval focal points of French national sentiment were the "myths and symbols of France", very many of which were historical in nature, and that it was these shared myths and symbols that allowed the French state to weather the crises of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: "Such beliefs did more during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries to shore up the unsteady trusses of the state than any institutions" (p. 10); "In that age of great catastrophes, it was this France personified who saved the France of history" (p. 325).

52Guenée, "Les Grandes Chroniques de France. Le Roman aux roys (1274- 1518)," 211. 35 French monarchs inclined their subjects to associate their collective history with the history of the kingdom, and the history of the kingdom with the history of its kings. At a time when the spiritual nature of political life was taken for granted, the Grandes Chroniques imbued in Frenchmen the belief that the French kings and their people enjoyed the special protection of Saint Denis and the special favor of God. In an age when it was universally assumed that "a true political community should be at the same time a true religious community,"53 the official history enhanced the national identity and the national pride of Frenchmen by convincing them that the kingdom of France was, preeminently, both. At a time when the effectiveness of political authority depended to an important extent on the antiquity and continuity of its exercise, the Grandes Chroniques fostered in Frenchmen the conviction that they were governed by the representatives of a single, ancient, unbroken, hereditary line of kings. In a society where political legitimacy and political loyalty required an historical basis, the official history's stress on dynastic continuity enhanced the legitimacy of the monarchy and the loyalty of its subjects. In a society that celebrated tradition, it enhanced the prestige of the monarchy and the pride that Frenchmen took in their state. In an age that condemned political novelties and exalted political traditions, the official history's insistence that the kings of

53The phrase is that of Bernard Guenee, who made this point in States and Rulers in Later Medieval Europe. 56-8. 36 France consistently exercised the traditional defensive function of monarchy further stimulated the loyalty and pride of their subjects. In addition to convincing Frenchmen that specific policies pursued by their rulers were just, the Grandes Chroniques also rallied them around the state by instilling in them the conviction that the monarchy under which they lived adhered to a timeless model of good kingship. In the words of Gabrielle Spiegel, the authors of the Grandes Chroniques "elaborated historical, ideological, and ethical themes which governed their presentation of Capetian kingship and created a national past that was a source of immense pride, exalting the kingdom as well as the dynasty." Through their work, the "royal myth, fostered and amplified by historical typologies which reaffirmed the continuity and legitimacy of royal action, contributed to the formation of a national identity in France in the Middle Ages." 54 In sum, modern scholars have concluded that the late-medieval French monarchy strengthened its hold over the hearts and minds of Frenchmen, and thereby strengthened the state, by using historiography to cultivate the national sentiment and the loyalty of its subjects. The success of the Grandes Chroniques and of other historically-based royal propaganda in shaping the historical culture of late-medieval Frenchmen is therefore a weighty political fact. In essence, the royalist historical culture of late-medieval France sustained a royalist political culture. A major political asset of the

54spiegel, "Political Utility in Medieval Historiography," 323. 37 late-medieval French monarchy was the fact that it had, so to speak, history on its side. On the one hand, the scholars whose research is outlined above have convincingly established that the Grandes Chroniques dominated late-medieval French historiography and that they informed the dominant late-medieval interpretation of French history and French kingship. On the other hand, the official history was by no means the only history of France that circulated in the late-medieval period. Numerous unofficial histories of France also reflected and informed the historical beliefs and the political ideas of fourteenth and fifteenth-century Frenchmen. Bernard Guenee, whose work contributed so greatly to our understanding of the history of the Grandes Chroniques, its place in late-medieval French historical culture, and its role in the development of the French state, himself signalled this fact. He took note of the multitude of national histories written by late-medieval Frenchmen. He surmised the likelihood that some of their authors articulated interpretations of the French past that did not accord with the dominant, official interpretation. He also alluded to the probability that late-medieval French historical culture was not entirely monolithic, that the dominance of the official history in late- medieval France did not preclude the existence of a rich variety of different and even dissenting views of the French past. Indeed, Guenee concluded his study of the Grandes Chroniques by noting that late-medieval Frenchmen interested in the history of France had access to "innumerable works, long histories or 38 abridgments, more or less illustrated catalogues, books or rolls, where everyone could leam the history of his country according to the time and the money that he had available." By stating that "all of these works did not necessarily emanate from the Grandes

Chroniques: their spirit was not necessarily entirely thes a m e ," ^ 5 Guenee pointed to the numerous unofficial late-medieval histories of France as a fruitful field of investigation for scholars interested in late-medieval French historiography and historical culture. My study of late fourteenth and fifteenth-century unofficial histories of France is inspired by this call, and aims to respond to it. It is a study intended to fill a gap in our knowledge of late- medieval French historical culture. Modern scholars have devoted much attention to the Grandes Chronig ues and to other officially- inspired historical works and historically-based royal propaganda. However, they have devoted far less to the many unofficial histories of France written in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. My purpose is to study the unofficial histories of France, which I define as national histories written outside the umbrella of royal patronage, by Frenchmen who were not associated with the monastery of Saint- Denis and whose work was neither directly inspired nor officially sanctioned by the French monarchy. Throughout the nineteenth century, and until relatively recently, scholars saw little or no value in studying the unofficial histories, which they regarded as "unoriginal" and "derivative". The

^^Guenée, "Les Grandes Chroniques de France. Le Roman aux roys (1274- 1518),"211. 39 unofficial historians based their works on books, that is, on previously-written histories. Consequently, their works were disdained as second-hand creations that did not reveal new facts about the French past of interest to political historians. The unofficial histories were abridgments and/or compilations of the works of other historians. Consequently, the unofficial historians were dismissed as unoriginal authors, "mere compilers" whose works did not reveal the late-medieval historical beliefs and political convictions of interest to intellectual historians. In recent decades, however, important innovations in the study of medieval historiography have cast "unoriginal" works like the unofficial histories of France in a new light. In particular, three developments, all of them associated with the work of Bernard Guenee, have made it possible to study the unofficial histories by asking new questions of them, and by receiving new answers from them. For one thing, scholars interested in medieval historiography no longer view abridgments and compilations as unoriginal works. Instead, they have realized that the task of compilation was a complicated and difficult one during the course of which the historian inevitably impressed his own beliefs and sensibilities upon his history.56

S^Beraard Guenee developed this general point, which in the following two paragraphs I have applied to the unofficial histories in particular, in the following works: "Y a-t-il une historiographie médiévale?," Revue historique 258 (197J7) 261-75; "Avant-Propos" and "Conclusion" to the Actes du Congrès de la société des historiens médiévistes de l'enseignement supérieur (1977), published in Annales de Bretagne et des pavs de l'Ouest 87 (1980) 167-8,415-17; Histoire et culture historique dans l'Occident médiéval. Paris 1980, Chapter 5, 40 Unofficial historians who based their histories of France on more than one source had to decide which account to follow on any given matter. Furthermore, because all unofficial historians based their own works on much longer sources, they had to decide which sentences, which chapters, and which subjects to include in their histories of France, and which to exclude. Likewise, when they opted to summarize long passages contained in their sources, they had to decide which information to retain and which to omit. They also had to decide how to organize the material that they chose to include in their works. In sum, the nature of their task obliged them to make numerous choices. Those choices were inevitably informed by, and in turn reflected, what they believed to be important and true about the history of France. Viewed from such a perspective, the unofficial histories of France were not "mere compilations" authored by mindless, unoriginal plagiarists, but serious historical works. Their authors’ interpretations of French history and French kingship informed

"Le travail de l'historien: la composition," 200-47, especially 211-14; and "L'historien et la compilation au Xllle siècle," Tournai des Savants 1985.119-35. For examples of the methods of medieval compilers see Louis Chalon, "Comment travaillaient les compilateurs de la Primera Cronica General de Espana." Le Moven Age 82 (1976) 289-300, and Anne-Marie Lamarrigue, "La méthode historique de Bernard Gui, d'après la chronique des rois de France," Cahiers de Fanieaux 16 (1981) 205-19. Like compilers, medieval translators could and did alter the texts that they translated in subtle but important ways. For an excellent example, see Mireille Schmidt-Chazan, "Les traductions de la 'Guerre des Gaules' et le sentiment national au Moyen-Age," Annales de Bretagne et des pavs de l'Ouest 87 ( 1980) 387-407. For a good example of how a seemingly "unoriginal" historical work can provide great insight into the historical culture and political beliefs of its author, see Philippe Contamine, "Une interpolation de la 'Chronique Martienne': le 'Brevis Tractatus' d'Etienne de Conty, official de Corbie," Annales de Bretagne et des pavs de l'Ouest 87 (1980) 367-86. 41 them, and they in turn manifested the historical and political ideas of their authors. Because the unofficial histories of France do reveal what their authors believed about French history, they are valuable sources for the study of late-medieval French historical culture. To study them is to tap a relatively unexplored mine of information about what late-medieval Frenchmen interested in the history of their country knew and believed about the French past. The unofficial histories are especially valuable in any effort to assess the extent to which the official interpretation of French history dominated the historical culture of late-medieval Frenchmen. Indeed, a second development in the study of medieval historiography that has made it possible to use the unofficial histories in a new way is the prodigious amount of recent scholarly work on the Grandes Chroniques and other officially-sponsored historical works and historically-oriented propaganda. As we have seen, modern scholars have devoted much effort to cataloguing the ideas and themes articulated by the official historiography and to analyzing their ideological contents and political functions. Now that most or all of those ideas and themes have been identified, historians are in a position to study the degrees to which they were diffused among, and accepted by, late-medieval Frenchmen. One of the important contributions of Colette Beaune was to advance modern scholarship toward this goal. Her The Birth of an Ideologv offered at once the most complete catalogue to date of the ideas and themes in question, and the most comprehensive effort yet to study their diffusion and acceptance in late-medieval France. In 42 assessing the latter, Beaune made use of an extremely wide variety of sources, including quite a few unofficial histories of France. She did not, however, study the unofficial histories in a comprehensive way. Rather, she used them as one type of evidence among many. Sometimes she invoked several unofficial histories to illustrate the adherence of Frenchmen to a certain idea. At other times she named a few unofficial histories in demonstrating the diffusion of a certain theme in time. In short, she did not systematically study the presence or the absence of officially-inspired historical ideas and themes in a group of unofficial histories. On the one hand, to do so was not the purpose of her book. On the other hand, it is an exercise well worth undertaking, for the unofficial histories represent a body of literature especially pertinent to addressing the question of the extent to which the official interpretation of French kingship and French history dominated the historical culture of late-medieval Frenchmen. Their pertinence arises from the fact that is possible to study them collectively and comparatively. Because they are all national histories that related the history of France, by royal reign, from the Trojan origins to contemporary times, the unofficial histories are comparable both to one another and to the official history. Because their authors addressed the same subject, it is possible to compare their treatments of French history as a whole or their treatments of any given theme or topic therein. Because they addressed the same subject as the official history, it is possible to compare their treatments of any given theme in French history to the treatment of 43 that theme in the official history or in officially-inspired historical propaganda. By studying the unofficial histories on a collective and comparative basis, one can measure not only the degree to which a given officially-inspired idea or theme influenced their authors, but also the relative success of different ideas and themes in informing their visions of the French past. To be sure, it would be wrong to identify the authors of the unofficial histories with the late-medieval French population as a whole by equating the extent to which the former adhered to a given notion about the history of France to the extent to which it was accepted by the latter. Nevertheless, the unofficial historians of France do offer a valuable test case for the study of the diffusion and acceptance of those notions. To examine a set of texts that has yet to be expressly and systematically considered as such will contribute to our knowledge of late-medieval French historical culture by enhancing our understanding of the success - and the limits of the success - of the official interpretation of French history in molding late-medieval Frenchmen's views of their national past. In addition to reflecting their own ideas about the French past, the works of the unofficial historians helped to shape the historically-based beliefs of other Frenchmen. Indeed, a third recent development in the study of medieval historiography that has opened up a new perspective on the unofficial histories is the realization that "it is not sufficient to study the composition of an historical work and to situate it in relation to its author, but it is also 44 necessary to define its public." 57 Led by Bernard Guenee, modem scholars have pushed the study of medieval historical works beyond their authorship, to their diffusion. They have committed themselves to studying the relative popularity and influence of historical texts. They have undertaken to do so not merely by counting the number of manuscripts in which historical works are known to survive, but also by examining the diffusion of those manuscripts in time, determining their distribution in space, assessing the social backgrounds of their possessors, and analyzing the reasons for the popularity of the works they contained. They have realized that the examination of the temporal, geographic, and social diffusion of historical works in a given time and place is an essential component of the study of its historical culture, and they have developed the techniques required to carry out such examinations. 5 8

57Beraard Guenee, "La culture historique des nobles: le succès des Faits des Romains (XlIIe-XVe siècles)," in Philippe Contamine (éd.). La noblesse au Moven Age Xle-XVe siècles. Essais à la mémoire de Robert Boutruche. Paris 1976,261.

58Bemard Guenèe both defined the theoretical importance of studying the diffusion of historical texts and refined the techniques necessary to do so through his own work on the subject. In addition to his article on "La culture historique des nobles: le succès des Faits des Romains (XlIIe-XVe siècles)," cited in the previous note, see his "L'Enquête historique ordonee par Edouard 1er, Roi d'V^uigleterre, en 1291," Comptes Rendus de l'Academie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (1975) 572-84. and Histoire et culture historique dans l'Occident médiéval. Paris 1980, Chapter VI, "Le succès de l'oeuvre," 248-99, and Chapter Vn, "La culture historique," 300-31. Guenee's "Les Grandes Chroniques de France. Le Roman aux roys (1274-1518)," and "Histoire d'tm succès," his two articles on the history of the Grandes Chroniques summarized at length earlier in this chapter, are excellent examples of how to study the temporal, geographic, and social diffusion of an historical text. For an additional example, see André Vemet, "La diffusion de l'oeuvre de Bernard Gui, d'après la tradition manuscrite," Cahiers de Fanieaux 16 (1981) 221-42. 45 Those techniques have not yet been applied to the unofficial histories of France. That is why Bernard Guenee was obliged to limit his remarks on their place in late-medieval French historical culture to rather vague assertions and conjectures. Guenee noted that the unofficial histories were numerous, but, given the present state of scholarship, he could not say when, where, and by whom they were read. He realized that their authors did not necessarily adhere to the official interpretation of French history, but he could not meaningfully assess the extent to which different and diverse beliefs about French history and French kingship flourished in the late- medieval period, because he could not pinpoint when, where, and among whom the unofficial histories propagated beliefs contrary to the dominant, official interpretation of the French past. In short, while unofficial histories undoubtedly played a role in shaping late- medieval Frenchmen's beliefs about their national history, their place in late-medieval French historical culture has yet to be determined. To study their individual and collective diffusion in time, to discern their dispersion in space, and to analyze their distribution within different segments of French society will allow us to assess the extent to which Frenchmen relied upon the unofficial histories for knowledge of the past. It will also give meaning to our attempts to expose the historical and political ideas of particular unofficial historians and to use the unofficial histories as a collective test case in measuring the diffusion and acceptance of officially-inspired historical ideas and themes. 46 It is necessary to ask not only what one or more of the unofficial historians believed about French history and French kingship, but also when, where, and among whom their beliefs circulated. It is necessary to ask not only how many unofficial historians and how many manuscripts of their works echoed certain officially-inspired ideas and themes, but also when, where, and in what circles they did so. It is necessary to ask not only how many unofficial historians did not accept one or another component of the official interpretation of French history, but also when, where, and among whom one or more of their works spread beliefs at odds with the dominant, official interpretation of the French past. Because it will address these questions, an analysis of the individual and collective temporal, geographic, and social diffusion of the unofficial histories will contribute greatly to our understanding of late- medieval French historical culture. 1 examined twenty-three unofficial histories of France written between the accession of Charles VI (1380) and the death of Louis Xll (1515), that is, during the peak of the popularity of the Grandes Chroniques. Viewed in relation to recent advances in the study of medieval historiography, they represent a significant body of historical literature with much to reveal about fourteenth and fifteenth-century French historical culture. However, modern scholars have yet to take up the challenge of studying them within the context of those advances. The unofficial histories of France are not "mere compilations", but compositions that reflect their authors' beliefs about French 47 kingship and French history. However, almost none of the unofficial histories have been fully published.59 Very few of the late fourteenth and fifteenth-century unofficial histories of France that 1 read for the purpose of this study have been the subjects of modem scholarly r e s e a r c h , and relatively few of the unofficial histories

S^None of the twenty-three unofficial histories of France that are the object of my study has been fully published. While I am hesitant to assert that no works that fit the confines of my study - that is, no histories of France from the Trojan origins to contemporary times written between 1380 and 1515 by individuals unassociated with the monastery of Saint-Denis and unsponsored by the French monarchy - have ever been published in full, I am aware of none that has been. Although they date to an earlier period, Bernard Gui's early fourteenth-century Reees Francorum. Arbor eenealoeie reeum Francorum. and Nomina regum Francorum. all of which were translated into French in the fourteenth century, were influential in French historiography throughout the late-medieval period. They have recently been published by Thomas F. Coffey and Terrence J. McGovern (eds.), A Middle French Translation of Bernard Gui's Shorter Historical Works bv lean Golein. Lewiston 1993.

^^The bibliography on the twenty-three unofficial histories of France that are the object of my study, most of which have not been the subjects of any scholarly attention, is scant. On the Dit des Rovs. see Robert Bossuat, "Le Dit des Roys. Chronique rimée du XlVe siècle," in Mélanges de Linguistique romane et Philologie médiévale offerts à M. Maurice Delbouille. ü, Gembloux 1964,49-58. On certain manuscripts of various versions of the history of France known by the incipit "A tous nobles," see André Bossuat, "Les origines troyennes; Leur r&le dans la littérature liistorique au XVe siècle," Annales de Normandie 8 (1958) 187-97, and "Jean Castel, chroniqueur de France," Le Moven Age. 4th series, 13 (1958) 285-304, 499-538; François Fossier, "Chroniques universelles en forme de rouleau à la fin du Moyen Age," Bulletin de la Société Nationale des Antiquaires de France (1980-81) 163-83; Nathalie Hurel-Genin, "Les Chroniques universelles en rouleau: un exemple d'oeuvre historique enluminée de la fin du Moyen Age," Bulletin de l'Association des Amis du Centre Jeanne d'Arc 15 (1991) 29-33, and "Le fragment de parchemin anonyme du Centre Jeanne d'Arc d'Orléans," Bulletin de l'Association des Amis du Centre Jeanne d'Arc 15 (1991) 39-44; Nicole Pons, "La propagande de guerre avant l'apparition de Jeanne d'Arc," Tournai des Savants (1982) 211-12; and Christiane Raynaud, "Mythologie politique et histoire dans la chronologie universelle d'Orléans (ms. 470)," Cahiers du Centre d'Etudes Médiévales de Nice 12 (1992) 113-45. On the work known as the Chronique anonvme finissant en 1383. see Léopold Delisle, "Note sur le manuscrit latin 5027 de la Bibliothèque impériale," Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des Chartes 30 (1869) 212-15, "Mémoire sur les ouvrages de Guillaume de Nangis," Mémoires de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 27, Part 2 (1873) 362. and his Catalogue des manuscrits des fonds Libri et Barrois. Paris 48 that I did not study have been written about by modem scholars.^i The unofficial histories represent a valuable test case for the study of

1988, 205-6; Auguste Molinier, Les sources de l’histoire de France des origines aux guerres d'Italie ( 1494) lü, 194 (number 2863); Potthast, et. al.. Repertorium Fontium Historiae Medii Aeyi. Fontes HI, 17-18; and the remarks of Natalis de Wailly prefatory to his edition of fragments of the chronicle in RHFX. 315; XI, 410; XXI, 142-45. On Noël de Fribois' Abrégé des Chroniques de France, see Kathleen Daly, "The 'Miroir Historial Abrégé de France' and 'C'est chose profitable': a Study of Two Fifteenth-Century French Historical Texts and their Context" (Ph.D. thesis, 2 vols., Oxford 1983), "Histoire et politique à la fin de la Guerre de Cent Ans: "l'Abrégé des Chroniques' de Noël de Fribois," in La "France Anglaise" au Moven Age (Actes du 111e Congrès National des Sociétés Savantes. Poitiers 1986). Paris 1988,1, 91-101, and "Mixing Business with Leisure: Some French Royal Notaries and Secretaries and their Histories of France, c.1459-1509," in Christopher AUmand (ed.). Power. Culture, and Religion in France c. 13 50-c. 1550. Woodbridse 1989,99-115.

Few of the many unofficial histories of France written between 1380 and 1515 that are not included in my study have received scholarly attention. On the work of Jacques Le Picart, see Kathleen Daly, "Mixing Business with Leisure". On the historian Louis Le Blanc, see Daly, "Mixing Business with Leisure," and Michel François, "Les rois deJFrance et les traditions de l'abbaye de Saint-Denis a la fin du XVe siècle," in Mélanges dédiés à la mémoire de Félix Grat. 1, Paris 1946, 367-82. On Nicole Gilles, see Daly, "Mixing Business with Leisure"; Jacques Riche, "L'historien Nicole Gilles (14—? - 1503)," Ecole des Chartes. Positions des thèses (1930) 136-40; and Remy Scheurer, "Nicole Gilles et Antoine Vérard," Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des Chartes 128(1970) 415-19. On Robert Gaguin, see Auguste Molinier, Les Sources de l'histoire de France des origines aux guerres d'Italie (1494) V, Paris 1904, 26-8, and Mireille Schmidt- Chaz^, "Histoire et sentiment national chez Robert Gaguin, " in Bernard Guenée (éd.). Le métier d'historien au Moven Age. Etudes sur l'historiographie médiévale. Paris 1977, 233-300. On Mathieu Grenet, see L.-F. Flutre, "Mathieu Grenet de Béthune, religieux, chroniqueur et pèlerin de Rome en Tan 1500," in Mélanges de philologie romane et de littérature médiévale offerts à Emest Hoepffner. Paris 1949, 371-79. On the history of France attributed to Guillaume Cousinot, see M. Hayez, "Un exemple de culture historique au XVe siècle: la Geste des nobles français," Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire de l'Ecole française de Rome 75 (1963) 127-78. On the work of Guillaume Crétin, see Henry Guy, "La chronique française de maistre Guillaume Crétin," Revue des langues romanes 47 (1904) 385-417. In short, scholars have written relatively little about some of the late-medieval unofficial histories of France, and nothing about most of them. What is more, as this note and the previous one will have indicated, their works almost invariably focused upon a single historian or a single history of France. Only Daly, "Mixing Business with Leisure," who studied the works of Noël de Fribois, Jacques Le Picart, Louis Le Blanc, and Nicole Gilles, considered several unofficial histories together. As 1 have indicated, Colette Beaune referred to many unofficial histories in The 49 the extent to which the official interpretation of French history dominated the historical culture of late-medieval Frenchmen, and they surely helped to mold late-medieval Frenchmen's beliefs about their national past. However, neither their collective place in late- medieval French historical culture nor the extent to which one or more of them spread particular beliefs about French kingship and French history has been determined, because their individual and collective temporal, geographic, and social diffusion have yet to be assessed. In short, the unofficial histories of France have never been studied on a collective and comparative basis, as a body of historical literature that had a place in the historical culture of late-medieval Frenchmen and that might yield insight into late-medieval French historical culture. In Chapter II, "The Sources", 1 shall present the twenty-three unofficial histories of France that 1 studied individually, as particular texts most of which have yet to be studied by modern scholars, and collectively, as a coherent body of historical literature worthy of attention. In the five subsequent chapters, I shall analyze how their authors addressed four important matters in the history of France. All late-medieval historians of France had to confront the thorny question of bastardy in France's dynastic past. In Chapter 111, "Clovis the Bastard", I shall examine the variety of ways in which the unofficial historians whose works 1 studied addressed the issue of royal illegitimacy.

Birth of an Ideology, but it was not her purpose to study them on a collective and comparative basis, and she did not do so. In sum, the unofficial histories of France offer a relatively untapped field of research to scholars interested in late-medieval French historiography and historical culture. 50 Any late-medieval Frenchman who sought to recount French history from its putative Trojan origins to his own times had to address the issue of regicide in French history. In Chapter IV, "The French Kill Their Kings", I shall detail the diverse ways in which unofficial historians did so. Since every late-medieval history of France contained at least one chapter on the reign of Louis IX, the dynastic saint, all of their authors had to decide what to say about the payment of the ransom that resulted from his capture during the seventh crusade. In Chapter V, "The Ransom of Saint Louis", 1 shall analyze the different decisions reached by the unofficial historians under consideration. Finally, since late-medieval historians of France almost invariably organized their works in terms of royal reigns, they necessarily had to construct lists of the French kings, that is, they had to decide which individuals had reigned, and in what order they had acceded to the throne. In Chapter VI, "Lists of the French Kings, 1", 1 shall present a sampling of their surprisingly diverse conclusions. In Chapter Vll, "Lists of the French Kings,11", 1 shall explain that diversity by analyzing the different conceptions of the French monarchy that stood behind and informed the very different lists of the French monarchs constructed by unofficial historians of France in the late Middle Ages. The four topics in the history of France that 1 have chosen to examine are rather diverse ones. However, they have in common two important attributes that make them appropriate véhiculés for an investigation of what the unofficial historians believed about 51 French history, the extent to which they accepted officially-inspired ideas about the French past, and what their works and the diffusion of their works tell us about the nature of late-medieval French historical culture. First, these four issues were controversial matters in late fourteenth and fifteenth-century France, for reasons that 1 shall explain in discussing each of them. Indeed, in addressing the question of royal illegitimacy, in treating the matter of regicide, in writing about the ransom of Louis K, and in constructing lists of the French kings, unofficial historians were inevitably led to think about and to express opinions about contemporary politics, because controversial contemporary events endowed each of these four topics with contemporary political significance. Consequently, unofficial historians were well aware that they were dealing with controversial issues when they addressed these four matters. They chose their words with special care, precisely because they knew that they were commenting on historical questions that had implications for the present. That is why those words are especially relevant in attempting to ascertain their beliefs about French history. Because the four issues at hand were weighty matters, their treatments in the unofficial histories are apt to reflect not the sources used by their authors, but their authors' own opinions about these aspects of French history, as well as their own political convictions. Consequently, to study the different ways in which they treated them is to highlight the historical beliefs of the 52 unofficial historians, and the diversity of their views about the French past. It is also to highlight the extent to which they accepted or rejected elements of the dominant, official interpretation of French history, for the four issues at hand also have in common the fact that each was the subject of an official interpretation articulated by and propagated through late-medieval official historiography and historically-based royal propaganda. In the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, well-publicized historically-based royal propaganda themes directly addressed the historical issue of monarchical bastardy and the matter of regicide in French history. Late-medieval French official historiography and other officially-inspired propaganda cultivated a certain image of the reign of Saint Louis in general and of his crusades in particular. In deciding whom to include in their lists of the French kings, late- medieval Frenchmen necessarily had to consider several officially- sponsored beliefs about the nature of the French monarchy. While I shall outline the official views of the matters in question as I take them up in subsequent chapters, the importance of their existence is evident. To examine the dominant late-medieval interpretation of French history embedded in the Grandes Chroniques and in other historical works sponsored or inspired by the kings of France is to learn what the French monarchy wanted its subjects to believe about their nation's past. 53 One purpose of this study of the unofficial histories of France is to measure the success of its historical propaganda by examining the extent to which the officially-sanctioned interpretation of French history dominated the historically-based beliefs of late-medieval Frenchmen. Another, related purpose is to expand our knowledge of the historical culture of late-medieval France by studying the extent to which unofficial historians articulated and propagated views of the French past at odds with the official interpretation and with one another, that is, the extent to which a variety of interpretations of French kingship and French history circulated in fourteenth and fifteenth-century France. A final purpose is, quite simply, to allow the voices of the unofficial historians to be heard. It is to study the lively historical disagreements, the heated historical debates, and the dissenting historical opinions that lie hidden in their works, disagreements, debates, and dissent that have escaped the notice of modern scholars and that have yet to be integrated into our understanding of late- medieval French historical culture. In short, it is to reveal what some hitherto ignored late-medieval Frenchmen interested in their nation’s past actually ^ believe about the history of their country. CHAPTER II THE SOURCES

Introduction In order to pursue the objectives outlined in the previous chapter, I studied twenty-three unofficial histories of France written between the accession of Charles VI in 1380 and the death of Louis XII in 1515. I chose the period in question because it corresponds to the period of the greatest popularity of the Grandes Chroniques. In his study of the diffusion of the official history between 1274 and 1518, Bernard Guenee noted that the Grandes Chroniques are known to exist in 107 manuscripts, of which only about twenty were executed prior to 1380. The remaining eighty-seven or so date to the period 1380-1518.1 For the purpose of contrasting unofficial interpretations of French history to the official one, it seemed

1 Bernard Guenee, "Les Grandes Chroniques de Fr^ce. Le Roman aux roys (1274-1518)," in Pierre Nora (éd.). Les Lieux de mémoire. II. La nation I, Paris 1986, 202, 204, 206, 209, 211; and "Histoire d'un succès," in François Avril, Marie-Thérèse Gousset, and Bernard Guenée, Les Grandes Chromques de France. Reproduction intégrale en fac-similé^ des miniatures de Fouauet. Manuscrit français 6465 de la Bibüothèaue Nationale de Paris. Paris 1987,121, 128,286-288. 54 55 desireable to concentrate on the period during which the latter was at the height of its prestige, popularity, and authority. I chose the texts in question because of certain characteristics common to them. As we shall see in subsequent chapters, the unofficial histories of France offerred their readers diverse views of the French past. The unofficial historians did not interpret important events and themes in French history in the same way, and their interpretations were often at odds with those enshrined in the Grandes Chroniques and advanced by late-medieval royal propaganda. It is this diversity of views that promises to enhance our understanding of late-medieval French historical culture, and it is upon this diversity that subsequent chapters will concentrate. However, this chapter will stress what the unofficial histories of France had in common. It will demonstrate that each history meets certain criteria, and that collectively the histories constitute a coherent body of historical literature. Each was written during the era of the Grandes Chroniques' greatest prestige and popularity, and the number of manuscripts in which they are known collectively to survive is comparable to the number of copies of the Grandes Chroniques made during that period. As we shall see, they share a common subject, a common time frame, a common organization, a common language, common sources, a common purpose, and a common lack of royal patronage. Their subject, time frame, organization, and language are also those of the Grandes Chroniques. The Grandes Chroniques formed the backdrop to their contents and their common purpose. Their 56 collective diffusion mirrored the diffusion of the Grandes Chroniques in both social and geographical terms. For all of these reasons, they are in effect the unofficial counterparts of the Grandes Chroniques. As such, the histories of France that I studied offer suitable material for a study of unofficial interpretations of French history in late- medieval France. They do not, of course, offer an all-embracing overview of such interpretations or a statistically-valid sample of such histories. It goes without saying that other types of texts also shed light on what late-medieval Frenchmen knew and believed about the history of their country. It is equally obvious that I could have studied other unofficial histories of France, and that I could have studied more of them. Nevertheless, the value of the present study is not impugned by these inevitable limitations. Even though they constitute a coherent body of historical literature, there has yet to be a scholary work devoted specifically to the collective and comparative study of late-medieval unofficial histories of France. None of the twenty- three texts representative of that body of historical literature that 1 examined has been published in full, and very few of them have been the subject of comprehensive scholarly studies. To bring them to light and to study them on a collective and comparative basis will certainly add to our knowledge of late-medieval French historical writing and late-medieval French historical culture. Prior to studying the diverse views of French history advanced by their authors, it will be useful to introduce the unofficial histories 57 themselves. In this chapter, I shall present them individually. I shall then consider them collectively, as a substantial and coherent body of historical literature worthy of attention and analysis.

(Ai B.N.. fr. 4940 The earliest of the works is a brief chronicle of the French kings entitled, in one of the manuscripts in which it survives, "Cy aprez fait mencion de tous les roys de france combien ilz regnerent".^ It is known to exist in three manuscripts, Paris, B.N., fr. 4940 (fols. 123v-12Sv) and fr. 4948 (fols. 96-98), which 1 examined, and Berne 196 (fols. 79V-81), which 1 did not.^ Each manuscript contains the first redaction of the chronicle known as the Manuel d'histoire de Philippe VI de Valois, a universal history composed in 1326-27 with a continuation to1383,4 a brief chronicle of the counts of Flanders,^

^Paris, B.N., fr. 4948, fol. 96. The chronicle is untitled in B.N., fr. 4940, and I have been unable to verify its title in Berne 196. It is recognizeable by the incipit "Apres la destrucion de troyes sespandirent les troiens en plusieurs pais desquelz eneas a xx. nefs vint en lombardie ".

^For full descriptions of the manuscripts, see the Catalogue des manuscrits français de la Bibliothèque Nationale IV, 446-447 (fr. 4940) and 449 (fr. 4948), and Camille Couderc, "Le Manuel d'histoire de Philippe VI de Valois," in Etudes d'histoire du Moven Age dediees à Gabriel Monod (Slatkine Reprints, Geneva 1975) 441-442 (Berne 196). Note, however, that it was by error that the catalogue identified fols. 1-109, fols. 109-120, and fols. 121-123 of B.N., fr. 4940, which in fact constitute one chronicle, the Manuel d'histoire de Philippe VI de Valois, as three separate works. The chronicle of the French kings in question may also exist in a fourth manuscript. On the one hand, Camille Couderc, "Le Manuel d'histoire de Philippe VI de Valois," 442, stated that it is found in Paris, B.N., fr. 1405. On the other, the Catalogue I, 222, made no mention of it. 1 am not, for not having examined this manuscript, able to say which is in error.

4b.N., fr. 4940 (fols. 1-123); B.N., fr. 4948 (fols. l-94v); Berne 196 (fols. l-79v). On the Manuel d'histoire de Philippe VI de Valois, a rather successful and highly-diffused chronicle that survives, according to the Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes (Paris, section romane) in thirty-nine fourteenth and fifteenth-century manuscripts, see Camille Couderc, "Le 58 and this short chronicle from the supposed Trojan origins of the Franks to the reign of Charles VI (1380-1422). The chronicle was composed early in the reign of that monarch. It reported that Charles VI had been crowned and that his sister Catherine was still alive, which indicates a date of composition sometime between November 1380 and October 1388.6 While indications of the identity of its author, his possible patron, and possessors of copies of his work are lacking,^ certain characteristics of the manuscripts in which it survives do permit insights into its popularity, its public, and the probable purposes for which it was written and read. Unlike many of the texts that 1 studied, "Cy aprez fait mencion" is known to exist in more than one manuscript. B.N., fr. 4940 was executed after 1385, probably before 1404, and before, at the

Manuel d'histoire de Philippe VI de Valois," in Etudes d'histoire du Moven Age dediees à Gabriel Monod (Slatkine Reprints, Geneva 1975) 415-444, and the fragments published in RHFXXI. 146-158.

5b.N., fr. 4940, fols. 126-128; fr. 4948, fols. 98v-100; Berne 196, fols. 82-84. The chronicle is recognizeable by the incipit "Charlemaine, roy de France, donna la terre de Flandres ". On its probable date of composition, which has implications for the dating of the three manuscripts in question, see note 8 below.

6xhe text reported that Charles VI "regne a present qui fu couronne [on 4 November 1380] a Reims" (B.N., fr. 4948, fol. 98) and that Charles V had five daughters, " Jehanne Bonne Marie, Yzabel et Katherine, dont les iiii. montrent en enfance Et Katherine [who died in October 1388] vit a present" (B.N., fr. 4948, fol. 98). The chronicle may have been composed in 1383: the date of composition indicated by the statement, at the end of the chapter on Charles V, that "Ceste ligniee a dure jusques cy Ian mil CCC. Ixxiii (B.N., fr. 4948, fol. 98) is without doubt a scribal error, perhaps for 1383.

^One knows only that B.N., fr. 4948 belonged, at an indeterminate date, to a certain Jehan de Menehou, who signed his name on fol, A. 59 absolute latest, 1439.8 B.N., fr. 4948 was executed after 1404 and probably before 1419.9 The Berne manuscript was completed on 23 July 1407.10 While three manuscripts is not a lot, the fact that "Cy aprez fait mencion" was copied once before 1404, once in 1407, and once after 1404 and before 1419 indicates that it enjoyed a small vogue during the reign of Charles VI, if not after.

8ln B.N., fr. 4948, the entirety of which was copied by the same hand, the chronicle of the counts of Flanders concludes thus: "Phelippe due de bourgoigne fu conte après luy, qui prist a femme marguerite fille dudit loys. Gand se rebella contre luy et contre le roy de france. Maiz après grant destruccion deulz et du pays, se mistrent en obéissance Et fu mis son corps aux chartreux de diion. lehan duc de bourgoigne. aisne filz dudit pheüppe fu conte après luy Et ot a femme marguerite fille du duc aubert de baviere conte de hollande de zelande et de henault (fol. 100). In B.N., fr. 4940 (fols. 128-128v), it concludes differently. The scribe that copied the Manuel de Philippe VI de Valois, the French chronicle, and the Flemish chronicle concluded his work with the phrase " se mistrent en obéissance." In 1439, another hand then continued the chronicle, beginning with "Et [Philip the Bold] trespassa en la ville du hal. a deux lieues de Brousselles en la fin davril mil CCCC et quatre après pasques," going on to write a chapter on John the Fearless and another on Philip the Good, and concluding "fait Ian mil Illlc trente neuf le XVe jour daoust." Given the different endings in the two manuscripts, it seems most likely that the original text of the chronicle ended with " se mistrent en obéissance" and was composed sometime between the submission of Ghent (December 1385) and the death of Phihp the Bold (April 1404). In B.N., fr. 4948, it will have received, prior to having been copied into the manuscript, a continuation that noted the death of Philip the Bold and the accession to the county of his son John. Therefore, B.N., fr. 4948 was necessarily executed after the death of Philip in 1404, and probably, because the continuation incorporated into the text did not note the death of John the Fearless, before 1419. As for B.N., fr. 4940, since the continuation to 1439 was made, in that year, by a hand different than that which copied the rest of the manuscript, one can say with total certitude only that the manuscript was executed after the submission of Ghent (December 1385) and before the addition of the continuation in August 1439. However, since the Flemish chronicle in B.N., fr. 4940 appears to represent a copy of the original text of that chronicle, it is likely that it was copied without a continuation - since none was needed, Philip the Bold still being alive - prior to his death in 1404.

9See the preceding note. l^According to Couderc, "Le Manuel d'histoire de Philippe VI de Valois," 442. 60 Those who purchased the manuscripts in which it was contained must have been relatively well-off. While the brevity and simplicity of "Cy aprez fait mencion" could have led to its diffusion in inexpensive copies among a wider public, such was not the case. The chronicle exists only in manuscripts that also contain the rather lengthy (and, correspondingly, expensive) Manuel d'histoire de Philippe VI de Valois, and, in all three manuscripts, the use of parchment and the adornment of the manuscripts with a miniature and illuminated letters only enhanced their cost. Finally, the fact that the chronicle exists only in manuscripts that contain the first recension of the Manuel d'histoire de Philippe VI de Valois continued to 1383 indicates both the probable reason for which it was composed and the probable use to which it was put. While one could leam French history by reading the Manuel, to do so was a difficult and tedious process. For example, a reader interested in knowing only the most essential chronological information about the reign of a given French king, or who sought only the most basic knowledge of that monarch's memorable deeds, would have first to locate the passages relative to that king in the Manuel, which is a universal history, and then actually to read them. Consequently, "Cy aprez fait mencion" was in all likelihood written and appended to the Manuel in order to provide readers of the latter with a short and convenient overview of French history.^ i

^ 1 Indeed, the anonymous author of the Manuel appears himself to have been aware of the need for such a text: Couderc, "Le Manuel d’histoire de Philippe VI de Valois," 417, 422, 435, pointed out that he inserted a catalogue of the French kings based on the Reees Francorum of Bernard Gui into the second recension (1330) of his work. The first and more widely-diffused recension of 61 Organized by royal reigns, with five chapters devoted to the Trojan origins and to the dukes who were commonly held to have ruled the French prior to the establishment of the monarchy and with fifty-one devoted to each of as many kings from Pharamond to Charles VI, "Cy aprez fait mencion" is in effect a catalogue, or list, of the French kings. In the fifteenth century, the possessors of the manuscripts in which it survives could consult it in order to obtain a convenient summary of French history, or to learn the length of the reign or the notable accomplishments of a given monarch, or simply to leam the order in which France's kings had r e ig n e d . 12

(BI B.N.. fr. 1707 The same purposes were served by another short chronicle which ran from the destruction of Troy to 1380. In the opinion of the modern scholar who studied it, this verse chronicle of the French kings known as the Pit des Rovs was composed early in the reign of

Charles VI.^3 i read it in B.N., fr. 1707 (fois. 30-37), which contains one of the seven fifteenth-century copies in which it is known to

the Manuel did not, however, contain such a text, and it will have been to provide its readers with one that "Cy aprez fait mencion" was appended to an updated version of the first recension of the Manuel early in the reign of Charles VI.

l2por more on "Cy aprez fait mencion de tous les roys de france combien ilz regnerent" as a list of the French kings, and for an analysis of the list it contains, see Chapter VI, "Lists of the French Kings, I", and Chapter VII, "Lists of the French Kings, 11".

^ 3i have relied, for much of what follows, on Robert Bossuat, "Le Pit des Rovs. Chronique rimêe du XlVe siècle," in Mélanges de Linguistique romane et Philologie méhiévale offerts à M. Maurice Delbouille. II, Gembloux 1964,49-58, who dated the original composition of the Dit des Rovs to shortly after 1380. 62 survive. 14 it is of interest as an example of what one might, in several senses of the word, term a "popular" late-medieval history of France. For one thing, while the original composition, and three of the known copies, concluded with the death of Charles V, the Pit des Rovs. like so many other medieval chronicles, found continuators. Two manuscripts contain a continuation for the reign of Charles VI made during the lifetime of that king. One concludes with a longer one made after his death in 1422. Yet another, written during the reign of Louis XI, advances the narrative to the time of that monarch. 15 Furthermore, while it was in all likelihood composed by a

Parisian, 16 it came to be known outside the Ile-de-France. The Norman chronicler and apostolic notary Pierre Cochon copied the Pit

l^The Pit des Rovs is recognizeable by the incipit "Aux nobles qui ayment Paris". For a description of B.N., fr. 1707, see the Catalogue des manuscrits français de la Bibliotèaue Nationale I, 293. To the six fifteenth-century copies known to Bossuat (Paris, B.N., fr. 1707, fols. 30-37; fr. 5391, fols. 11-13; fr. 5943, fols. 25-33; lat. 4641 B, fols. 128v-131v; Leningrad, ms. lO.D., which is no longer extant; and Berlin, ms. gall., coll. Hamilton 46, fols. 120-123), one wiU add a seventh, Paris, B.N., fr. 4437, fols. 236-242. A fragment of the text is published in RHF XXIII, 224. iSgossuat, "Le Dit des Rovs." 49. In Paris, B.N., fr. 5391 and fr. 5943, and in the Leningrad manuscript, the text concludes with the death of Charles V. The first continuation, made during the reign of Charles VI, is given by B.N., fr. 1707 and the Berlin manuscript. The second, made after 1422, is given by B.N., lat. 4641 B. The copy in B.N., fr. 4437, the one unknown to Bossuat, contains, according to the Catalogue des manuscrits français de la Bibliothèque Nationale. III, 743, a continuation to Louis XI. This last continuation was, to judge from its explicit - "Et paix nous acquérir briefment/Dieu lui [Louis XI] doint finer noblement" - composed during the reign of that monarch.

^ ^Bossuat, "Le Pit des Rovs." 50,58. 63 des Rovs at Rouen late in the reign of CharlesVI or during the first decades of that of Charles VII. 17 The relatively large number of surviving copies, coupled with their dispersion in space and in time (at least two of the copies were probably executed during the reign of Charles VI, one late in the reign of Charles VI or during that of Charles VII, one after the accession of Charles VII, and one during or after the reign of Louis XI), indicates that in the fifteenth century the Pit des Rovs achieved modest success as a short, simple, and convenient guide to the history of the French kings. It was also "popular" in terms of its author, his aims, and his audience. For one thing, despite the fact that he wrote his work in Paris, where copies of the Grandes Chroniques were plentiful in the late-fourteenth c e n t u r y , is he based it not on the Grandes Chroniques l^B.N., fr. 5391 is a collection of chronicles, some of them authored by Pierre Cochon and some of them simply copied by him, written in his hand. Among the former are his primary work, a chronicle from c.1108 to 1430, known as the Chronique normande and published by Ch. de Beaurepaire (ed.), Chronique normande de Pierre Cochon, notaire apostolique à Rouen. Rouen 1870 (Société de l'histoire de Normandie), and a short text beginning "Or parleron d'un cas advenu en la court de l'eglise de Rouen ". Among the latter are the Dit des Rovs and possibly, for it is not sure whether they were composed or simply copied by Cochon, a chronology of the popes, emperors, kings of France and of England, dukes of Normandy, and other princes, and a text known as the Chronique rouennaise (1371-1434). For bibliographical indications on the works contained in B.N., fr. 5391, see A. Potthast et. al.. Renertorium Fontium Historiae Medii Aevi. Fontes. Ill, 495. On the manuscript, see the Catalogue des manuscrits français de la Bibliothèque Nationale. IV, 725-26. On Pierre Cochon (c.1390-1456) see Ch. de Beaurepaire, "Notice sur Pierre Cochon, auteur de la Chronique normande." Précis analvtique des travaux de l'Académie des Sciences. Belles-Lettres et Arts de Rouen 62 (1859-1860) 299-331. For some comments on the presence of the Dit des Rovs in Pierre Cochon's historical compilation, see note 21 below.

^ ^Bernard Guenee, "Les Grandes Chroniques de France. Le Roman aux roys (1274-1518)," in Pierre Nora (éd.), Les Lieux de mémoire. II. La nation. I, Paris 64 but on a copy of Guillaume de Nangis's Chronique abregee continued to 1381.19 Because the Grandes Chroniques were a massive and expensive work, one is justified in drawing the conclusion that late- medieval historians who based their histories of France directly upon it moved in the circle of an individual or institution wealthy enough to possess a copy.20 Conversely, the author of the Pit des Rovs appears to have had access to no sources other than a copy of the much shorter Chronique abreeee. an abbreviation of the Grandes Chroniques which he himself then abbreviated.

1986, 202, 204, pointed out that nearly all of the manuscripts of the Grandes Chroniques produced during the reign of Charles VI were made in Paris and that their geographical diffusion was, with few exceptions, limited to the Parisian region and the North of France.

1 ^Bossuat, "Le Dit des Rovs." 50-51,58. On the Chronique abreeeie of the monk of Saint-Denis and official historiographer Guillaume de Nangis, a short history of the French kings from the Trojan origins to the accession of Philip IV written in Latin around 1285, translated into French and continued to 1300 by its author between 1297 and his death in 1300, subsequently amplified and continued to 1303,1316,1321,1330,1381, and 1384, and surviving in French in a host of fourteenth and fifteenth-century manuscripts, see Leopold Delisle, "Mémoire sur les ouvrages de Guillaume de Nangis," Mémoires de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 27, Part 2 ( 1873) 342-364; Gabrielle M. Spiegel, The Chronicle Tradition of Saint-Denis: A Survey. Brookline 1978,103-105; and Sandra Hindman and Gabrielle M. Spiegel, "The Fleur-de-lis Frontispieces to Guillaume de Nangis's Chronique Abrégée: Political Iconography in Late Fifteenth-Century France," Viator 12 (1981) 381-407. Fragments of the text are published in RHFXX. 649-53.

20Bemard Guenee, "Les Grandes Chroniques de France. Le Roman aux roys ( 1274-1518)," 202-204,206-207, pointed out that copies of the Grandes Chroniques made during the reign of Charles VI were invariably contained in luxurious manuscripts possessed by extremely rich princes and nobles. He further noted that while after c.1450 they were available in "no-frills" manuscripts that achieved a wider social diffusion, such manuscripts were still quite expensive on account of the sheer length of the Grandes Chroniques. For an example counter to that of the author of the Dit des Rovs. see section (R) below, on B.N., fr. 10137, whose author had access to two copies of the Grandes Chroniques. 65 The verse form, which by the late-fourteenth century was extremely rare in French historiography, and the brevity and simplicity of his work, which provided only the name of each French king, his number in the order of succession, the length of his reign, and at times his memorable deeds, indicate that the author wrote what one might term a non-scholarly work destined for a public not overly familiar with the history of France. Furthermore, unlike "Cy aprez fait mencion de tous les roys de france combien ilz regnerent", the diffusion of the Pit des Roys was not tied to that of any other historical work and it appears to have circulated in short, cheap copies. Indeed, it survives in unadorned copies in composite manuscripts the contents of which are not primarily historical in nature.2i In sum, a number of elements justify Robert Bossuat's impression that the author of the Pit des Rovs was a "humble poet" who, with but "little means" at his disposal, set out to instruct

"simples sens" in the history ofF r a n c e.22

2lThe sole exception is B.N., fr. 5391, wherein the Pit des Rovs forms part of Pierre Cochon's historical compilation and on which see note 17 above. The presence of the Pit des Rovs therein is further evidence of the ease with which this short text, copies of which could be quickly and cheaply copied, circulated. Having come upon it. Cochon simply copied it into the manuscript in which he compiled historical texts, his own and others'. His decision to do so also provides an interesting indication of the use to which the Pit des Roys could be put by a fifteenth-century Frenchman interested in history. Cochon may well have found the Pit des Rovs. containing as it did the names of the French kings, the order in which they ruled, and the lengths of their reigns, all of it presented in extreme brevity, to be a convenient aid to his memory and source of reference for the background to Norman history, which was his real interest.

22Bossuat, "Le Pit des Rovs." 58. For a consideration of the Pit des Rovs as a catalogue or list of the French kings, and for an analysis of the list of monarchs contained therein, see Chapter VI, "Lists of the French Kings, I," and Chapter VII, "Lists of the French Kings, II". 66 (C) B.N.. lat. 14663 A third history of France written early in the reign of Charles VI is contained in B.N., lat. 14663 (fols. 14-19v and fol. 30). Known by the incipit "Comment valentiniain empereur fist regner avecques luy gracian ", it is known to exist only in the manuscript in question. The chronicle covers the history of the French monarchy from Pharamond to the reign of Philip VI. It was composed in 1381.23 The copy found in B.N., lat. 14663 was made sometime before 1401, when a continuator updated its text to the time of Charles VI.24

23While the chronicle's second chapter states that "Ce sont les noms de tous les roys qui ont regne sur les francoys des le premier roy iusques aujourdui, cest assavoir lan mil. lll.c XXX" (B.N., lat. 14663, fol. 14), and while its final chapter gives Philip VI as still living (fol. 30: " lequel regne aujourdui, et régnera tant comme il plaira a dieu "), it was not composed in 1330. As one will see further along in the present section, the author of the chronicle based his work on a 1330 recension of Bernard Gui's Reges Francorum. He translated much of that work, and simply did not change Gui's references to 1330 as the date of composition and to Philip VI as the reigning monarch. In fact, his chronicle contains references to events that occurred well after 1330, such as the battle of Poitiers in 1356 (fol. 19v) and the death of Edward 111 of England in 1377 (fol. 19v). The date of composition is given by two of the numerous marginal notes in the manuscript, written in the same hand as the text of the chronicle. One, which is not fully legible due to the edge of the leaf having been tom off, notes that "la llle ligne [des roys] des laage [K.c] llll.xx VIll de [hue] chapet et en[core] dure a present l['an M.] lll.c llllxx. 1" (fol. 14). The other states that "Ce Charles [the Bald] fut derrenier empereur de la maison de france jusques a lan. mil. CGC lIII.xx I" (fol. 17).

24The continuator corrected the chronicler's statement, itself translated from Bernard Gui, that "Ce sont les noms de tous les roys qui ont regne sur les francoys des le premier roy iusques aujourdui, cest assavoir lan mil. Ill.c XXX" to read "llll.c et ung" (fol. 14). He then went on (fol. 30) to add a continuation for the reigns of John II, Charles V, and Charles VI, which concludes by noting that "Le xl.e roy fu et est dieu mercy encore Charles Vie, qui fu couronnes a rains le IIIl jour de novembre, mil CGC llll.xx en la fin du Xlle an de son aage. et regne au jour de hui. XIII de février mil CCCC I." 67 In composing it, its author relied overwhelmingly on the work of Bernard Gui (1261/2-1331), who is now remembered primarily as an Inquisitor, but who was also a prolific historian whose diverse works included three devoted to the history of the French monarchy. He authored seven editions of a short version of his Reges Francorum between 1312 and 1330 and three editions of a longer version between 1320 and 1330, five editions of his Arbor genealogie regum Francorum between 1313 and 1331, and three editions of his Nomina regum Francorum between 1313 and 1320.25 The chronicle contained in B.N., lat. 14663 is based on the second or third edition of the long version of Bernard Gui's RegesFrancorum.26 While much of it is a rendering of Gui's Latin work into French, it would be a mistake to dismiss the chronicle contained in B.N., lat.

25Qn Bernard Gui and his historical works, see Leopold Delisle, "Notice sur les manuscrits de Bernard Gui," Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale et autres bibliothèques XXVII 2 (1879) 170-455; Antoine Thomas, "Bernard Gui, frère Prêcheur," Histoire littéraire de la France35 (1921) 140-232; and Anne-Marie Lamarrigue, "La méthode historique de Bernard Gui d'après la Chronique des rois de France," Cahiers de Fanieaux 16 (1981) 205-219. On the numerous manuscripts in which Gui's works survive, see Thomas Kaeppeli, Scriotores Ordinis Praedicatorum Medii Aevi I (Rome 1970) 205-226, and André Vemet, "La diffusion de l'oeuvre de Bernard Gui d'après la tradition manuscrite," Cahiers de Fanieaux 16 (1981) 221-242. Fragments of Gui's Reees Francorum are published in RHF XL 385; XII, 230-233; XXI, 691-734.

2&That the author of the chronicle under consideration used the long version of the Reges Francorum is indicated by the presence in his chronicle (fol. 14) of an abbreviated translation of Gui's introduction (which is printed in RHF XXI, 693-94) to the long version of that work . That he used either the second or third edition, which both terminate in 1330 and which are extremely similar, is indicated by the author's translated reference to 1330 as the year of composition (see note 23 above). For a list of the known Latin manuscripts of the second and third editions of Gui's work, see Kaeppeli, Scriotores Ordinis Praedicatorum Medii Aevi I. 217-218. 68 14663 as a mere abridged translation.^? Its author included some material not found in Gui's work,28 inserted phrases of his own,29 and used his own judgment to alter Gui's numbering of the kings of France, thereby revealing disagreement with his source on a weighty interpretive matter.^o His chronicle is like Bernard Gui's Reses

2?Indeed, B.N., lat. 14663 does not figure in the list of manuscripts of French translations of the Reees Francorum given by Kaeppeli, Scriotores 1. 218, namely, Jean Golein's 1369 translation (Vat., Reg. lat. 697, fols. 134-168v), and another, anonymous one (Turin, Bibl. Naz. L. iv. 27, which is no longer extant).

28on several occasions, the author of the chronicle extended the chronological scope of his work beyond 1330, the terminal point of his source. For example, in his enumeration of the sons of Louis IX, he noted that " le quint fut robert conte de clermont qui fut pere a loys premier due de bourbon, le He due fut pierre qui mouru a la bataille de poitiers lan mil. CGC. Ivi" (fol. 19v). Likewise, in recording the progeny of Philip IV, he noted that "Delaquelle [Isabelle, daughter of Philip IV] fut filz edouart roy dengleterre regnant des lan. mil. CGC. XXVn. Jusques a lan mil. GGG. LXX [sic]" (fol. 19v).

29one example will suffice. The long version of Gui's Reges Francorum begins with an introductory overview of the three royal dynasties of French history, which is printed in RHF XXI, 693-94. The second chapter of the chronicle contained in B.N., lat. 14663 is an abbreviated translation of that text. The latter contains the statement "Et puis regna pepin le pere charlemaigne, qui estoit moult eslongnes de sang des roys" (fol. 14). This statement, an important one bearing on the question of dynastic continuity, is not found in Gui's text. It represents an addition by the author of B.N., lat. 14663, who did not hesitate to express and to underline his view of the relationship between the Merovingian and Garolingian dynasties by inserting it.

^®ln the Reges Francorum. as in his other historical works devoted to the French monarchy, Bernard Gui enumerated the kings of France. He assigned numbers in the order of succession to those monarchs who, for reasons that he generally explained, were to be placed in the "direct line" of kings, but not to other kings who, for reasons that he likewise generally explained, were to be placed in the "collateral line". Gui considered the Garolingian Louis II to have been the ninteenth king "en la droite ligne", his illegitimate son Garloman to have been the twentieth, and his legitimate son Gharles the Simple to have been the twenty-first. In other words, Gui counted Garloman but discounted Louis IPs other illegitimate son, Louis III. The author of B.N., lat. 14663 followed Gui's numérotation system with regard to all French kings except Garloman, whom, unlike Gui, he discounted. In the chronicle in question, Louis II is the ninteenth monarch "en la droite ligne" and Gharles the Simple is the twentieth, and it results that all of the subsequent monarchs in the "direct line" are assigned numbers in the order of succession one lower than 69 Francorum. but it is not the Reses Francorum. It is a distinct work which merits consideration for the view of French history that it provided to its late-medieval possessors, the canons of Saint Victor of Paris.3i

(D) B.N.. fr. 5697 Another history of France written during the reign of Charles VI is contained in B.N., fr. 5697. It is a version of a popular abbreviation of the Grandes Chroniques known by the incioit "A tous nobles". Because it is the earliest of the several versions of "A tous nobles" which 1 have included in my study, it will be useful, before describing this manuscript in particular, briefly to outline what I at present know about "A tous nobles" in general. At least twenty-one late-medieval manuscripts definitely contain versions of a history of France the incioit of which is "A tous nobles".32 in addition, as many as thirty-six others probably contain in the Reees Francorum. The reigns of the illegitimate Louis 111 and Garloman were, on account of their bastardy, matters of great controversy in late- medieval French historiography. Given that context, there can be little doubt that the author of the chronicle under consideration deliberately opted to omit Garloman from his enumeration on the grounds that no bastard could legitimately be king. In bringing his own judgment to bear, he departed from his source and revised Gui's numbering accordingly.

note on fol. 14 reads "hie liber est sancti victoris parisiensis inveniens quis. ei reddat amore del."

32xhe Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes (Paris, section romane) has eighteen manuscripts catalogued under the incipit "A tous nobles". They are: (1) Brussels, Bibl. royale, ms. 10233-36; (2) London, B.M., ms. Add. 26769; (3) London, B.M., ms. Add. 27539; (4) Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley Roll 2; (5) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 4990; (6) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 4991; (7) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 5059; (8) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 5696; (9) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 5697; (10) Paris, B.N., ms. fr, 5734; (11) Paris, B.N., fr. 6470; (12) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 10139; (13) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 19561; (14) Paris, B.N., ms. n.a. fr. 7519; (15) Paris, Bibl. Ste.-Geneviève, ms. 70 versions of thathistory.^^ Fifty-seven is a large number of manuscripts, and a comprehensive study of "A tous nobles" would

1993; (16) Paris, Bibl. Ste.-Geneviève, ms. 1994; (17) Tours, Bibl. man., ms. 1039; ( 18) the "ms. Samaran", which was sold in 1925. To these, one will add: ( 19) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 61;(20) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 20145; (21) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 23019.

^^Francois Fossier, "Chroniques universelles en forme de rouleau à la fin du Moyen Age," Bulletin de la Société Nationale des Antiquaires de France ( 1980- 81) 173-174, briefly discussed, and listed, a group of forty late-medieval rolls containing universal chronicles. Five of the forty manuscripts that he listed - namely, London, B.M., mss. Add. 26769 and 27539; Paris, B.N., mss. fr. 61 and 6470; and Tours, B.M., ms. 1039 - definitely contain versions of the history of France known by the incioit "A tous nobles". This raises the probability that some or all of the remaining thirty-five manuscripts that he listed also contain versions of "A tous nobles". I am not, for not having examined these manuscripts, able to judge. It will, however, be useful to list them here. Continuing my enumeration of possible manuscripts of "A tous nobles" from the preceding note, the thirty-five additional manuscripts listed by Fossier are: (22) Arras, Bibl. mun., ms. 146; (23) Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett, ms. 78 F 2; (24) Boston, Public Library, ms. 32; (25) Brussels, Bibl. roy., ms. IV 1003; (26) Caen, Bibl. mun., ms. 345; (27) Cambridge, Fitzwilliam College, ms. 176; (28) Clermont-Ferrand, Bibl. mun., ms. 269; (29) Columbia Univ., David Smith Lib., ms. 6; (30) Dole, Bibl. mun., ms. 23; (31) Harvard CoUege, ms. Typ. 41; (32) London, B.M., ms. Cotton roll XIII 33; (33) London, B.M., ms. Stowe 73. This manuscript may not belong in this list inasmuch as Fossier, 174 and 174, note 2, also stated that it is an English translation of the work of Noël de Fribois; (34) Montpellier, Bibl. univ., ms. 586; (35) New York, Pub. Lib., ms. 124; (36) Orleans, Bibl. mun., ms. 470; (37) Paris, Arch, nat., ms. AE II 9; (38) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 15373; (39) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 15374; (40) Paris, B.N., ms. n.a. fr. 1493; (41) Paris, B.N., ms. n.a. fr. 1494; (42) Paris, B.N., ms. n.a. fr. 1495; (43) Paris, Bibl. Ste.- Geneviève, ms. 520; (44) Paris, Bibl. Ste.-Geneviève, ms. 522; (45) Paris, Bibl. Ste.-Geneviève, ms. 523; (46) Princeton Univ., Museum of Historic Art, ms. 5; (47) Rouen, Bibl. mun., ms. 1137 U bis; (48) Sione, Arch, cant., ms. Supersaxo 109; (49) Tournai, Bibl. mun., ms. 123; (50) Tournai, Bibl. mun., ms. 124; (51) Tours, Bibl. mun., ms. 975; (52) Verdun, Bibl. mun., ms. 31; (53) Yale Univ., Thomas E, Marston Lib., ms. 31. Inasmuch as this manuscript is not a universal chronicle in the form of a roll, its inclusion in Fossier's list appears to be an error for ms. 180 of the same collection: see W. H. Bond and C.U. Faye, Supplement to the Census of Medieval and Renaissance Manuscripts in the United States and Canada (New York 1962) 84; (54) a manuscript sold by Sotheby in 1906; (55) a manuscript at Ashbumam Palace; (56) a manuscript sold in 1976. Finally, inasmuch as Nathalie Hurel-Genin, "Le fragment de parchemin anonyme du Centre Jeanne d'Arc d'Orléans," Bulletin de l'Association des Amis du Centre leanne d'Arc. 15 (1991) 39-44, Ukened (57) Orléans, Centre Jeanne d'Arc, ms. 35, to several of the manuscripts listed by Fossier, one will add it to this list of manuscripts that possibly contain versions of "A tous nobles". 71 need to take into account each of them. Furthermore, an attempt to explain the temporal and textual relations between them would confront three important complications. First, "A tous nobles" appears in many different tvnes of manuscripts. Most commonly, it appears within universal chronicles. At least thirty-four of the fifty-seven manuscripts which I know definitely or probably to contain a version of "A tous nobles" are universal chronicles wherein the history of the world is related in four parallel columns, one each devoted to the popes, the Roman emperors, the kings of England, and the kings of France. In these manuscripts, the text of the French column is a version of "A tous nobles".34 in addition, three manuscripts contain "A tous nobles"

3'^On the bases of catalogue descriptions and Fossier’s list, I can with relatively high assurance state this to be the case for the following manuscripts, which, for the sake of convenient reference, 1 have here as in the succeeding notes, denoted by the same numbers as in the preceding two notes: (3) London, B.M., ms. Add. 27539; (19) Paris, B.N., fr. 61; ( 21) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 23019; (22) Arras, Bibl. mun,, ms. 146; (24) Boston, Pubhc Library, ms. 32; (27) Cambridge, FitzwUliam College, ms. 176; ( 29) Columbia Univ., David Smith lib., ms. 6; (30) Dole, Bibl. mun., ms. 23; (31) Harvard College, ms. Typ. 41; (34) Montpellier, Bibl. univ., ms. 586; (35) New York, Pub. Lib., ms. 124; (36) Orleans, Bibl. mun., ms. 470; (38) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 15373; (39) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 15374; (40) Paris, B.N., ms. n.a. fr. 1493; (41) Paris, B.N., ms. n.a. fr. 1494; (42) Paris, B.N., ms. n.a. fr. 1495; (43) Paris, Bibl. Ste.-Geneviève, ms. 520; (44) Paris, Bibl. Ste.- Geneviève, ms. 522; (45) Paris, Bibl. Ste.-Geneviève, ms. 523; (46) Princeton Univ., Museum of Historic Art, ms. 5; (47) Rouen, Bibl. mun., ms. 1137 U bis; (49) Tournai, Bibl. mun., ms. 123; (51) Tours, Bibl. mun., ms. 975; (57) Orleans, Centre Jeanne d'Arc, ms. 35. On the basis of Fossier's list, I can with somewhat less assurance add: (23) Berlin, Kupferstichkabinett, ms. 78 F 2; (25) Brussels, Bibl. roy., ms. IV 1003; (32) London, B.M., ms. Cotton roll XIII 33; (37) Paris, Arch, nat., ms. AE II 9; (48) Sione, Arch, cant., ms. Supersaxo 109; (53) Yale Univ., Thomas E. Marston Lib., ms. 180; (54) manuscript sold by Sotheby in 1906; (55) a manuscript at Ashbumham Palace; (56) a manuscript sold in 1976. One will note that not all of the forty manuscripts listed in the preceding note - that is, not all of the forty manuscripts that Fossier grouped together as containing universal chronicles (the French sections of which are most likely versions of "A tous nobles") - are listed in the present note. This is because, on the basis of catalogue descriptions, I believe him to have erred in qualifying (2), (11), (26), (28), (33), (50), and (52) as universal chronicles. For the contents of these manuscripts, see the three succeeding notes. Most of the manuscripts listed in 72 along with chronicles of the Englishk in g s ,^5 five contain "A tous nobles" along with chronicles of the English kings and an historical treatise against the claim of the English kings to the French throne known as "Après la destruction de Troye",^^ and fourteen simply contain copies of "A tousnobles".^^ a detailed study of "A tous nobles" would have to determine whether it was originally a section of a universal history or originally a history of France which was incorporated into a universal history. It would also have to confront the question of the relationships between "A tous nobles" and the other texts in which it was embedded and with which it was coupled in late-medieval manuscripts. this note are in the form of rolls. On late-medieval universal chronicles in the form of rolls in general, and on certain of the manuscripts in question in particular, see François Fossier, "Chroniques universelles en forme de rouleau à la fin du Moyen Age," Bulletin de la Société Nationale des Antiquaires de France (1980-81) 163-183; Nathalie Hurel-Genin, "Les Chroniques universelles en rouleau: un exemple d'oeuvre historique enluminée de la fin du Moyen Age," Bulletin de l'Association des Amis du Centre Jeanne d'Arc 15 (1991) 29-33; Nathalie Hurel-Genin, "Le fragment de parchemin anonyme du Centre Jeanne d'Arc d'Orléans," Bulletin de l'Association des Amis du Centre Jeanne d'Arc 15 (1991) 39-44; and Christiane Raynaud, "Mythologie politique et histoire dans la chronologie universelle d'Orléans (ms. 470)," Cahiers du Centre d'Etudes Médiévales de Nice 12 ( 1992) 113-145.

35Namely: (1) Brussels, Bibl. roy., ms. 10233-36; (4) Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley Roll 2; (5) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 4990.

36Namely: (7) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 5059; (12) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 10139; (13) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 19561; (14) Paris, B.N., ms. n.a. fr. 7519; (16) Paris, Bibl. Ste.- Geneviève, ms. 1994.

37Namely: (2) London, B.M., ms. Add. 26769; (6) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 4991; (8) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 5696; (9) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 5697; (10) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 5734; (11) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 6470; (15) Paris, Bibl. Ste.-Geneviève. ms. 1993; (17) Tours, Bibl. mun., ms. 1039; (18) the "ms. Samaran"; (20) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 20145; (26) Caen, Bibl. mun., ms. 345; (28) Clermont-Ferrand, Bibl. mun., ms. 269; (50) Tournai, Bibl. mun., ms. 124; (52) Verdun, Bibl. mun., ms. 31. I have been unable accurately to determine the contents of the remaining one of the fifty-seven manuscripts under consideration, (33) London, B.M., ms. Stowe 73. 73 Such a study would also have to deal with the fact that, like many medieval historical works, "A tous nobles" was in a sense a living text which changed over time. As far as I can tell, no copy of "A tous nobles" predates the reign of Charles VI (1380-1422), and many of the manuscripts concluded with the reign of Charles V (1364-1380) or the accession of Charles VI.38 Others, however, carried the narrative to the death of Charles VI (1422),39 to various points during the reign of Charles VII ( 1 4 2 2 - 1 4 6 1 ),40 to the death of that monarch and the accession of Louis XI (1461),4i to the reign of Charles VIII (1483-1498),4Z to the reign of Louis XII (1498-1515),43

38i am aware of no version of "A tous nobles" that gives Charles V as still living. Among the manuscripts wherein the text concludes with an account of his reign or with the accession and/or first years of Charles VI are (1) Brussels, Bibl. roy., ms. 10233-36; (2) London, B.M., ms. Add. 26769; (5) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 4990; (10) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 5697; (19) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 61; (21) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 23019; (24) Boston, Public Lilsrary, ms. 32; (28) Clermont- Ferrand, Bibl. mun., ms. 269; (34) Montpellier, Bibl. univ., ms. 586. This is of course to say nothing of the actual dates of composition of these manuscripts other than that they postdate 1380.

39por example: (26) Caen, Bibl. mun., ms. 345; (36) Orleans, Bibl. mim., ms. 470; (52) Verdun, Bibl. mun., ms. 31.

40por example: (4) Oxford, Bodleian Library, Bodley Roll 2, to 1422; (7) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 5059, to 1429; (11) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 6470, to 1429; (12) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 10139, to 1429; (13) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 19561, to 1429; (14) Paris, B.N., ms. n.a. fr. 7519, to 1440; (15) Paris, Bibl. Ste.-Geneviève, ms. 1993, to 1440; (16) Paris, Bibl. Ste.-Geneviève, ms. fr. 1994, to 1440; (27) Cambridge, Fitzwilliam College, ms. 176, to 1415; (51) Tours, Bibl. mun., ms. 975, to 1457.

41por example: (3) London, B.M., ms. Add. 27539; (10) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 5734; (20) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 20145; (22) Arras, Bibl. mun., ms. 146; (31) Harvard College, ms. Typ. 41; (35) New York, Pub. Lib., ms. 124; (38) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 15373; (39) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 15374; (40) Paris, B.N., ms. n.a. fr. 1493; (42) Paris, B.N., ms. n.a. fr. 1495; (43) Paris, Bibl. Ste.-Geneviève, ms. 520; (44) Paris, Bibl. Ste.-Geneviève, ms. 522; (47) Rouen, Bibl. mun., ms. 1137 U bis.

42por example: (8) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 5696.

'^^For example: (6) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 4991; (17) Tours, Bibl. mun., ms. 1039. 74 and even to that of Francis 1.44 a popular text that was recopied many times, "A tous nobles" received numerous continuations, a matter that complicates the history of the text and that a detailed study thereof would need to address. Further complicating matters is the fact that, not even considering continuations, "A tous nobles" exists in more than one version. As a consequence of omissions, additions, and rearrangements of material by copyists, and especially by historians who created new versions of "A tous nobles" by using an extant edition of the text as the framework and primary source for their own works, is that different manuscripts contain texts which differ enough from one another to be considered distinct versions of the same basic work. A complete study of that work would need to catalogue all of the different versions of "A tous nobles" and to trace the textual and temporal relationships between them, a daunting task given the large number of manuscripts and the large number of versions, of which I have, in my own limited study, come upon seven. To resolve the complicated questions which stem from the presence of "A tous nobles" in different types of manuscripts, from its multiple continuations, and from its existence in different versions is beyond the scope of the present study. Nevertheless, as the very facts of the multiplicity and variety of manuscripts, the continuations throughout the fifteenth century, and the numerous

44por example: (45) Paris, Bibl. Ste.-Geneviève, ms. 523. 75 reworkings of the text all indicate, "A tous nobles" is too important to ignore in a study of unofficial histories of France in the late Middle Ages. Furthermore, while it would be useful to study all of the manuscripts, to know which version is the original, to know on the basis of which manuscript a certain copy was made or a certain new edition was written, and to be aware of all of the copies of all of the different versions, the lack of such information will not impede my purpose in the present study. The important points are that different versions of "A tous nobles" were written and circulated in France in the late Middle Ages, and that a consideration of the contents of at least some of them belongs in, and will further, the study of unofficial history in France. Therefore, my study includes examples of what 1 have discerned to be seven different versions of "A tous n o b l e s " . i will consider them separately, as if they were distinct works, which is entirely appropriate: their contents are, after all, different. Their authors did not write identical texts, their audiences did not read identical texts, and, as we shall see on more than one occasion.

^Spor a discussion of (9) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 5697, see the remainder of the present section of the present chapter. On (21) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 23019, see section (E) of the present chapter. On (5) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 4990, (7) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 5059, (12) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 10139, (13) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 19561, (14) Paris, B.N., ms. n.a. fr. 7519, and (16) Paris, Ste.-Geneviève, ms. 1994, see section (J) of the present chapter. Three of these manuscripts - (5),(14),(16) - contain two different versions of "A tous nobles". On (5) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 4990, (14) Paris, B.N., ms. n.a. fr. 7519, (15) Paris, Bibl. Ste.-Geneviève, ms. 1993, and (16) Paris, Bibl. Ste.-Geneviève, ms. 1994, see section (K) of the present chapter. On (6) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 4991, see section (L) of the present chapter. On (10) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 5734 and (20) Paris, B.N., ms. fr. 20145, see section (Q) of the present chapter. Finally, on (8) Paris, B.N., fr. 5696, see section (T) of the present chapter. 76 differences between different versions of "A tous nobles" testify to important differences of opinion among the late-medieval Frenchmen who wrote them. The earliest version of "A tous nobles" which I studied is contained in B.N., fr. 5697.46 it covers French history, by royal reign, from the Trojan origins to the reign of Charles V. It was composed, and in all likelihood copied, sometime between June 1409 and December 1415.47

46por a description of the manuscript, in which the work in question is the only item, see the Catalogue des manuscrits français de la Bibliothèque Nationale. V, 69-70. Following a lengthy descriptive title - "Sensuit comment le royaulme de gaule fut nomme france. et comment la cite de lutesse fut nomme paris. Et qui sont les roys qui y ont regne et combien, et ou ilz gisent, et quantes enfens ilz ont euz. iusques en lan mil CCCC. ou environ" - the incipit is: "A tous nobles qui ayment beaulx fais et belles histoires vueil enseigner au plaisir de dieu qui soit a mon commencement comment le royaulme de gaule fut nomme france et la cite de lutesse paris ". While B.N., fr. 5697 is the sole manuscript of which I am aware that contains the version of "A tous nobles" now under consideration, it may well be found in other manuscripts that 1 have not examined.

47The terminal point of the chronicle itself is indeterminate, its last chapter speaking of Charles V in the past tense but not positively stating that he had died: "Charles premier filz du roy iehan fut coronne lan mil CCC Ixiii. lequel mist son royaulme en paix a grant paine, et fut bon preudomme et saige et qui gouverna cestui royaulme. tant quU vesquit dieu doint aux autres si bien gouv[er]ner, quilz puissent avoir le royaulme de paradis. La nous vueille conduire le pere et le filz et le saint esperit. Amen" (fols. 31v-32). However, the genealogical tree that accompanies the text extends beyond the death of Charles V, to include "Charles VI.e roy de ce nom" (fol. 32v). The same tree provides the terminus post guem in describing Charles Vi's daughter Michelle as "la dame de charroloys" (fol. 32v). It provides the terminus ante guem in describing Charles VTs son Louis as "Loys daulphin et duc de guienne" (fol. 32v). Since Michelle became the "dame de charroloys" upon her marriage to Philip, count of Charolais (i.e.. the future Philip thre Good of Burgundy), in June 1409, and since Louis, duke of Guyenne, ceased to be the dauphin upon his death in December 1415, the genealogical tree was necessarily composed between those two dates. Inasmuch as the genealogical tree is mentioned in the text's prologue - "Et vous monstreray de hoir en hoir les roys qui y ont regne et quelle ligniee ilz ont eue. comme sera veu par larbre ci après figure" (fol. 1) - and is an integral part of the work in question, it is reasonable to date the composition of the text to the same period. While it was not uncommon to copy histories of France without updating them to the present, it seems likely 77 While information about its author is lacking, the purpose of his history is plain enough. The text begins with a title stating that the work will outline the origins of the kingdom of France and the city of Paris and list the kings who have reigned there, along with the lengths of their reigns, their places of burial, and their children.48 The text's prologue, which is common to most versions of "A tous nobles", goes on to state that a genealogical tree of the French kings shall accompany the text, that the purpose of the tree is simply to permit summary knowledge of the royal genealogy, and that readers desirous to correct any errors, and, by implication, to obtain more detailed knowledge, should turn to other sources, namely, Orosius,

Martin of Troppau, and the Grandes Chroniaues.49 Finally, the text is indeed adorned by a genealogical tree of the French kings, which, in addition to tracing the royal lineage, also makes reference to contemporary saints and to royal foundations of churches. that the manuscript was also copied sometime between 1409 and 1415. A primary purpose of this work being to inform its readers of the genealogy of the French kings, it is unlikely that even its copyist would have omitted to mention the death of the dauphin Louis: the likelihood of a genealogy copied after 1415 describing the next dauphin (1415-1417) as "Jean due de touraine" (fol. 32v) is small, and a genealogy copied after 1417 (much less, after 1422) would be extremely unlikely to describe Charles VII as "le conte de pontieu" (fol. 32v). Nevertheless, one cannot be certain: the next section of the present chapter will deal with a version of "A tous nobles" composed between 1415 and 1417 and recopied, without the royal genealogy having been updated, in 1465.

48see note 46 above.

49b.N., fr. 5697, fols. 1-lv: "Et vous monstreray de hoir en hoir les roys qui y ont regne et quelle lignee ilz ont eue. comme sera veu par larbre ci après figure. Si prie a tous que sil y a faulte leur plaise la corriger et mavoir excuse. Car le lay mis au mieulz que iay peu selonc mon petit entendement. Et le trouverez es croniques martin et henorese. et aussi es croniques de france tout au long, car cest arbre nest compose que pour savoir ligierement les lignées des roys qui ont regne en france ". 78 In sum, the work is a sort of beginner's guide to the history of the French kings, with a stress on genealogy and chronology. While its chapters on each of the French kings do contain information about their deeds, it does not pretend to be an exhaustive account: it is, rather, a self-conscious abbreviation of the Grandes Chroniques, to which the author referred those who wished to know more. B.N., fr. 5697, while not an inexpensive manuscript (it is on parchment and contains numerous painted initials as well as the painted genealogical tree), was also not a terribly costly one (no miniatures, no illuminations). It was certainly much shorter and therefore much less expensive than a copy of the Grandes Chroniques. It was, like most of the versions of "A tous nobles" which we shall study, destined to provide a summary of the history of the French kings to well-to-do readers not quite well-off enough to purchase, or simply lacking the inclination to read, the Grandes Chroniques.

(E) B.N.. fr. 23019 As noted in the previous section, the history of France known by the incioit "A tous nobles" was often embedded within universal chronicles. Such is the case in the next work that 1 studied, "Les croniques des papes et des empereurs et des roys de france et d'engleterre" found in B.N., fr. 23019.50

50por a description of B.N., fr. 23019 see the Catalogue des manuscrits français de la BibliothSaue Nationale XIII, 29-30, as well as the four succeeding notes. For a list of the thirty-three other manuscripts of universal histories that I know probably to contain "A tous nobles," see note 34 above. As noted in the previous section, much work remains to be done on "A tous nobles" in general and on the universal chronicles that contain it in particular. 1 do not know whether the version(s) of "A tous nobles" that those thirty-three manuscripts 79 This work related, in four parallel columns, the history of the popes up to the election of Clement VII and the beginning of the

Great Schism in 13 7 8 ,5 1 that of the Roman emperors up to the imperial coronation of Louis of Bavaria in1328,52 that of the kings of

England up to the accession of Henry IV in 1399,53 and that of the kings of France from the Trojan origins to the first events of the contain is the same as the version found in B.N., fr. 23019 (or any of the other versions that I read), for B.N., fr. 23019 is the only manuscript of a universal chronicle that contains "A tous nobles" that 1 have examined to date. The question of whether "A tous nobles" was originally an independent text later incorporated into universal chronicles or originally part of a universal chronicle later reproduced alone is a difficult one which it is beyond the scope of this study to address.

51 Following several blank leaves (fol. 1, fols. 2v-4v, fols. ll-12v), a chart of virtues and vices (fols, lv-2), and a genealogical chart from Adam to the apostles (fols. 5-lOv), the four parallel columns begin on fol. 13. After an introductory title on fol. 13 ("Cy ensuivent les papes qui ont este a Romme depuis nostre sauveur iusques au pape alixandre qui regna en lan. mil. CCCC. IX."), the papal chronicle, which is accompanied by a "genealogical" tree of the popes, occupies the left-hand column of the verso of fols. 13-23 and 25-32. It concludes, on fol. 32vA, not - as promised - with the reign of Alexander V (1409-1410), but with the election of Clement VII in 1378: "Et clement fut esleu pape par les cardinaulx et le tindrent les francois pape et plusieurs autres nacions. et cetera. Explicit les croniques des papes. Jehan bretet."

52pollowing an introductory title on fol. 13 ("Cy sensuivent les empereurs qui ont este a romme depuis iulles césar qui premier fut empereur. Jusques a louys de baviere qui en fut empereur. En lan M. CCC XXVIll. Et combien chascun a regne et de leur mort."), the imperial chronicle occupies the right-hand column of the verso of fols. 13-23 and 25-32. It too is accompanied by a "genealogical" tree. While the text ends on fol. 32vB with the execution of Conradin by Charles of Anjou in 1268, the tree concludes with "Loys de baviere fut empereur," followed by "Explicit les croniques des empereurs. Jehan bretet."

53pollowing an introductory title on fol. 13 ("Cy sensuivent en ceste figure les VII royaumes qui furent ordonnez en engleterre avant la terre fut conquise de saisons et la nommèrent engleterrre."), the English chronicle occupies the the right hand column of the recto of fois. 14-34. It too is accompanied by a genealogical tree. On fol. 34b, the tree concludes with "Henry de lanclastre" and the text with; "Et fut henry de lenclastre couronne roy dengleterre a laide de ses amis si comme il apert plus aplain es croniques qui de ce font mension. Explicit les croniques dengleterre. Jehan bretet." 80 reign of Charles VI in 1380.54 The incioit of the text relative to the French kings is "A tous nobles". That text is sufficiently different from the texts of the other copies of "A tous nobles" with which I am familiar to warrant its consideration as a separate version of that work. The dating of the composition of the version of "A tous nobles" contained in B.N., fr. 23019 is a difficult matter. On the one hand, information in the genealogical tree that accompanies it points very strongly to a date of composition prior to the death of Charles VI. More specifically, because it designates Charles Vi's son John, duke of Touraine, as dauphin while designating Charles Vll neither as dauphin nor as king, it indicates a date sometime between the death of Charles Vi's son Louis, duke of Guyenne, in December 1415, and

54FoUowing an introductory chapter on foi. 13 ("Cy sensuivent les lignies des roys de france et comment les generacions sont descendues lune de iautre. Et comment ils ont faillies Et parle en bref de leurs fais. Et en quel temps ilz ont regne Et combien et ou ilz gisent. Et quielx enfans eu Et en quel temps la cite de lutesse fut commencée Et comment elle fut nommee paris. Et comment le royaume gaule fu nomme france."), the text of the French chronicle begins on fol. 14a with "A tous nobles qui ayment biaux fais et bonnes hystoires veil escripre et engaigner au plaisir de dieu qui soit a mon commencement. Comment le royaume de gaule et la cite de lutesse furent commences ". It too is accompanied by a genealogical tree, on which see note 55 below. The text and tree occupy the left-hand side of the recto of fols. 14-23, all of fol. 24v, the left-hand side of the recto of fols. 25-33, all of fol. 33v, the left-hand side of the recto of fol. 34, and all of fol. 34v. The final chapter - "Comment le roy Charles Vie fut couronne" - concludes with the plundering of the Jews at Paris in 1380: "Et puis ce jour meismes furent les jufs pillies et aucuns pris et leurs femmes. Et puis fut crie de par le roy que tout fust ramene et raporte ou chastellet. Si furent les corps des juifz ramenés et aucuns des biens mais ce fut poy et cetera" (fol. 34v). One then reads: "Explicit les croniques des papes. Et des empereurs. Et des roys de france. Et dengleterre qui faictes et aconplies furent lan mil CCCC LXV. le XVe jour de février. Bretet" (fol. 34v), whence the title of the work as a whole. 81 that of the aforementioned John, in April 1417.55 on the other hand, the name "Jehan Bretet" follows the conclusions of the papal, imperial, and English chronicles in the manuscript, and one reads, at

55The papal, imperial, and English chronicles, about the dates of composition of which one can say only that they fall, respectively, after 1378 and possibly after 1409, after 1328, and after 1399, are not of use in dating the French chronicle. The genealogical tree of the French kings in B.N., fr. 23019 concludes with the children of Charles VI, whose five sons are denoted as follows: "Charles premier dauphin"; "Charles He dauphin"; "Loys Hie dauphin"; "Jehan Illle dauphin"; and "Charles due de touraine" (fol. 34). All five of Charles VTs sons were, successively, the dauphin: the first Charles from his birth (25 September 1386) until his death (28 December 1386); the second Charles from his birth (6 February 1392) until his death (13 December 1401); Louis, duke of Guyenne, from the death of the second Charles until his own death (18 December 1415); John, duke of Touraine, from Louis' death until his own death (5 April 1417); and the third Charles, who became Charles VII, from John's death until the death of Charles VI in 1422. Since the genealogy (1) described Charles, Charles, Louis, and John as dauphin and (2) took note of the third Charles but did not describe him as dauphin, much less as king Charles VII, it follows that it was in all probability composed while John was dauphin, that is, between 18 December 1415 and 5 April 1417. The likelihood that the author of a genealogy composed after the latter date and before the death of Charles VI would not have upgraded the future Charles VII to dauphin is small, and the probability that an author writing after the death of Charles VI would have thus concluded a genealogy is extremely remote. Furthermore, while they do not prove a date of composition between precisely December 1415 and April 1417, other items in the genealogy concord with those^dates. Namely: (1) The genealogy, which recorded the death of Louis of Orleans (fol. 34) was definitely composed after 1407; (2) It was definitely composed after 1409 and in all likelihood before 1419, because it described Charles VTs daughter Michelle, who married the future Philip the Good of Burgundy in 1409, as "la dame de charolois" (fol. 34) and not as the duchess of Burgundy, which she became when her husband succeeded his father as duke in 1419; (3) The last duke of Bourbon to figure in the genealogy was John (1410-1434), the last duke of Burgundy was John the Fearless (1404-1419), the last duke of Anjou was Louis II (1384-1417), the last duke of Brittany was John V (1399-1442), the last duke of Orleans was Charles (1407-1465), and the last duke of Alen^on was John I (d. 1415) (fols. 33V-34). Consequently, if the author of the genealogy attempted to follow these ducal lines to the present, his genealogy will have been fully contemporary only if it were written between 1410 and 1415 and, with the exception of John I of Alengon, between 1410 and 1417; (4) While it took note of the marriages of her sisters to Charles of Orleans, John V of Brittany, and Philip, count of Charolais (that is, the future Philip the Good of Burgundy), by describing Isabelle as "dame dorleans", Jeanne as "La duchesse de bretaigne", and Michelle as "La dame de charolois", the genealogy identified Charles VTs daughter Catherine simply as "Katherine" (fol. 34). It was, therefore, in all probability composed prior to her marriage to Henry V of England in 1420. 82 the end of the French chronicle, "Explicit the chronicles of the popes, and of the emperors, and of the kings of France, and of England, which were done and completed the fifteenth day of February, 1465. Bretet."56 The difficulty is to know who Bretet was and exactly what this statement means. Obviously, he was not the author of the original version of "A tous nobles", a text which we know to have been written at least fifty years before 1465 and which had already appeared in several versions by that time.57 Nor does he appear to have been the author of the particular version of "A tous nobles" contained in B.N., fr. 23019. The genealogical details in that text point too precisely to 1415-1417 as its dates of composition, and it is highly unlikely that an author composing a history of the French kings in 1465 would write a work according to which John, duke of Touraine, was dauphin and Charles Vll was identified neither as dauphin nor king. It is far more likely that a copvist working in 1465 would copv such a work without updating it, and indeed Bretet

56 b.N., fr. 20139, fol. 32vA: "Explicit les croniques des papes. Jehan bretet”; fol. 32vB: "Explicit les croniques des empereurs. Jehan bretet"; fol. 34b: "Explicit les croniques dengleterre. Jehan bretet"; fol. 34v: "Explicit les croniques des papes. Et des empereurs. Et des roys de france. Et dengleterre qui faictes et aconplies furent lan mil CCCC LXV. le XVe jour de février. Bretet." These notices are in the same hand as the rest of the manuscript.

5?As noted in the previous section of the present chapter, the earliest version of "A tous nobles" of which I am aware dates to 1409-15. On other versions of "A tous nobles" composed prior to 1465, see sections (J), (K), and (L) of the present chapter. 83 seems simply to have been the compiler and/or copyist of the texts contained in the particular manuscript in question.58 B.N., fr. 23019 is a rather luxurious parchment manuscript adorned with numerous small miniatures and no doubt destined for a well-to-do purchaser.sQ Since Bretet completed it in February 1465 and since it includes a text composed between 1415 and 1417, it stands as testimony to the continued popularity of "A tous nobles" throughout the fifteenth century.

(F) B.N..fr. 1623 Another text that 1 studied is entitled "Ce sont les noms de tous les roys qui ont este en france puis quelle fu fondée", which is contained in B.N., fr. 1623 (fols. 89-95v), the only manuscript in which it is known to survive.^o

58some late-medieval compilers/copyists altered the texts that they copied to the extent that one can reasonably consider those texts to be, at a minimum, different versions of the copied texts or, at most, new, independent works. I have opted to date the composition of the version of "A tous nobles" found in B.N., fr. 23019 to 1415-17 rather than to 1465 because, to judge from the state of the genealogy and the lack of a continuation, Bretet did not alter very much. However, only an examination of the manuscript that Bretet copied, which I do not know, would definitively settle the question of whether the text in B.N., fr. 23019 is more properly considered a copy of a version of "A tous nobles" written in 1415-17 or a new version of "A tous nobles" worked up by Bretet in 1465.

belonged, at an indeterminate date, to a certain "Herouard", whose name appears on the binding of the manuscript.

60rhe full title is "Ce sont les noms de tous les roys qui ont este en france puis quelle fu fondée, qui par avant estoit appelle Gaule. Et combien chascun roy regna en son temps et les noms des femmes quilz eurent de quoy on fait mencion". For a description of the manuscript, see the Catalogue des manuscrits français de la Bibliothèque Nationale I. 274-75. 84 A number of elements permit an informed estimation of the date of its composition. In his final chapter, the author spoke of Charles VI in the past tense, noting that he married Isabelle of Bavaria "from whom he had a very beautiful descendance", and that "for the very great cruelties and divisions that, in his time, were in his kingdom and otherwise, his said kingdom had much to s u ffe r ." 6 i While this could be taken to indicate that the author wrote after the death of Charles VI, it is to be noted that the use of the past tense in an historical work destined for posterity does not necessarily imply past time. Furthermore, while the author consistently noted the lengths of the reigns of France's monarchs throughout his work, he did not do so for Charles V1.62 To these elements, one can add the fact that his work is followed in the manuscript by a series of twenty-seven historical notes (fols. 96-96v) copied in the same hand as "Ce sont les noms". These notes cover the period from the battle of Bouvines (1214) to that of Cravant (1423), but over half of them note events of the reign of Charles VI and they increase notably in degree of detail as they advance in tim e ,6 3 all of which leaves one with the unverifiable

fr. 1623, fol. 95v: "Le LVIIIe roy ot nom chartes, et ot a femme ysabel fille au duc de baviere de laquelle il ot tresbelle lignee. Et pour les tresgrans crualtez et divisions qui de son temps furent en son royaume et autrement sondit royaume ot moult a souffrir."

^^The author failed to note the lengths of the reigns of only three of the fifty- eight monarchs from Pharamond to Charles VI with whom he dealt, namely, Childeric III, Garloman the son of Louis the Stammerer, and Charles VI.

*^3compare, for example, the notes on Bouvines (in 1214, "fu prins le conte ferrand de flandres a bouvines," fol. 96) and Poitiers (in 1356, "fu le roy jehan prins a poitiers,” fol. 96) with that on Cravant ("Le derrenier jour de juillet IIlI.c XXIII. furent les gens du dauphin desconfis devant cravant près daucerre 85 impression that they were composed shortly after the death of Charles VI. They may well, furthermore, have been composed by the author of "Ce sont les noms", for the two texts share a slight but

nevertheless detectable pro-English inclination.64 Taken together, these elements permit the cautious proposition that "Ce sont les noms" was composed very shortly before or very shortly after the death of Charles VI in 1422. It was also, to judge from its author's pronounced interest in Parisian monuments, composed in (occupied, Anglo-Burgundian) P aris.^ s par les contes de salsebery et suffort et la furent prins le conte de vaudatour le sire de senrac le sire de gamaches et pluseurs autres jusques au nombre de III.m V.c et plus," fol. 96v).

64The next-to-last of the historical notes, which describes the death and obsequies of Charles VI, does not mention Charles VII and appears to recognize the legitimacy of the duke of Bedford's regency: " mais il ny ot que le duc de bedford de sang royal qui feist le dueil Et depuis fu regent le royaume icellui duc de Bedford qui estoit frere dudit roy henry dangleterre" (fol. 96v). Consistent with his having not mentioned Charles VII and his having identified Bedford as the regent, the author then referred to Charles VII simply as the "dauphin" in the following note, relative to the battle of Cravant (see the previous note). As for "Ce sont les noms de tous les roys", which, as one will see shortly, was composed in Anglo-Burgundian Paris, its author simply stated that Charles VI "ot tresbelle lignee" (fol. 95v) rather than naming Charles VII as his son. Furthermore, if he in fact wrote after the death of Charles VI, his decision to terminate his work with that monarch probably reflects, if not necessarily hostility to Charles VII, then at least ambivalence or confusion about who had succeeded Charles VI as king of France. In addition, the author of "Ce sont les noms de tous les roys", alone among the authors of the late-medieval histories of the French kings with which I am familiar, specified that the third king of France, Merovech, who succeeded Clodion, was descended from the latter's daughter: " et sa [Clodion's] fille ot ung hoir qui ot nom Meroneus qui puis regna en france moult noblement" (fol. 89v). In other words, he recognized, as would a partisan of the English cause in France, the possibility of legitimate succession to the French throne through the female line. For a full discussion of the issue of the relationship between Merovech and Clodion, which, because of its contemporary political implications, was an important historical question in the fifteenth century, see Chapter III, "Clovis the Bastard".

^^With regard to monumental building in Paris, the author of "Ce sont les noms" attributed to the earliest French kings a number of imaginary works 86 The author of "Ce sont les noms" seems to have issued from the same humble Parisian milieu as the author of the Pit des Rovs. Certain similarities between his work and the latter text indicate that he may have used the Chronique abrégée of Guillaume de Nangis or

the Pit des Rovs itself as one of hissources.66 He also used his imagination freely, as his work contains a good deal of fanciful information not found in any of the other late-medieval historical

texts with which 1 am familar.67 Organized by royal reign in that were recorded neither in the Grandes Chroniques nor in any of the late- medieval histories of France of which I am aware. He informed his readers that Marcomir, the father of Pharamond, had a castle called the "chastel franc" built on the present site of Notre-Dame (fol. 89); that Clodion likewise built a castle, the "chastel herupe", along the Seine (fol. 89); that Merovech constructed a bridge, presently c^led the "petit pont", between these two castles (fol. 89v); and that Childeric I also built a castle, this one called "la belle garde", which was situated on the present site of the Chatelet (fol. 89v). The unexpected inclusion of these imaginative details, and the interest in Paris and the knowledge of Parisian geography that they betray, indicate the probable Parisian residence of the author.

^^On the similarities between "Ce sont les noms" and the Dit des Rovs. see Chapter VI, "Lists of the French Kings, 1".

67por example, whereas most late-medieval authors of histories of France noted that Childeric II was assassinated by a subject that he had wronged, the author of "Ce sont les noms" mentioned instead that he introduced viticulture into the Orléanais, and added that he frequented neither wine nor women: "Le XVII.e roy ot nom [Cjhilderic et fist plancter le vignoble en orlenoys, et si ne but oncques de vin ne nabita a femme " (B.N., fr. 1623, fol. 90v). Likewise, he noted that Dagobert III "fut le premier roy qui fist monnoye dor" (fol. 91), that the late-Merovingian Theuderic IV "ot en son temps moult grans guerres encontre les Rommains" (fol. 91), and that the Carolingian Lothar conquered the Limousin and Auvergne (fol. 92v), none of which occurrences were mentioned by any of the late-medieval histories of France of which I am aware. The full title of his work promised to name the wives of the French kings (see note 60 above), and the author did so for forty-two of the fifty-eight monarchs whose reigns he chronicled, resorting at times to his imagination in naming spouses not mentioned by the Grandes Chroniques or by any of the late-medieval histories of France of which I am aware: for example, "Averte" [?], wife of Clodion (fol. 89), and "Parise", wife of Merovech (fol. 89v). Also, see note 65 above, for his attribution of Parisian building projects to the first Merovingians. 87 chapters which begin by noting the number of the given king in the order of succession, it is of value both as a list of the kings of France and for the insight which it provides into the historical culture of a

Parisian in the early 1 4 2 0 's.68

(G) B.N., lat. 5027 Not much certainty surrounds another history of France written (probably) during the reign of Charles VI. Known, inaccurately, as the Chronique anonvme finissant en 1383. it covers French history from the Trojan origins to 1384.69 i read it in B.N., lat. 5027 (fols. 67-109), one of three manuscripts in which it is known to survive.^o

68por a consideration of "Ce sont les noms" as a catalogue or list of the French kings, and for an analysis of the list that it provides, see Chapter VI, "Lists of the French Kings, I", and Chapter VII, "lists of the French Kings, II".

69rhe incipit of this untitled chronicle is "Au temps que les Juys estoient en grant misere et soubz divers jugez et signouries plusieurs ". It concludes by noting the death and obsequies of Louis de Male, count of Flanders, who died on 30 January 1384: "Le penultime jour de janvier M CCC IIIIxx et III [this is an error by the copyist] dessusdit messire loys conte de flandres trespassa de ce siecle et fut fait son obseque moult sollennellement (B.N., lat. 5027, fol. 109). It is, therefore, by error that the RHF. Molinier, and Potthast, for the bibliographical references to which see the next note, identified it as a Chronique anonvme finissant en 1383. Their error seems to have been a result of the curious history of B.N., lat. 5027, on which see Leopold Delisle, "Note sur le manuscrit latin 5027 de la Bibliothèque impériale," BEC30(1869) 212-215, and his Catalogue des manuscrits des fonds Libri et Barrois. Paris 1988,205-206. Sometime between 1839 and 1844, fols. 109-120 of B.N., lat. 5027 were criminally removed from the manuscript. They were subsequently incorporated into ms. Barrois 564 as fols. 9-18 of that manuscript, from whence they were ultimately restored to lat. 5027 by Delisle. It was, it seems, the long absence from the manuscript of fol. 109, which contains the last lines of the chronicle, that led to its identification as a chronicle terminating in 1383.

^OOn this manuscript and on the chronicle in question, which was known to the following authors to exist only in B.N., lat. 5027, see the works of Leopold Delisle cited in the previous note as well as his "Mémoire sur les ouvrages de 88 The copy of the chronicle contained in B.N., lat. 5027 was made after 1422 and probably before the first years of the reign of Louis X1.71 The date of its composition is more difficult to determine. Natalis de Wailly, who published fragments of the text, claimed that its author "seems to have written during the reign of Charles VI," but

provided no evidence for this judgment.72 i shall accept it

Guillaume de Nangis," Mémoires de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles- Lettres 27, Part 2 (1873), 362; Auguste Moünier, Les sources de l'histoire de France des origines aux guerres d'Italie ( 1494). III, 194 (number 2863); Potthast, et. al.. Reoertorium Fontium Historiae Medii Aevi. Fontes. III, 17-18; and the remarks of Natalis de Wailly prefatory to his edition of fragments of the chronicle in RHFX. 315; XI, 410; 10(1, 142-145. According to the Institut de Recherche et Histoire des Textes (Paris, section romane), the chronicle is also contained in London, B.M., Cotton Julius E.Vl and in Poitiers, Bibl. mun., 215 (fols. 1-8). For descriptions of these two manuscripts see, respectively, the Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Cottonian Library, deposited in the British Museum (London 1802) 18, and the Catalogue general des manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France. Départements XXV (Paris 1894) 62-65.

In the manuscript, the chronicle in question is followed by a list of the kings of France entitled "Ce sont les noms des roys de france anciennement nommes gaule" (fols. 109v-110v). Inasmuch as this list was copied into the manuscript by the same hand that copied the chronicle, it is probable that the two items were copied at the same time. The last entry in the list notes the death of Charles in 1422; "Charles le Vie de [ce] nom dit le débonnaire trespassa en lan M. CCCC. XXII. le XXIe iour doctobre en laage de liiii ans et par ainxi il régna par lespace de xlii ans" (fols. llO -llO v). Later, another hand added to the list a continuation for Charles VII and Louis XI. One has the impression, but cannot prove, that this continuation was added to the list shortly after the accession of the latter monarch. The continuator noted simply that Louis XI was coronated and that, following his coronation, he " entra a paris a grant magnificence, accompaig[ne] de tous les seigneurs de france, excepte son frere Charles maisne de luy lequel estoit demoure pour consoler sa mere marie daniou" (fol. llOv). Therefore, if the chronicle was copied at the same time as the list, it was necessarily copied after 1422 and probably before the first years of the reign of Louis XI, at which time the continuator of the list wrote his material in the already extant manuscript.

22:r h f XXI. 142. 89 provisionally, while noting the possibility that the chronicle was

written under Charles VII None of the scholars who studied the chronicle engaged in informed conjecture as to the identity of its author, who based his work on the amplified version of Guillaume de Nangis's Chronique abrégée continued to 1384,74 and 1 likewise have found no bases on which to do so. His work, known to exist in three fifteenth-century copies, did achieve a certain diffusion. B.N., lat. 5027 belonged to the Celestines ofParis,75 but where else it was known and among whom the evidence does not permit one to say.76

73The various elements that one might use to date the composition of the chronicle are too sparse to support sure conclusions. The terminal date of the chronicle does not by itself indicate a date of composition shortly after 1384 since by no means did all medieval chronicles terminate at or even near the dates of their composition or receive continuations: the chronicle under consideration, copied after 1422 but terminating in 1384, is a case in point. It would be useful to know if the chronicle and the list of the French kings that follows it in B.N., lat. 5027, which was definitely composed after 1422, were composed by the same individual, but whether such was the case is impossible to say. It is clear, as I shall demonstrate elsewhere (see Chapter VI, "Lists of the French Kings, I"), that the list was based on the chronicle. This, however, does not preclude the possibility that the list was composed by an attentive reader of the chronicle or even by the copyist. Their common authorship would increase the likelihood that the chronicle was composed after 1422, but would not preclude the possibility that one author simply wrote the two texts at two different times. Prudence dictates withholding final judgment on the question.

74Delisle, "Mémoire sur les ouvrages de Guillaume de Nangis," 362.

75RHFXXI. 142.

^^Information on the two manuscripts other than B.N., lat. 5027 in which the chronicle survives might enhance our knowledge, but is difficult to come by. It is only on the authority of the Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes that I have noted the existence of a copy of the chronicle in Cotton Julius E.VI, the description of which given by the Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Cottonian Library, deposited in the British Museum is rather vague but which notes that the manuscript belonged to a certain Harald of Carlyle under Henry VIII. The Poitiers copy, the beginning of which is missing, is contained in a 90 While we do not known when, where, or by whom the chronicle was written, we do know a use to which it was put. Sometime after 1422, an unknown author - perhaps the author of the chronicle, perhaps an attentive reader of the latter, perhaps the copyist of B.N., lat. 5027 - used the chronicle to construct a list of the kings of France from Pharamond to Charles VI. This list, which follows the chronicle in B.N., lat. 5027, was copied into that manuscript by the same hand that copied the chronicle and was based on the latter. Because the list was based on the chronicle, we will have the advantage of knowing on exactly what bases the author of the list included and excluded certain French monarchs from his work when we come to study it in a later chapter.^?

(H) B.N.. fr. 9688 Advancing in time to the reign of Charles VII, I studied a work known as the "Chronologie universelle jusqu'à la mort de Charles VI". It is contained in B.N., fr. 9688,78 and, according to Colette Beaune, it was written around 1423 at Paris or at Soissons.79 composite manuscript that dates to the last two decades of the fifteenth century.

77 qii this list, which is entitled "Ce sont les noms des roys de france anciennement nommes gaule" and which is found on fols. 109v-l lOv of B.N., lat. 5027, see Chapter 6, "Lists of the French Kings, I".

78The work in question, whose incinit is "Cy ensuit la generation de adam qui comprent iusquez au deluge", is known to exist only in this manuscript, wherein it is untitled. For a description of the manuscript, see the Catalogue des manuscrits français de la Bibliothèque Nationale VII. 23.

7^Beaune, The Birth of an Ideology. 108-109. Beaune did not explain the bases on which she assigned the composition of the "Chronologie" to this time and place. It was certainly written sometime between 1423 (the death of Charles VI 91 The text in question differs from the majority of the works I examined in that it is not, strictly speaking, a history of France. It is, rather, a universal chronicle that covers the history of the world from Adam to the death of CharlesVI, in 269 chapters.so Nevertheless, a number of important factors justify its inclusion in this study.

in November 1422 is the latest event its author recorded) and 1463 (at which time a possessor of the manuscript signed it), but the evidence for a date of composition shortly after the death of Charles VI is only impressionistic. For one thing, the author devoted a great deal of attention to the reign of Charles VI, with which he dealt in the longest and most detailed chapter of his work. For another, that chapter seems to reveal that the author was a contemporary of the events that he described: he noted, for example, that "Et fut si chier temps en celle enne [1421] que le bouessel de ble valut cent soubz tomais de gros, les quieulz valloient xx l.t. et revindrent a deux l.t. Maiz ilz furent a v 1. ancois que a deux" (fol. 48). Finally, his work reveals a certain ambiguity towards Charles VII: he described the terms of the Treaty of Troyes without negative comment (fol. 47) and noted that the Duke of Bedford became regent of France upon the death of Henry V (fol. 48), but he also stated that Charles VII "fut roy après son pere" (fol. 48). The author's familiarity with the events of the reign of Charles VI and his delicate political position (noted also by Beaune, The Birth of an Ideoloev. 109) do seem to indicate, but do not prove, a date of composition not long after the death of Charles VI. Beaune's designation of Soissons or Paris as the site of the work's composition would appear to rest on its author's detailed and vivid treatments of the taking of Soissons by Charles VI in 1414 (fol. 46) and of the massacre of the Armagnacs at Paris in 1418 (fol. 47). In short, while the evidence is only impressionistic, one will accept Beaune's conclusions as reasonable and likely.

SOThe organization and contents of B.N., fr. 9688 are as follows: prologue (fol. 1); 9 chapters on the First Age of the World, from Adam to Noah (fols. l-3v); 7 chapters on the Second Age of the World, from Noah to Abraham (fols. 3v-5); 21 chapters on the Third Age of the World, from Abraham to David (fols. 5-8); 15 chapters on the Fourth Age of the World, from David to the Bablyonian Captivity (fols. 8-lOv); 30 chapters on events from the Babylonian Captivity to the Trojan War (fols. lOv-14); 5 chapters on the Trojan War (fols. 14-15); 25 chapters on the history of Rome to the time of Julius Caesar (fols. 15-18v); 5 chapters on the Trojan origins of the French (fols. 18v-19v); 17 chapters on the kings of Britain to the time of "Lucie", the first Christian king (fols. 19v- 23); 69 chapters on the Roman emperors from Julius Caesar to Louis of Bavaria (fols. 23-29v); 56 chapters on the French kings to the death of Charles VI (fols. 29V-48). 92 For one thing, several characteristics of this work indicate that the history of France was the matter in which its author was most interested and the one upon which he exerted the greatest effort. It is by far the subject to which he devoted the most attention. His treatments of all events prior to the Trojan War, of Roman history to Julius Caesar, of the kings of Britain, and of the Roman Emperors from Caesar to Louis of Bavaria are, respectively, only 70%, 18%, 17%, and 35% as long as his treatment of French history, and his 56 chapters on the French kings account for nearly 40% of the text.^i It is also the only subject that he pursued to the present. Whereas his accounts of the kings of Britain and of the Roman Emperors were entirely derivative and concluded, respectively, with "Lucie" (said to be the first Christian king of Britain) and with the imperial coronation of Louis of Bavaria in 1328, he pursued his account of the French kings, which shows signs of originality for the reign of Charles VI, to the death of that monarch. Furthermore, despite the fact that B.N., fr. 9688 is a universal history, it does nevertheless contain a history of France. Its author grouped together his 56 chapters on French history, with the result that fols. 29V-48 of the manuscript constitute an uninterrupted account of the history of the French, by royal reign, to the death of

®^These calculations are based on the number of lines of text, including the prologue and excluding chapter titles, in B.N., fr. 9688. Of a total of 3984 lines of text, the 56 chapters on the French kings contain 1584, which is 39.8% of the total. The author dealt with all events prior to the Trojan War in 1107 lines, which is 27.8% of the total and 69.9% of the length of his treatment of the French kings. The corresponding figures for Roman history to Julius Caesar are 285 lines, 7.2%, 18%; for the kings of Britain, 274 lines, 6.9%, 17.3%; for the Roman Emperors, 546 lines, 13.7%, 34.5%. 93 Charles VI. This fact, coupled with the author's evident interest in French history, justifies the inclusion of his work in this study of late-medieval histories of France. While information about the author is lacking, one can add to his probable residence at Paris or Soissons the impression that his chronicle reveals a certain sympathy for the masses and that it seems to have been written in an urban, mercantile environment.^^ The seemingly modest background of the author stands in contrast to the luxurious manuscript in which his work is known to survive83 and to the more elevated status of its known late-medieval possessors. A note in the manuscript reveals that a certain Antoine de Talentes, canon of Bayeux, gave it, at Bayeux and apparently as a Christmas present, to Tristan Lermite, lord of Moulins and of Le Bouchet, royal counselor and provost of the marshals of France and of the royal household, in December 1463.84 Royal officials and

S^The author’s sympathy with the masses was signalled by Colette Beaune, Naissance de la nation France , Paris 1985, 145. His probable belonging to an urban, mercantile milieu is indicated by his relation of the legend according to which Louis IX circulated leather money in France (fol. 41v), a legend which, according to Colette Beaune, The Birth of an Ideology. 110, circulated in the "popular strata of Paris", as well as by his marked interest in royal taxation (fol. 43v: "Et en lan m. lll.c xlix. le XVll.e jour de février furent accordées les aides et impositions au roy phelipe"; fols. 45-45v: "Et puis sen revint le roy [Charles VI] a paris et fist lever si grant taille que maint homme qui avoit bon lit en fut depuis sus la paille"), royal monetary policy (fol. 42v: "Et en lan m. III.c et VI. fut une grant esmeute du commun de paris pour le louaige des maisons que on voulloit faire paier en forte monnoie "), and the price of grain (fol. 48: "Et fut si chier temps celle enne [1421] que le bouessel de ble valut cent soubz tornais de gros, les quieulz valloient xx l.t. et revindrent a deux l.t. Maiz ilz furent a v 1. ancois que a deux").

83b.N., fr. 9688 is on parchment, and the text is adorned with numerous painted and illuminated initials, as well as by elaborate genealogical trees.

84b.N., fr. 9688, fol. 48: "Cest livre est a messire tristan lermite chevalier seigneur de moulins et du bouchet conseiller du roy nostre sire, prevost des 94 Norman clerics were two (often overlapping) groups known to have been particularly interested in French history in the fifteenth century 85 and the exchange of B.N., fr. 9688 between a Norman canon and a Norman royal counselor stands as an example of that interest. It is also of interest for its author's assertion that Saint Louis circulated leather money in France, and I shall consider it in more detail in discussing that legend in a later chapter.86

(I) B.N.. fr. 10468 Another history of France written during the reign of Charles VII is contained in B.N., fr. 10468 (fois. 105-110v).87 While this short chronicle from the destruction of Troy to the death of Charles

mareschaulx de france. Et de lostel dudit seigneur Et luy donna a bayeux maistre anthoine de talentes chanoine dudit lieu de baieux la veille de noel Lan mil CCCC soixante et trois."

85At least three of the histories of France under consideration in this study, namely, B.N., fr. 1233, B.N., fr. 10468, and B.N., lat. 5195/5659 (on which see, respectively, sections (N), (I), and (S) of the present chapter) were authored by Norman clerics, and interest in French history in fifteenth-century Normandy in general is indicated by the fact that copies of at least five of the works under consideration in this study are known to have belonged to Normans (see the "Collective Portrait of the Unofficial Histories" later in this chapter). On the interest of fifteenth-century royal officials in the history of France, see Kathleen Daly, "Mixing Business with Leisure: Some French Royal Notaries and Secretaries and their Histories of France, c.1459-1509," in Christopher Allmand (ed.). Power. Culture, and Religion in France c.1350- C.1550. Woodbridge 1989,99-115.

BGSee Chapter V, "The Ransom of Saint Louis".

87The work in question is known to exist only in this manuscript. Its incioit is "Apres la destruction de troye la grant de ceulx qui en eschapperent une grant multitude ". For a full description of B.N., fr. 10468, which contains, in addition to the chronicle in question and a number of other items, copies of Guillaume de Nangis's Chronique abregee and the Chronique des quatre premiers Valois, see the Catalogue des manuscrits français de la Bibliothèque Nationale VIL 114-15. 95 VI in fifty-nine chapters bears neither a title nor a prologue, we have the advantage of knowing when, where, for whom, and by whom it was composed. It was written sometime between 1422 and 1436. On the one hand, the latest event its author mentioned was the death of Charles VI (21 October 1422). On the other, a note at the end of the manuscript stated that its contents were copied at Rouen on the order of Robert Jolivet, abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel, and that the copyist completed his work in 1 4 3 6 .8 8 While one can say with complete certainty only that the chronicle was copied at Rouen and on the order of the said abbot, it is highly probable that it was also composed there and on his command. After having vigorously defended his monastery against the troops of Henry V in 1417-1419, Robert Jolivet, abbot of Mont- Saint-Michel from 1411 to 1444, defected to the English in 1420. He subsequently took up residence at one of his monastery's priories in Rouen and, throughout the possible period of composition of the chronicle in question, played a prominent role in the English government in Normandy in general and in the long and unsuccessful English attempt to wrest his abbey from its French defenders in

88"Charles VI.e trespasssa a pans lan mil lIII.c XXII le XXI.e jour doctobre" (B.N., fr. 10468, fol. 110); "Cronlcas Normannie et francie ceterasque alias scripturas superius scriptas varias materias continentes scribi fecit Robertas abbas montis sancti michaelis in periculo maris apud Rothomagum. in pluribus annis Et finaliter perfecit usque hie anno domini mille.mo CCCC.mo tricesimo sexto" (fol. 302v). Although, as we shall see, Robert Jolivet, abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel, in all likelihood also ordered the composition of the chronicle in question, "scribi fecit" is here best translated as "made to be written down" (that is, to be copied), since the manuscript contains numerous older works the composition of which he did not order. 96 particular.89 Not surprisingly, the chronicle of the French kings that he ordered to be copied evidenced a profound distaste for the Valois monarchs, a biting condemnation of the Armagnacs, a refusal to recognize Charles VII as the son of Charles VI, and a repeated insistence that, by virtue of the Treaty of Troyes, Henry VI of England had become king of France upon the death of Charles VI.^o The identity of the political stance of the chronicler with that of the renegade abbot strongly suggests that Jolivet ordered the chronicle's composition, in all likelihood to give an historical foundation to his current political position.^i Combined with a

Robert Jolivet and on Mont-Saint-Michel during the English occupation of Normandy, see Germain Bazin, Le Mont Saint-Michel: histoire et archéologie de l'origine à nos jours. 2nd edition, New York 1968, 31-35,43; Simone Deloison-Joanno, "Robert Jolivet et la guerre du Mont-Saint-Michel," Bulletin de la Société d’archéologie et d’histoire de Saint-Valérv-sur-Somme. 1978, 19-28; Etienne Dupont and Jacques Fauchon, "L'abbé Robert Jolivet," Revue de l'Avranchin et du pavs de Granville 67 (1989) 125-160; and Simeon Luce (éd.). Chronique du Mont-Saint-Michel (1343-1468). 2 vols., Paris (Société des Anciens Textes Français) 1879,1, 22-44, and the pièces diverses, many of which pertain to Jolivet. For a full discussion of Johvet's activities during the possible period of composition of the chronicle contained in B.N., fr. 10468, see Chapter III, "Clovis the Bastard".

90por a detailed discussion of these themes in B.N., fr. 10468, see Chapter III, "Clovis the Bastard".

This would explain why the last seven chapters of the chronicle are in effect a marshalling of three different historical arguments in favor of the legitimacy of Henry VI in France. First, the chronicler omitted Charles VII from his list of the children of Charles VI (B.N., fr. 10468, fols. llO-llOv), which permitted the conclusion that "en cestui Charles [VI] est faillie la lignee de ceulx de v alloys quant a hoir masle" (fol. llOv) and the dismissal of the claim of Charles VII to the throne. Next, he explained that, because Henry V of England was a direct descendant of PhUip IV, the French throne had been returned to the "line of Hugh Capet" after the Valois interlude: "Et retourne a lignee hue cappet par henri roy dangleterre descendu de ysabeau fille phelipe le bel femme edouart" (fol. llOv). Finally, he stated the terms of the Treaty of Troyes: "Car par ladicte paix le roy Charles devoit jouir sa vie durant du royaume de france. non compris en ce normandie et le pais conqueste. desquelx pais ledit feu roy henri et le roy henri son fils ont jouy comme seigneurs souverains jusques au temps du trespas dudit feu roy Charles, par 97 pronounced interest in the sollicitude shown to the churches of

France by French k in g s ,92 it also suggests that the chronicle's author was a clerical member of Jolivet's entourage, perhaps a monk of Mont-Saint-Michel who had followed his abbot to Rouen and into the obedience of the English. That author was familiar with the Grandes Chroniques, for his work contains a bitter criticism of their interpretation of the reigns of several French kings.93 While the chronicle contained in B.N., fr. 10468 was the product of a rather particular historical circumstance and while nothing lequel trespas ledit roy henry fils advint ou jouissement de tout le royaume de france" (fol. llOv). As if this wasn't enough, the chronicler also felt it necessary to repeat, in three separate chapters, that Henry VI was the king of France: "Lequel henri [V] a engendre en ladicte Katherine fille dudit Charles le VI.e henri roy de france et dangleterre qui regne a present" (fol. llOv); "Henri fils de henri roy dangleterre et de Katherine roine dangleterre fille dudit Charles le VI.e commença a regner en france en laage de X moys lan mil Illlc. XXII." (fol. llOv); "Le regne dudit roy henry commença en royaume de france en sondit premier an de son aage le XXI.e jour doctobre endit an IIII.c XXII" (fol. llOv). That the chronicle was written in order to ground Jolivet's political position in history is further indicated by the fact that the arguments used by the chronicler are the same as the historical themes in favor of the legitimacy of Henry VI employed in early-fifteenth-century English propaganda in France, on which see J.W. McKenna, "Henry VI of England and the Dual Monarchy: Aspects of Royal Political Propaganda, 1422-1432," Tournai of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 28 (1965) 145-162.

92while the author of B.N., fr. 10468, like nearly all late-medieval historians of France, recorded the important ecclesiastical foundations of the French kings, he also very often used the extent to which a given monarch "loved the holy Church" as a prime criterion in judging his reign. He condemned Charles die Bald, who on the whole was evaluated rather positively in late-medieval French historiography, because "II donnoit les abbaies a ses chevaliers pour les gaster" (fol. 107v). Whereas some late-medieval historians proposed its failure to protect the Church as a possible reason for the end of the Carolingian dynasty, he positively asserted that such was the cause, and warned that the fate of the Carolingians should serve as an "example to others": "Cy fault la lignie peppin pere charlemaine Et failli pource quilz pillirent leglise et ne la gardèrent point ne deffendirent. Exemple aux autres" (fol. 108).

93see Chapter III, "Clovis the Bastard". 98 indicates that it was ever recopied or read outside of the particular geographic, social, and political milieu in which it was produced, it is neverthless an extremely valuable document. It reveals what the entourage of one of the most notorious French partisans of the English found important in the history of France, what it believed about the history of France, and the uses to which it sought to put the history of France. It stands, as we shall see,94 as an interesting and striking example of the diversity that characterized late- medieval interpretations of French history.

(I) B.N.. fr. 10139 The reign of Charles VII also saw the composition of a new version of "A tous nobles". It was written sometime between 1444 and 1461, and perhaps, more precisely, between 1444 and 1447.95

94por more on the chronicle in question, see Chapter III, "Clovis the Bastard".

95 On the one hand, as Nicole Pons, "La propagande de guerre française avant l'apparition de Jeanne d'Arc," Tournai des Savants 11982) 211, note 75, noted, the latest event mentioned in the genealogical tree of the French kings that accompanies the text is the engagement of Margaret of Anjou to Henry VI of England in 1444: "La fille de ce roy Regne. fut fiancee a Tours lan mil CCCC xliiii a henry de lancastre tiers roy dangleterre de ce nom par le conte de Suffork son embassade" (B.N., fr. 10139, fol. 12v). On the other hand, the text itself concludes with a section on Charles VII which mentions no event posterior to his coronation in 1429 and which leaves the impression that he was still alive: "Cestuy Charles Vile commença a regner en lan de grace nostre seigneur CCCC XXII. Et eult moult affaire en son temps et le conforta nostre seigneur par une pucelle qui fist moult de merveilles en france Et puis fut elle prinse des bourgongnons qui pour leure estoient allez o les angloys contre le roy et fut devant compiegne et la rendirent es mains des angloys qui depuis la firent mourir Et fut ce roy Charles couronne a rains en lan mil CCCC XXIX Et recouvra en celuy an grant partie de son pais qui estoit en la main des anglois anciens anemys du royaume de france" (B.N., fr. 10139, fol. 14v). Inasmuch as the author of this history showed great concern for the royal genealogy throughout his work, it is extremely unlikely that he would not have noted the death of Charles VI and the accession of Louis XI had those events already occurred at the time he wrote. One can therefore assign the composition of 99 Its text covers the history of the French kings to the reign of Charles VII and is accompanied by a genealogical tree. I know it to exist in six manuscripts. The contents of three of them - B.N., fr. 5059, fr. 10139, and fr. 19561 - are identical.96 Each contains a brief chronology from the Creation to 1372,97 the version of "A tous nobles" in question,^® a chronicle of the English kings written sometime between 1435 and

1 4 4 7 , 9 9 and a copy of "Après la destruction de Troye", an historical this version of "A tous nobles" to the period 1444-1461. It is possible that it was written, more precisely, between 1444 and 1447. In aU of the manuscripts in which 1 know it to survive, the version of "A tous nobles" now under consideration was followed by a chronicle of the English kings composed between 1435 and 1447. In the event that the two texts were authored at the same time and by the same individual, it follows that this version of "A tous nobles" was composed between 1444 and 1447. On the chronicle of the English kings in question, see note 99 below.

96por descriptions of B.N., fr. 5059, fr. 10139, and fr. 19561, see, respectively, the Catalogue des manuscrits français de la Bibliothèque Nationale. IV, 499; VII, 53; and XI, 352-53. On these manuscripts, as well as on the others to be discussed in this section, see also Nicole Pons, "La propagande de guerre française avant l'apparition de Jeanne d'Arc," Journal des Savants (19821211- 212.

97 b.N., fr. 5059, fols. 1-lv; fr. 10139, fols. 1-lv; fr. 19561, fols. 1-2. This chronology begins with "Depuis que dieu créa le monde y a 5119 V.m C. XIX ans", and ends by noting "Lan mil 111c Ixxii se rendirent ceulx de poitou et de touars."

98b.N., fr. 5059, fols. 2-24v; fr. 10139, fols. 2-14v; fr. 19561, fols. 2-21.

99b.N„ fr. 5059, fols. 25-40; fr. 10139, fols. 14v-22; fr. 19561, fols. 21-33. The chronicle, after a descriptive title ("Cy après ensuyvent les noms des roys qui ont regne en la grande bretaigne "), begins with "Lud fut roy de la grande bretaigne XXX ans avant ladvenement nostre seigneur ", and concludes with the deposition and murder of Richard II: " Et fut henry de lencastre couronne roy dangleterre par sa force et grande puissance Et puis fist mourir ledit roy richart et ainsi luy est demoure le royaume a luy et a ses hoirs. Celui henry de lencastre eut quatre filz savoir est." The last sentence is followed by the end of the genealogical tree that accompanies the text. The tree notes the death of Henry IV's sons Thomas (1421), Henry (1422), and John (1435), but not that of Humphrey ( 1447), and it is on this basis that Pons, "La propagande de 100 treatise against the claim of the English kings to the French throne written in 1419-1420.ioo The same version of "A tous nobles" is also contained in B.N., fr. 4990, B.N., n.a. fr. 7519, and Ste.-Geneviève 1994. In the first of these manuscripts, it is preceded by another version of "A tous nobles", with which I shall deal in a later section, and is followed by the same chronicle of the English kings found in B.N., fr. 5059, fr. 10139, and fr. 19 5 6 1 .In B.N., n.a. fr. 7519 and in Ste.-Genevieve 1994, it is found along with the other version of "A tous nobles" also found in B.N., fr. 4990, the chronology found in B.N., fr. 5059, fr. 10139, and fr. 19561, the chronicle of the English kings found in all four of the previously mentioned manuscripts, and the treatise "Après la destruction de Troye", as well as other texts dealing primarily with B r i t t a n y . 102 guerre," 211, dated the composition of the chronicle to before 1447. It must also, following the same line of reasoning, have been composed after 1435.

100B.N., fr. 5059, fols. 41-55v; fr. 10139, fols. 22v-31v; fr. 19561, fols. 33v-41. The treatise is also found in B.N., n.a. fr. 7519, fols. 134-147v; Paris, Bibl. Ste.- Geneviève, ms. 1994, fols. 92-104v; and London, B.M., Harley ms. 4473. On this treatise, see André Bossuat, "Les Origines troyennes: Leur rôle dans la littérature historique au XVe siècle," Annales de Normandie 8( 1958) 195-196; P.S. Lewis, "War Propaganda and Historiography in Fifteenth-Century France and England," in his Essays in Later Medieval French History. London 1985, 202, note 6; and especially Nicole Pons, "La propagande de guerre française avant l'apparition de Jeanne d'Arc," Tournai des Savants ( 1982) 191-214. lOlpor a description of B.N., fr. 4990, see the Catalogue des manuscrits français de la Bibliothèque Nationale. IV, 463-64. Its contents are: the version of "A tous nobles" to be discussed in section (K) of the present chapter (fols. 1-39v); a table of contents for the preceding work, which the Catalogue erred in describing as a table of contents for the succeeding one (fols. 40-4Iv); the version of "A tous nobles" now under consideration (fols. 42-54); the chronicle of the English kings (fols. 54v-63).

102por a description of B.N., n.a. fr. 7519, see the Catalogue des manuscrits français de la Bibliothèque Nationale. XVII, 163. In addition to the version of 101 It follows from the aforesaid that the version of "A tous nobles" in question was intended to form part of a collection of related historical texts. Five of the six manuscripts under consideration contain the chronology to 1372, and 1 know of no additional manuscripts that contain that chronology. All six of the manuscripts contain the chronicle of the English kings, and 1 know of no other manuscripts that contain that chronicle. Five of the six contain "Après la destruction de Troye", and the only other manuscript in which that treatise is known to exist is a composite one.^03 The texts common to the six manuscripts were in each of them copied by a single hand, and they were always copied in the same order. The historical compilation of which the version of "A tous nobles" under consideration was part was a rather successful one. While 1 can state only that B.N., fr. 5059, fr. 4990, and fr. 19561 were executed after 1444, the facts that B.N., n.a. fr. 7519 was

"A tous nobles" to be discussed in section (K) of the present chapter (fols. 15- 85v), the chronology to 1372 (fols. 92-93v), the version of "A tous nobles" now under consideration (fols. 94-115), the chronicle of the English kings (fols. 116-133), and "Après la destruction de Troye" (fols. 134-147), the manuscript contains a variety of texts most of which deal with Breton affairs. For a description of Ste.-Geneviève 1994, see the Catalogue des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève. II, 232-234, and André Bossuat, "Jean Castel, chroniqueur de France," Le Moven Age. 4th series, 13 (1958) 292-294. The manuscript includes the version of "A tous nobles" to be discussed in section (K) of the present chapter (fols. l-62v), the chronology to 1372 (fols. 68-69), the version of "A tous nobles" presently under consideration (fols. 70-77v), the chronicle of the English kings (fols. 77v-91v), "Après la destruction de Troye" (fols. 92-104v), and a variety of texts dealing primarily with Brittany.

lOSfsjamely, London, B.M., Harley ms. 4473, for a description of which see A Catalogue of the Harleian Manuscripts in the British Museum (London 1808) III, 161-62. 102 executed after 1458 and possibly in 1459,^04 that B.N., fr. 10139

seems to have been executed in 1 4 6 2 ,los and that Ste.-Geneviève 1994 was executed around 1470^0^ do testify to a certain vogue in the middle decades of the fifteenth century. The manuscripts in which it survives are not particularly lavish. B.N., fr. 5059 is a vellum manuscript and contains rubricated initials, but it is also short (56 leaves) and without miniatures or illuminations. B.N., fr. 10139 and fr. 19561 are parchment manuscripts that contains rubricated initials, but they too are without miniatures or illuminations, and are even shorter (33 leaves and 42 leaves, respectively). B.N., fr. 4990, n.a. fr. 7519, and Ste.- Geneviève 1994 are somewhat longer manuscripts (63 leaves, 218

all of the manuscripts except B.N., n.a. fr. 7519, the latest events mentioned in the genealogical trees contained in the copies of "A tous nobles" in question occurred in 1444. However, in B.N., n.a. fr. 7519, the genealogical tree has been updated, and includes mention of the fact that "Artur conte de richement morit a nantes le XXVl.e jour de décembre, lan mil llll.c LVlll et gist aux chartreux" (fol. 112). Therefore, the text had to have been copied in 1459 at the earliest. Furthermore, the text ends as follows: " qui pors lors estoit en la main des anglois. Explicit en lan lix" (fol. 115). This mention of [14] 59 most likely refers to the date of execution of tlie manuscript. It could, however, refer to the date of composition of the somewhat updated text of "A tous nobles". Inasmuch as the date of composition and the date of execution need not be the same, I can with assurance state only that the manuscript was executed after 1458.

lOSjn B.N., fr. 10139, the text of the chronology from the Creation to 1372 begins with the curious statement that "Depuis que dieu créa le monde y a mille. CCCC Ixii ans" (fol. 1). It seems likely that the copyist made the error of writing the year of the incarnation rather than the age of the world. He seems to have tried to correct his error by writing the age of the world in the margin, wherein there is a not entirely legible figure next to his erroneous statement. If this interpretation is correct, the manuscript was executed in 1462.

lOôAndre Bossuat, "Jean Castel, chroniqueur de France," Le Moven Age. 4th series, 13 (1958) 291, note 17, and 303, note 51, dated Ste.-Geneviève 1994 to around 1470, on the basis of its watermark. 103 leaves, and 153 leaves, respectively), but all three are on paper and, like the others, contain only rubricated initials by way of adornment. As Nicole Pons pointed out,^°7 their known late-medieval possessors were minor, obscure noblemen: a certain "de Pommereul" signed his name in B.N., fr. 1 0 1 3 9 ,^ 0 8 the contents of B.N., fr. 19561 were copied for a "sire de Bellegarde",i09 and in 1557, Olivier de Launay, sire of Chamsermynes, used some empty space at the end of Ste.-Geneviève 1994 to note a number of strange occurrences in the Vendee.^io In sum, the success of the version of "A tous nobles" in question is readily understandable. A short text, it provided a convenient summary of French history and the French royal genealogy. In the company of a general chronology, a short chronicle of the English kings, and an historical treatise dealing with the greatest political question of the times, it provided its readers with an overview of French history within a broader context. Available in relatively inexpensive manuscripts, it appealed to minor noblemen

lO^Pons, "La propagande de guerre française," 211.

108B.N.,fr. 10139, foi. 33.

fr. 19561, fol. 41v: "Cl finissent les genealogies des croniques de france et dangleterre et la lignee des roys tant de france que dangleterre Lesquelles genealogies sont escriptes de ma main. Johan le légat escolier pour Mons.r de bellegarde." The manuscript subsequently changed hands several times. One reads, on fol. 1, "Ce libvre appartient a viart referendaire"; the signature of "Philippes Desportes" (fol. 1) and "Philippes Desportes abbe de thiron 1604" (fol. 41v); "14s 6d avec silvius griph" (fol. 42); "fuct achate, le 19e novembre 1556" (fol. 42); and "Ce livre est a Robert malherbe demeurant en la viconte" (fol. 42).

^^^Bibl. Ste.-Geneviève 1994, fol. 151 v, according to Bossuat, "Jean Castel, chroniqueur de France," 291, note 16. 104 interested in the history of France. In subsequent chapters, it will be represented by the copy in B.N., fr. 10139.

IK) B.N..n.a.fr. 7519 Three manuscripts discussed in the previous section - B.N., fr. 4990, B.N., n.a. fr. 7519, and Ste.-Geneviève 1994 - as well as a fourth, Ste.-Geneviève 1993 - contain yet another version of "A tous nobles". 1 Unlike most other versions of "A tous nobles", it does not contain a genealogical tree. Unlike all other versions of "A tous nobles", it is accompanied by a marginal gloss. It is difficult to date the composition of the version of "A tous nobles" in question. The text of the marginal gloss provides no useful indication of the date of its composition. The gloss begins with Christ and ends during the reign of Charles the Bald in B.N., fr. 4990 and during the reign of Louis VI in the other three manuscripts. As for the text of the chronicle itself, it concludes in three manuscripts with the liberation of Charles, duke of Orleans, in 1440, while in the other it leaves off in 1382 despite a table of contents that promised to carry the narrative to the Treaty of Arras (1435) "and several other incidents".^

1 ^ ^The version of "A tous nobles" now under consideration is found on fols. 1- 39v of B.N., fr. 4990; on fols. 15-85v of B.N., n.a. fr. 7519; and on fols. l-62v of Ste.'Geneviëve 1994. For the other contents of these three manuscripts, see the previous section. It is also found on fols. l-69v of Ste.-Geneviève 1993, which contains some but not at all of the items found in Ste.-Geneviève 1994. For a description of Ste.-Geneviève 1993, see the Catalogue des Manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève. II, 230-31.

B.N., n.a. fr. 7519 and Ste.-Geneviève 1993 and 1994, the text concludes with the liberation of Charles, duke of Orleans, in 1440; "En novembre ensuivant retourna le duc dorleans en france de la prison dangleterre. ou il 105 It is possible, as André Bossuat suggested, that the author of this version of "A tous nobles" used a lost history of France to 1445 written by Jean Castel as his source for the years 1415-1440. In this event, its composition necessarily postdated that of Castel's lost history. That work, the existence of which is not entirely certain, must have been written after 1445, possibly after Castel's appointment as royal historiographer by Louis XI in 1461, and in any event before Castel's death in 1476.^13 As for the manuscripts that contain copies of the glossed chronicle, B.N., fr. 4990 was executed after 1444,^4 g.N., n.a. fr. 7519

avoit este detenu par lespace de XXV. ans" (B.N., n.a. fr. 7519, fol. 85v). In B.N., fr. 4990, it concludes in 1382. However, in that manuscript, the text is followed by a table of contents (fols. 40-41v) which, contrary to the Catalogue des manuscrits français de la Bibliothèque Nationale. IV, 463-64, refers not to the next text in the manuscript (i.e.. a copy of the version of "A tous nobles" discussed in the previous section of this chapter), but to the preceding text (i.e.. the version of "A tous nobles" presently under consideration). That table of contents concludes with "Lappoinctement du roy et du duc de bourgongne fait a arras et pluseurs aultres incidens" (fol. 41v). It follows that the copyist of B.N., fr. 4990 had before him a history that went at least to the Treaty of Arras in 1435, and probably, given the terminal date of that history in the other three manuscripts in which it is known to survive, to the liberation of the duke of Orleans in 1440, and that he simply left off his own copy in 1382.

113see André Bossuat, "Jean Castel, chroniqueur de France," Le Moven Age. 4th series, 13 (1958) 285-304, 499-538. Bossuat explained the striking similarities between an abbreviated chronicle to 1445 entitled "Croniques abregees, par Castel croniqueur de France composées" (Vatican, Reg. lat. 499, fols. 1-6), the Chronique du Mont-Saint-Michel. and the latter part of the version of "A tous nobles" now under consideration (which he examined in Bibl. Ste.-Geneviève 1993 and 1994) by positing their use of a common source, namely, a (lost) history of France to 1445 written by Jean Castel.

noted in the previous section of this chapter, the manuscript, all of which was copied by the same hand, contains another version of "A tous nobles" composed and therefore necessarily copied after 1444. 106 was executed in or after 1459,^^5 and Bossuat dated Ste.-Geneviève

1993 and 1994 to around 1470 on the basis of theirwatermarks.^ Taking all of this together, one can conclude the following. The glossed version of "A tous nobles" was definitely written after 1440. If its author in fact used the lost chronicle of Castel, it was written after 1445. If B.N., n.a. fr. 7519 was executed in 1459, it was written before that date. Since its author did not refer to the death of Charles VII, he in all likelihood wrote before 1461. He definitely wrote before 1470, at which time his work was copied in Ste.- Geneviève 1993 and 1994. Consequently, one can date its composition to the period 1440-1470 with certainty, to the period 1440-1461 with high probability, and to the period 1445-1459 with somewhat less assurance. The author of this version of "A tous nobles" may have written in Brittany or a nearby region, perhaps Anjou or Lower Normandy. The latter part of his chronicle devoted great attention to Breton affairs, as did some of the other texts contained in three of the four manuscripts in which his work survives, B.N., n.a. fr. 7519 and Ste.- Geneviève 1993 and 1994. Andre Bossuat believed the same individual to have composed the chronicle and the gloss, and, considering the extent to which the author related facts of ecclesiastical history in the gloss, Bossuat judged him to be a cleric. 117 His work survives in paper copies adorned only by

1 i^see note 104 above. ll^Bossuat, "Jean Castel, chroniquer de France," 291, note 17, and 303, note 51.

^ ^ ^Bossuat, ibid.. 302-303. 107 rubricated initials, and no fifteenth-century possessors are known.i^s In subsequent chapters, the glossed version of "A tous nobles" will be represented by the copy in B.N., n.a. fr. 7519.

(L) B.N.. fr. 4991 Yet another version of "A tous nobles" is contained in B.N., fr. 4991, the only manuscript in which 1 know it to exist. The chronicle, which concludes with Charles VII having succeeded his father as king of France, was both composed and copied during the second half of that monarch's reign, sometime between 1444 and 1461.^ ^9

118As noted in the previous section of this chapter, Ste.-Geneviève 1994 belonged to Oliver de Launay, sire of Chamsermynes, who in 1577 wrote therein some notes on strange occurrences at La Roche-sur-Yon. According to Bossuat, "Jean Castel, chroniquer de France," 291, note 6, Ste.-Geneviève 1993 was possessed, at an indeterminate date, by one OUvier Rocar, who signed his name on fol. 108, and, in the late-sixteenth or early-seventeenth century, by "dom Gilles Baril de la parouesse de Saint-Ouen", who signed his name on fol. 4v. In B.N., fr. 4990, which Nicole Pons, "La propagande de guerre avant l'apparition de Jeanne d'Arc," 212, note 79, described as a manuscript Parisian in origin, the name "Bassompierre" appears, in yellow, on fol. 41v and fol. 54, and, in black, on fol. 63. Inasmuch as it appears at the end of each of the three texts copied in the manuscript, "Bassompierre" would seem to be either the copyist or the individual for whom the manuscript was executed. These elements do testify to a certain geographical dispersion of the glossed version of "A tous nobles": one manuscript was executed at Paris, one was to be found near Paris, at Saint-Ouen, one was in the Vendee in the middle of the sixteenth century.

1 l9por a description of the manuscript, in which the chronicle in question is the sole item, see the Catalogue des manuscrits français de la Bibliothèque Nationale. IV, 464. The text concludes with a chapter noting the accession of Charles VI and listing the children of that monarch wherein Charles VII appears as "Charles Vll.e qui survesquit ses autres freres et fut roy de france après son pere" (fol. 19rB). The text is accompanied by a genealogical tree. The last king to figure therein is "Charles Vile de ce nom roy de france fut sacre a reins lan M CCC XXI[X]" (fol. 19v), and the latest event referred to therein is the marriage of Margaret of Anjou to Henry VI of England (1444): "marguerite fille du roy regne fut femme au roy henry dangleterre" (fol. 19v). The text to fol. 19rB and the genealogical tree to fol. 19v were copied in one hand, which the Catalogue identified as contemporary to Charles VII. It 108 While the text's author is unknown, it is clear that the manuscript in which his work survives was executed for a wealthy patron or purchaser. The manuscript is not long (22 leaves), but it is of vellum and is illustrated lavishly. Unlike the manuscripts of any of the other versions of "A tous nobles" that I studied, the genealogical tree in B.N., fr. 4991 contains painted portraits of seventy individuals, namely, sixty French kings from Pharamond to Charles VII, nine of their wives, and Charles of Valois. Furthermore, it contains some sixty additional painted illustrations representing cities, the foundation of churches and monastic orders, and historical events such as the First and Third Crusades and the battles of Courtrai, Crecy, and Poitiers. With painted illustrations on each and every leaf, the version of "A tous nobles" in question is one in which the illustrations are no less important than the text. Indeed, one might qualify B.N., fr. 4991 as a sort of picture-book, an illustrated history of France prepared for a wealthy purchaser interested in the history of his country.

(M) B.N.. n.a. fr. 4811 B.N., n.a. fr. 4811 contains a history entitled "les Chroniques de france especialement icelles advenues en cettuy temps". True to his work's title, its author dealt in extreme brevity with the French kings from Pharamond to John II, at greater length with Charles V, and in follows that the text was necessarily composed during the reign of that monarch, sometime after 1444. In the first half of the sixteenth century, another hand continued the text from the reign of Charles VI to 1506 (fols. 19rB-21) and the genealogical tree from Louis XI to Louis XII (fols. 19v-21). 109 great detail with the reign of Charles VI and with that of Charles VII up to 1449. His work is known to survive only in the manuscript in question.! 20 In his penultimate chapter, narrating Charles Vll's reconquest of Normandy in the present tense, the author noted that Cherbourg had yet to be taken by the French and that the siege of Rouen was u n d e r w a y .! 21 in his final chapter, he described the entry of Charles VII into the Norman capital and noted that "now the English have only a few places in Guyenne".! 22 it follows that the penultimate chapter was composed before the capitulation of Rouen on 17 October 1449 and that the final one was written slightly later. The

!20por a description of B.N., n.a. fr. 4811, in which the chronicle in question is the only item, see the Catalogue des manuscrits français de la Bibliothèque Nationale XVI. 256. The incinit is "Sensuivent les Chroniques de france especialement icelles advenues en cettuy temps. Pharamond feust le premier prince que les francoys esleurent ". The author's account of the French kings from Pharamond to John 11 occupies fols. l-8v; the reign of Charles V covers fols. 9-10; that of Charles VI, fols. 10-32; that of Charles Vll up to 1449, fols. 32-72.

!2!The author wrote much of his penultimate chapter, which is entitled "Comment en iceluy temps sont les angloys chassies de la france" in the present tense: "Si va parler celuy qui escrit cecy des chiouses adveneues présentement. Or scaurez que de par tout pays de france se départissent les angloys. Le bastard D'Orleans a prins a grant oust Vernueil Lisieux pont audemer Mantes Les Angloys de boicquebec se sont renduz. Saint sauveur le viconte est rendu, et ne demeure plus a conquester en tout ledict doux de constentin fors cherebourc Gisors a baille bons hostaiges a soy rendre dedans XV. iours le siege est devant chastel gaillart pour vray. Le .IX.e iour de ce moys doctobre le roy fut en personne davant Rouen, et y demoura tout le jour. Et de present est au pont de larche. Le siege sera mis tout doux davant rouen dedans le XV.e jour de ce moys" (B.N., n.a. fr. 4811, fols. 69v-70).

!22xhe author began his final chapter by stating that "Le lundi. X.e jour de moys. de novembre mü CCCC. xlix. environ troys heures après midi le Roy fist son entree a Rouen " (fol. 70v), and concluded it, and his chronicle, by noting that "Adoncques n'ont plus les angloys que quelques places en guienne. Et seurement les quisteront ils baston pele en la main" (fol. 72). 110 latter was composed after Charles Vll's entry into Rouen on 10 November 1449, and the author's statement that the English now held only a few places in Guyenne implies that they had already surrendered Cherbourg (12 August 1450) but had not yet been definitively expelled from Bordeaux (19 October 1453). In sum, the author was at work on his chronicle in October 1449 and completed it after November of that year, possibly after August 1450, and definitely before October 1453. Certain characteristics of his work permit insight into the background of the author of the "Chroniques de france He was a firm supporter of Charles VII, especially in his struggle against the

E n g lish . 123 His commitment to the anti-English cause, the extent to which he dwelled on military affairs in his account of the reign of Charles Vll, and his provision of advice to military commanders seem to mark him out as an active participant in the last stages of

123The author’s comments on the assassination of Louis of Orleans (1407) and on the entry of the Burgundians into Paris (1418) indicate his Orleanist symphathies: he laid the blame for the assassination squarely on John of Burgundy and underlined the latter's guilt by stating that "de ce meschief [John] eust bien mauvaise renoumee vainement disoit il qu'il nestoit point le coulpable " (B.N., n.a. fr. 4811, fol. 18); he described Bernard of Armagnac favorably, as a "grant preudomme es faicts de guerre" (fol. 18v); he noted that those who opened the doors of Paris to the Burgundians acted "malicieusement" (fol. 28v). He made no mention of the Treaty of Troyes, described Charles VII as "king" prior to his coronation (fol. 53v: "Comment le Roy Charles se départit pour Rains pourceque Jehanne I'y vouloit faire oindre") and firmly rejected the English claims in France (fol. 63v: "Et y estoit messire loys de luxembourc. evesque de therouane. soy disant chancelier de france. pour le roy dangleterre"). He seems sincerely to have relished French victories over the English, and underlined the humiliation of the latter: "Et feust faict alors un accord par quoy les angloys se retirèrent [from Paris, in 1436] en la ville de Rouen et sen allèrent sur petites barques devers la Normandie. Et eussiez vous diet marchands qui sen alloient chassies par des sergents. Et non des hommes d’armes de la gent de ceux qui moult triomphants sesbaudissoient a poictiers et a Azincourt" (fol. 64v). I l l the Hundred Years' W a r J 24 His probable social status is indicated by certain comments that betray a marked aristocratic outlook, notably one to the effect that the Flemish communes were richer "than was

fitting in people of lowcondition".’ 25 He may have been of Breton or

western French o r i g i n .’ 26

’ 24xhe author's account of the reign of Charles VII is devoted almost entirely to military engagements between the French and the English. He twice offered advice to those engaged in war: "Et doit on craindre le conseil de gens que on voit qui parlant sans raison, ou aucunesfoiz pour eulx donner louange, ou pour donner charge a autres qui se acquictent loiaument et peuent estre assez cognoissant. Et est grant bien a ung seigneur, ou capitaine de savoir cognoistre telx conseülieurs" (B.N., n.a. fr. 4811, fol. 66); "Celluy qui a cecy escript conseille a ung chascun qui est en logeis quil face bon guet, car plus souventesfoiz avient que ceulx qui sont logiez sont destroussez que quilz se dependent. Et quant vous orrez parler de six logeis assailliz que deux se soient deffenduz. quatre en iara qui ont este desconfiz et destroussez, soient assaillir par iour ou par nuyt" (fol. 68).

’25After recounting the French victory at Roosebeke (1382) and the burning and pillaging of Courtrai by the army of Charles VI, the author stated: "Et la ie vous dis qu'il y eust foison de butin tant estoient riches ces communes de Flandres plus qu'il ne convenait a gens de petit estât et monstre cela que poinct n'est assez de gaigner par marchandise vere que besoin est de scavoir se deffendre" (B.N., n.a. fr. 4811, fol. llv ). He demonstrated his lack of sympathy for the Parisian revolt of the Maillotins (1382) by describing "les gens de Paris bourgeoiz et manants" as "emeus d'un mauvais esprit" (fol. llv ). He lamented the loss of the flower of France's chivalry at Agincourt: "Et ce feust grand malheur pour la France car la perit la fleur de la chevallerie a tel poinct qu'il sembloit que nul chevalier ne restoit. Et s'y esteignit la gentillesse de cettuy deplourable pays de France" (fol. 23). He wrote approvingly of a judicial combat - "Adoncquez feust appoincte de s'en rapporter au iugement de Dieu et dudict combat qui fut faict doibt estre conclud combien est bonne chiouse cettuy iugement" (fol. 20) - and admiringly of a combat between seven Englishmen and seven Frenchmen - "Et ce feust une belle emprinse que iustice est de narrer, car tous s'y bien comportèrent et y eust grant eschange de coups d'espees et de lance" (fol. 25).

’26in a lengthy chapter in his account of the reign of Charles VI, the author commented upon a judicial duel at Nantes between two Breton nobles in language that seems to indicate personal knowledge of, and interest in, the affair: "Ainsi [Pierre de Toumemine, the loser in the duel] feust non pendu mais jete en un cul de bas de fosse pour le demeurant de ses jours par ordre de Monseigneur le Duc de Bretaigne. vere feust ce bien iustice et pire sort mesme meristoit le seigneur Pierre de Toumemine pour traictise. Car moult avoit este aux paores gens du paiis de Bretaigne dur et deploysant ledict toumemine valant pire a luy seul qu'un cent de soudards pour le pauvre monde. Et y eust 112 While "les Chroniques de france " were composed prior to 1453, the manuscript in which they survive was copied twenty or thirty years later. According to one modem scholar, the illuminations in B.N., n.a. fr. 4 8 1 1 , which contains thirty-two elaborate miniatures, were executed in western France, perhaps in

Poitou, around 1 4 7 0 - 1480.^^7 The leaves bearing miniatures were subsequently removed from the original manuscript and placed, along with other leaves on which the text was redone, in the volume now known as B.N., n.a. fr.4811.^28 This rebinding was done sometime between 1499 and 1 5 1 4 , for the binding of B.N., n.a. fr.

4 8 1 1 bears the arms of Anne of Brittany as the wife of Louis X11.129 In sum, while it is not known for which wealthy individual the original manuscript with its beautiful miniatures was executed, and while the text of the chronicle itself is addressed to no one and betrays no indications of its author's possible patron, his work on the grant liesse dans les campaignes. Car estoit bien mondict toumemine le lure lairon. Et robeur qui se peust veoir" (B.N., n.a. fr. 4881, fol. 20v). One might also detect a certain native pride in the author's description of Bertrand du Guesclin as "le connestable Duguesclin preudomme et grant ami dudict roy [Charles V] et bon gentilhomme du pays de Bretaigne" (fol. 9v). The fact that the manuscript that contains his chronicle was illuminated in western France, perhaps in Poitou (see the next note), indicates that his work circulated in that region. l27colette Beaune, Le Miroir du Pouvoir. Paris 1989,183.

128ibid., and the Catalogue des manuscrits français de la Bibliothèque Nationale XVI, 256, indicate that the leaves bearing miniatures were detached from a [previous] manuscript and placed in the current one, wherein the text on the leaves not bearing miniatures was redone.

^ 29a note by L. Double on flyleaf Av of B.N., n.a, fr. 4811 identifies the arms on the front and back of the volume's binding as those of Anne of Brittany as the wife of Louis XII. The volume must therefore have taken its present form sometime between their marriage (1499) and her death (1514). 113 French kings eventually entered the hands of the wife of two of them.

(N) B.N..fr. 1233 Noël de Fribois, a Norman clerk who served Charles Vll for thirty-six years as a notary and secretary and as a royal counselor, completed his Abrégé des Chroniques de France in 1459. 1 read his work, which has been the subject of considerable study by Kathleen Daly, in B.N., fr. 1233 (fols. 84-127).i30 Fribois' chronicle related French history from its supposed Trojan origins to 1383. It is the most "official" of the unofficial histories that 1 read: Fribois addressed his work directly to Charles VII and, after having presented it to him in 1459, received two payments from the king in reward for it. However, because many medieval historians presented their unpatronized works to monarchs

130on Noël de Fribois and his chronicle, see the following works by Kathleen Daly, upon which most of the present section is based: "The 'Miroir Historial Abrégé de France' and 'C'est chose profitable': a Study of Two Fifteenth- Century French Historical Texts and their Context" (Ph.D. thesis, 2 vols., Oxford 1983); "Histoire et politique à la fin de la Guerre de Cent Ans: 'l'Abrégé des Chroniques' de Noël de Fribois," in La "France Anglaise" au Moven Aee (Actes du 111e Congrès National des Sociétés Savantes. Poitiers 1986). Paris 1988,1, 91- 101; "Mixing Business with Leisure: Some French Royal Notaries and Secretaries and their Histories of France, c. 1459-1509," in Christopher Allmand (ed.). Power. Culture, and Religion in France c.l350-c.l550. Woodbridee 1989, 99-115. Fribois was a notary and secretary to Charles VII from 1425 or earlier until 1444 and a royal counselor from 1452 or earlier until 1459; in his work, he thanked Charles VII "de lonneur quil a pleu au roy de sa honte naturelle a moy faire en moy retenant en son treshumble serviteur passez sont trente et six ans" (B.N.^ fr. 1233, fol. 126). For a description of the manuscript in which 1 read the Abrégé des Chroniques de France, which is also known by its incipit. "C'est chose profitable", see the Catalogue des manuscrits français de la Bibliothèque Nationale I, 203. I also read B.N., fr. 4943, the only known copy of the second recension of the Abrégé, which dates to shortly after 1461. 114 in the hope of receiving rewards, because there is no firm evidence that his work was commissioned by Charles VII, and because Fribois did not hold the post of royal historiographer, I have opted to include

his Abrégé des Chroniques de France in my s t u d y J ^ i It was the second-most successful of the histories of France that I examined, for it is known to exist in whole or in part in

twenty-two late medieval m anuscripts. in studying them, Kathleen Daly signalled the diffusion of the Abrégé in manuscripts ranging from luxurious ones adorned with miniatures to cheap copies

on p a p e r . 133 %n terms of its audience, she emphasized the diffusion of Fribois’ work within his own milieu, that is, among officials in the royal chancery. Two of Noël de Fribois' contemporaries - Jean Le Bègue, a royal notary and secretary and greffier in the Chambre des Comptes from 1407 to 1456, and Etienne Chevalier, a notary and secretary and

l3lQn the patronage received by Fribois after the presentation of his work to Charles VII and on the question of a possible royal commission, see Daly, "Mixing Business with Leisure," 111-12. Daly opined that Fribois' work was likely composed in response to a royal command on the grounds that he addressed it directly to Charles VII, but also pointed out the possibUity that Fribois composed his Abrégé on his own initiative and in the hope of a royal reward and noted that there is no direct evidence that it was a direct royal commission. The royal historiographer at the time Fribois composed his work was the Dionysian monk Jean Chartier.

l32NameIy, Baltimore, Walters Art Gallery, ms. Walters 306; Bordeaux, Bibl. mun., ms. 728; Bern, Burgerbibliothek, ms. 728; Cracow, Bibl. Jagiellonska, ms. gall. 8o 1; Geneva, Bibl. publ. et univ., ms. fr. 83; John Rylands Library, ms. fr. 57; London, B.L., ms. Add. 13961; Paris, Bibl. Arsenal, ms. 3430; Paris, Bibl. Nat., mss. fr. 1233, fr. 4943, fr. 4949, ff. 5026, fr. 5701, fr. 5705, fr. 10141, fr. 13569; Paris, Bibl. Ste.-Genevieve, mss. 3034 and OE.xv.s. 490; Stockholm, Kungliga Biblioteket, ms. D. 1281; Vatican, mss. Reg. 725 and Reg. 829; Wolfenbuttel, Herzog August Bibliothek, ms. Cod. Guelf. Helmstadt 1051.

133[)aly, "Histoire et politique," 100. 115 later trésorier to Charles VII and Louis XI - possessed copies of his work. It remained popular among the next generation of chancery officials. Jacques Le Picart, a notary and secretary by 1475 and a clerk in the Chambre des Comptes from 1487 to 1505, annotated a copy of Fribois' Abrégé and used it as a source in composing his own abbreviated history of France. Nicole Gilles, a notary and secretary by 1476 and clerc et contrôleur in the royal Trésor from 1484 to 1503, likewise made use of Fribois' work in composing his own

history of France, the Annales et chroniques de F r a n c e . ^ ^ 4 While the diffusion of the Abrégé des Chroniques de France was not limited to royal notaries and secretaries - Daly noted the possession of one manuscript by a priest and of another by a

m e r c h a n t, 135 and Fribois' work was known to a canon of the

cathedral chapter of Roueni^e _ n stands as an important example of

the historical culture of Fribois'm ilie u . 137 in the later Middle Ages,

134This paragraph is a summary of Daly, ibid.. and "Mixing Business with Leisure," 113. On Jacques Le Picart and his history of France, see the latter article by Daly. On Nicole Gilles and his work, which is also known as the Annalles des Gaulles see the same article as well as those cited in note 181 of the present chapter.

135Daly, "Histoire et politique," 100.

136 b.N., lat. 5195 and lat. 5659 contain copies of a history of France written between 1479 and 1483 by a canon of the cathedral chapter of Rouen. On this work, see section (S) of the present chapter. For a demonstration of its author's use of Noël de Fribois' Abreee as a source, see Chapter IV, "The French Kill Their Kings".

'37it is analyzed as such by Daly, "Mixing Business with Leisure". This important article is a collective consideration of the many historical works written by royal notaries and secretaries in the late-fifteenth and early- sixteenth centuries. One will refer to it for additional information on the works of Jacques Le Picart and Nicole Gilles, mentioned in the previous paragraph, as well for information on those of Louis Le Blanc and Etienne Le Blanc. 116 royal officials associated with the chancery were active readers and writers of French history, and Fribois' Abrégé represents one of their finer and most successful works. Written by an ardent and polemical supporter of them o n a r c h y , 138 it yields insight into the vision of French history articulated and propagated by royal officials in the second half of the fifteenth century.

(0) B.N.. n.a. fr. 4209 B.N., n.a. fr. 4209 contains an unofficial history of France written during the reign of Charles VII entitled "La genealogie des roys de france." It is known to exist only in the manuscript in question, where the text, breaking off in the midst of a list of the children of Charles VI, is incomplete at the e n d . 139 It is difficult to date its composition. An absolute terminus post Quem is established by the text's reference to the birth of

Charles the Rash of Burgundy ( 1 4 3 3 ).i^o An absolute terminus ante quem is provided by its description of John 11 (d. 1476) as the

l38por a description of some of the numerous pro-royalist historical propaganda themes and the anti-English polemics that permeate Fribois' Abrégé, see Daly, "Histoire et politique, ' 92-99.

139por a description of the manuscript, in which the chronicle in question is the sole item, see the Catalogue des manuscrits français de la Bibliothèque Nationale XVI, 146-7. The incipit is "Entour lan de lincamacion nostre seigneur troys cens quatre vings et ung. les ducs de sicambrie qui commencèrent a regner sur les francois. vindrent en france " (fol. 1).

140b.N., n.a. fr. 4209, fol. 14v: "Phelipe duc de bourgoigne qui après le trespas de madame michelle de france et la contesse de nevers ses femmes a prins a femme la fille du roy de portugal. de laquelle est yssu ung filz nomme [Charles]." 117 current duke of Alençon. ^ a possible earlier ante auem is suggested by the text's failure to mention the birth of the future

Louis Xll (1 4 6 2 ).142 Beyond this, a contradiction in the internal evidence frustrates the attempt to date the chronicle's composition more precisely. Namely, the text gives Filippo Maria Visconti (d. 1447) as "the present duke of Milan" and Charles I, duke of Bourbon

(d. 1456) as "recently d e c e a s e d " .i43 what is more, the sole element that argues against the period 1433-1447 is the reported death of Charles of Bourbon, and the lone consideration against the period 1456-1476 is the reported reign of Filippo Maria. One may opt for the earlier period on the grounds that the reported death of Charles

141b.N., n.a. fr. 4209, fol. 11: "Jehan a present due dalencon," in reference to John II.

142as the title of his work indicates, the author of B.N., n.a. fr. 4209 was very much concerned with the royal genealogy. That concern extended to the cadet branches of the royal house. He traced the line of Robert, count of Clermont - that is to say, the dukes of Bourbon - to Charles I of Bourbon (1434-1456), "recently deceased" in 1456 (foi. lOv). He traced the line of Charles, count of Alençon - that is, the counts and later dukes of Alençon - to John II (1415- 1476), "at present duke of Alençon" (fol. 11). He traced the Une of Louis, duke of Anjou - that is, the dukes of Anjou - to Louis III (d.l434) and his brother René (d. 1486) (fol. 14). He traced the line of Philip the Bold of Burgundy - that is, the dukes of Burgundy - to Philip the Good (1419-1467), and noted the birth (1433) of the latter's son, Charles (fol. 14v). Finally, he traced the line of Louis, duke of Orleans to his son Charles of Orleans (1407-1465), noting that, from his marriage to Isabelle of France, Charles had had a daughter (fol. 15v). In sum. with regard to the great ducal houses, the author of the chronicle made a real effort to keep his genealogy up-to-date. That is why it is unlikely that he composed his work after the birth of Charles of Orleans' son and successor, the future Louis XH, in 1462. Recording the birth of one of the duke of Orleans' daughters but not that of his son and heir would represent a surprising incongruity in the author's treatment of the ducal houses, had he written after 1462.

143b,n., n.a, fr. 4209, fol. 14v: "Le duc de milan present," in reference to Filippo Maria Visconti; fol. lOv: "Charles due de bourbon deriner trespasse," in reference to Charles 1 of Bourbon. 118 of Bourbon is a later addition by the copyist. One may opt for the later one on the grounds that the author would have been more likely to be aware of the death of the duke of Bourbon than of that of the duke of Milan. Since neither conclusion is demonstrable, one must be content with the cautious course of dating the composition of "La genealogie des rois de france" to the period 1433-1476, and probably to before 1462. The copy contained in B.N., n.a. fr. 4209 was executed after 1456 and probably before 1476.^44 None of its late-medieval possessors are known, but they must have been relatively well-to- do: the manuscript is short (sixteen leaves), but is on parchment and is adorned by fifty-five illuminated initials and 182 painted ones. The contents of "La genealogie des roys de france" indicate the purposes of its anonymous author. The text is divided into fifty-five chapters, by royal reign. Twenty-seven of them consist of only one section, wherein the author noted the essential genealogical and chronological information for the monarch in question - that is, his filiation, the dates and length of his reign, and the names of his children - as well as his number in the order of succession, in which

the author followed Bernard Gui's enumeration. 145 The other

^44/\ftei" 1456 because, whether the phrase was written by the author or the copyist, the text in the manuscript gives Charles of Bourbon as deceased. Probably but by no means definitely before 1476 because the copyist let stand John 11 as the current duke of Alençon.

145on the numbering system employed by Bernard Gui in his Reees Francorum. Arbor genealogie reeum Francorum. and Nomina regum Francorum. see note 30 above. The author of "La genealogie des roys de france" followed Gui's system perfectly throughout his work, one of the sources for which was therefore one of Gui's works on the history of the 119 twenty-eight chapters contain, in addition to one such section each, a total of 182 additional sections with additional types of information. Those additional sections are of two types. Forty-four of them contain additional genealogy, and 138 of them are historical, that is, they note important events that occurred during the reign of the monarch in question. Five of the twenty-eight chapters with additional sections contain only genealogical ones, twelve contain only historical ones, and eleven contain both types. While tedious, this brief summary of the work's contents is important. It indicates that while its author's main interest was, as the title of his work indicates, the genealogy of the French kings, simple genealogy was by no means his only concern. His concentration on royal chronology and his numbering of the French monarchs reveal his desire to provide his audience with a convenient list of the French kings. The fact that he provided supplementary historical information about twenty-three of the monarchs about whom he wrote and the fact that such supplementary historical information fills 138 of the 237 sections that compose the fifty-five chapters of his work indicate that he also sought to provide his audience with a good deal of information about the reigns of those monarchs. In sum, "La genealogie des roys de france" is more than what its title might suggest. It is a genealogy, but it is also a catalogue or list of the French kings, and a short history of France.

French monarchy. Inasmuch as none of Gui's works advanced beyond 1331, he had to have used additional sources for the remainder of his work. 120 (P) B.N.. fr. 24976 Advancing to the reign of Louis XI (1461-1483), I read the untitled history of France from the Trojan origins to the death of Charles Vll contained in B.N., fr. 24976. It is recognizeable by the incipit "11 est assavoir que Jupiter ancien chef de noblesse ", and is known to exist only in the manuscript inq u e s t io n .! 46 Little certainty surrounds this text. Colette Beaune dated its composition to "around 1461", and while 1 am inclined to accept her judgment, one can say with certitude only that it was written after the death of Charles V ll.! 47 while it is sufficiently different from

!46por a description of B.N., fr. 24976 see the Catalogue des manuscrits français de la Bibliothèque Nationale XIII, 489. A note on a preliminary leaf, fol. Av, States that the manuscript contains an "Histoire abregee des roys de france depuis la I.re race jusqua'a Charles VII. en 1461." This note is in a posterior hand and, therefore, while it accurately describes the contents of the work in question, it does not provide its original title. In a bit of verse on fois. 92v-93, a sixteenth-century possessor of the manuscript, Jehan de Littré, referred to the work in question as "les actez des francoys": "De franc vouloir humble et délibéré/A scavoir faictz a toute creature/qua noble Jehan de littre/doibt estre rendu par droicture/cest libure qui sans long murmure/des francoys contient les actez " (fol. 92v). Once again, this is a posterior description of the work rather than a statement of its original title. It was, consequently, by error that Colette Beaune, The Birth of an Ideoloev. 73, referred to it as the Abbreviated History of the Kings of France, and that the Catalogue XIII, 489, gave its title as "Les actez des Francoys". In the manuscript, "II est assavoir que Jupiter ancien chef de noblesse " occupies fols. 1-83. It is followed by a verse history of the Trojan War (fols. 83v-91) and a Latin eulogy for Charles VII by Louis de Rochechouart, bishop of Saintes (fols. 91v-92), both copied in the same hand as the preceding chronicle.

!47seaune. The Birth of an Ideology. 73, did not explain why she considered the work in question to have been written "around 1461". One will note (1) that it concludes with the death of Charles VII; (2) that the author made reference to the eulogy for that monarch which follows his chronicle in the manuscript: " et [Charles VII] fina ses jours au chasteau de mehun sur yure auquel lieu il avoit receu le nom de roy Et fut en lan mil IIIIc LXI comme plus a plain est desclere en certaine conplainte faicte par aucuns orateurs de la mort et trespas dicelluy roy" (fol. 76); (3) that in the final chapter of his work, which deals with the reign of Charles VII and which is by far the longest and most detailed chapter in the chronicle, the author made no mention of the various conflicts between Charles VII and his son, the future Louis XI; and (4) 121 the various versions of "A tous nobles" not to be classified as one of them, it does bear prominent textual similarities to that work. Its anonymous author also used either the Grandes Chroniques or a source that made use of the Grandes Chronia ues in preparing his chronicle. T 48 The copy of "11 est assavoir que Jupiter ancien chef de noblesse " found in B.N., fr. 24976 was prepared for a purchaser of some means. The copyist left very wide margins on all eighty-three of the parchment leaves on which he copied the text, and each of its sixty-six chapters begins with a painted initial. While indications of its fifteenth-century possessors are lacking, notes at the end of the manuscript reveal that, in the sixteenth century, it belonged to a that in the two passages where the author mentioned Louis XI, he gave that monarch’s birth date and noted that he had succeeded his father as king, but related neither his regnal dates nor any events of his reign: "Et après luy régna loys son filz lequel fut ne lan mil 1111c XXlIl ou moys de juillet la vigille saint martin" (fol. 76) and " [Charles Vll] regna et maintint sondit royaulme en grant paix et transquilite jusques en lan mil llllc soixante et ung XXXlXe de son regne comme dessus est dit Et après luy regna loys son aisne filz" (fol. 83), which is the work's explicit. While none of these considerations prove that the work was composed shortly after the death of Charles vn, the fact that the chronicle was deliberately linked to a eulogy for that monarch, that its author opted not to mention the conflicts between Charles vn and Louis XI, and that he noted only the accession of the latter, do imply a date of composition early in the reign of Louis XL As for the date of the execution of the copy contained in B.N., fr. 24976, the fact that the chronicle received no continuation for the reign of Louis XI again implies - but by no means proves - that it was copied during the reign of that king. l48por textual similarities to "A tous nobles", compare, for example, the chapters on Chlotar 11 (fols. 13v-14), Louis the Pious (fols. 20-20v), and Charles the Bald (fols. 20v-21) to the corresponding chapters in the version of "A tous nobles" in B.N., fr. 23019, fol. 21, fol. 26, fol. 26. The author appealed to the authority of the Grandes Chroniques in a chapter, not found in the various versions of "A tous nobles", where he outlined at length the supposed Merovingian ancestry of the Carolingians: " mais toutesfoiz en sont ilz descenduz en pure ligne continuée legitime et vraye. comme U est vray. 11 est contenu plus applain es croniques de france" (B.N., fr. 24976, fol. 18v). 122 nobleman, Jean de Littré, and that it was sold at Le Mans towards the end of that c e n t u r y J 49

(O) B.N.. fr. 5734 B.N., fr. 5734 (fols. 9 3 -lllv ) and fr. 20145 (fols. 2-13v) contain copies of yet another version of "A tousn o b le s " . i so This one seems to have been written during the reign of Louis

XI (1 4 6 1 -1 4 8 3 ).isi The copy contained in B.N., fr. 5734 was in all

^49one reads, in one sixteenth-century hand, "Ces croniques apartienet a Jehan de littre qui les trouvera cy les luy rand et il poira le vin" (B.N., fr. 24976, fol. 92) and "De franc vouloir humble et délibéré/A scavoir faictz a toute creature/qua noble Jehan de littre/doibt estre rendu par droicture/cest libure " (fol. 92v), and, in another, which 1 was unable completely to decipher, "achepte au Mans par [?] jean chonen [?] libraire le mercredy. 3 [?] lour doctobre lan. 1585. demy teston" (fol. 94). iSOpor descriptions of B.N., fr. 5734 and fr. 20145, both of which are composite manuscripts, see, respectively, the Catalogue des manuscrits français de la Bibliothèque Nationale. V, 85-6, and XII, 20. Note that while the Catalogue states that the chronicle in B.N., fr. 5734 occupies fols. 93-115, it in fact ends on fol. l l l v , and is followed immediately (fols, lllv -1 1 5 ) by a list of the French kings copied by the same hand and likely composed by the same author. The beginning of the text is missing in B.N., fr. 20145. iSlThe copy in B.N., fr. 5734 is in one hand up to and including the section on Charles VI: "Charles VI.e filz Charles le quint tresame large et débonnaire regna xlii ans ung mois et VI jours. Et trespassa lan de grace mil CCCC et XXII" (fol. lllv ). Then, another hand has added a continuation for Charles VII and Louis XI, here as in many late-medieval histories of France called Louis X: "Charles VlI.e filz Charles VI.e trespassa Ian m cccc Ixi et regna XXX VIII ans” and "Loys X.e filz Charles VlI.e" (fol. lllv ). Finally, the same hand that copied the chronicle up to and including the death of Charles VI has copied a list of the French kings (fols, lllv-115) which concludes with the death of Charles VII: "Charles VlI.e filz Charles le VI.e regna XXXVIII ans Et trespassa Ian m cccc et Ixi" (fol. 115). It follows that the conv of "A tous nobles" in B.N., fr. 5734 was in all probability made during the reign of Louis XI: (1) it was necessarily executed after 1461, because the same hand that copied it also copied a hst of the French kings that concluded in 1461, and (2) it was probably executed before 1483, because the brief continuation for Charles VH and Louis XI, which does not note the length of the reign or the death of the latter monarch, seems to have been written into the manuscript, in the gap the original copyist left between the end of the chronicle and the beginning of the list of kings, while Louis XI was still alive. As for the date of the chronicle's 123 likelihood executed during the reign of that m o n a r c h ,’ 5 2 and the one in B.N., fr. 20145 was made in 1516, at the very end of the period under consideration in my s t u d y . 153 This version of "A tous nobles" can be described as a no-frills chronicle of the French kings. The text is the shortest of the different versions of "A tous nobles" that I studied. It is not accompanied by a genealogical tree. Both copies are on paper, and neither is adorned by rubricated initials, much less by illuminations or miniatures.

composition it could have been written any time between the death of Charles VI and the moment it was copied during the reign of Louis XI. On the one hand, it could well have been composed during the reign of Charles Vll. On the other, if it was composed by the same author who composed the list of kings appended to it in the manuscript, it had to have been composed under Louis XI. It seems likely that the two texts were composed by the same author, but it is difficult to explain why, if that is the case, he ended his chronicle in 1422 and his list in 1461. Further complicating matters is the fact that the copy of the chronicle in B.N., fr. 20145, which was executed in 1516 (see note 153 below), concludes with the death of Charles VII: "Charles v n .e tresvictorieux regna XXXIX ans Et trespassa lan de grace mil IIIIc Ixi le jour de la magdelaine XXIIe jour de juillet Et gist a saint denis en france" (fol. 13v). Additional elements that might aid in dating the composition of the chronicle are lacking due to the fact that both copies are found in composite manuscripts. Weighing the evidence, I would favor the reign of Louis XI, while not discounting the possibility of that of Charles VII.

I52see the preceding note.

I53xhe margins of the copy of "A tous nobles" in B.N., fr. 20145 contain six hands designating certain passages in the text and forty marginal notes. The hands were drawn, and twenty-one of the notes were written, by the copyist, and the other nineteen notes were written by another hand, presumably a possessor of the manuscript. Adjacent to a passage in the text stating that "Cestui henry [I] fu roy. et fonda saint martin des champs a paris. Et y mist clercs pour y faire le service. Et fu lan mil Ivii" (fol. 8v), a note by the copyist states "Nota de la fondacion de saint martin des champs il y a IIII.c lix ans seulement" (fol. 8v), thereby indicating (1057 + 459 =) 1516 as the date of the copy contained in the manuscript. 124 They appear to have been destined to provide a very convenient and extremely inexpensive guide to the history of the French k in g s J 54 At some point in the sbcteenth century, B.N. fr. 20145 was possessed by a reader interested enough in the history of France to write a series of nineteen marginal notes in themanuscript. ’ 55 b.N., fr. 5734 was apparently brought from Antibes to Angoulême in 1547 by a certain A. Thevet.i56 The version of "A tous nobles" in question has, therefore, the distinction of being the only text in my study the geographical diffusion of which I know definitely to have extended south of the Loire. In subsequent chapters, it will be represented by the copy in B.N., fr. 5734.

(R) B.N.. fr. 10137 Another history of France written during the reign of Louis XI is contained in B.N., fr. 10137. It covers the period from the destruction of Troy to the accession of Charles VI in 1380, and is entitled "Le narre des faiz et gestes des francoys selon les croniques

l54More precise conclusions about the purpose and intended audience of the text are hard to make because both copies are now in composite manuscripts. A prior foliation reveals that fols. 93-116 of B.N., fr. 5734 (that is, the text of the chronicle and the appended list of the French kings) once constituted fols. XVIII-XLI of another, unknown, manuscript.

I55see note 153 above.

^56b,N,^ fr, 5 7 3 4 , fol, 93 ("A. Thevet dangoulesme"); fol. 93 ("Thevet"); fol. l l l v ("A. Thevet. dangoulesme"); fol. l l l v ("Thevet"); fol. 116 ("A. Thevet dangoulesme, 1553, aporta la presente hystoire dantibes, lan 1547."). 125 de france qui sont a saint dénis en france, extraict en brief du contenu en icelles".^s7 In the manuscript, the chronicle in question (fols. l-60v) is followed (fols. 61-64v) by a catalogue of the French kings entitled "Genealogie des Roys de France". This short list of the regnal dates, offspring, major accomplishments, and burial sites of the French kings was composed sometime between 1476 and September 1478,158 and was copied into the manuscript by the same hand that copied the chronicle. The copyist concluded his work by stating that "These abridged chronicles were made [or, done] at Boulogne-sur- mer, 1478, the third day of Septem ber".!59 Unfortunately, the vagaries of late-medieval terminology make it extremely difficult to know for sure what this statement means. The "abridged chronicles" are probably the entirety of the manuscript, but they could also signify only "Le narre des faiz et gestes des francoys" or even, not inconceivably, the "Genealogie des Roys de France". The phrase "were made [or, done]" probably refers to the completion of the convins of the contents of the manuscript, but could also signify the

157por a description of the manuscript, see the Catalogue des manuscrits français de la Bibliothèque Nationale VII, 52. According to the files of the Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes (Paris, section romane), the work in question, the incipit of which is "Apres la destruction de troye la grant et la mort du roy priam ", is also found in Vatican, Reg, lat. 918, fols. 23-70. l5&Tbe terminus post auem is given by the author's reference to Louis XI's daughter Jeanne, who married Louis of Orleans in 1476, as "madame d'orleans" (fol. 64v). The terminus ante auem is given by the copyist's statement, on which see the next note, that he completed his work on 3 September 1478.

159b^N_^ fr, 10137, fol. 64v: "Ces croniques abregees furent faictes a boulongne sur la mer Lan mil CCCC soixante dix huit Le troisyesme jour de septembre". 126 completion of the composition of one or both of the works it contains. The entire statement was probably authored by the copyist, but the copyist could simply have copied a statement written by the author of one or both of the works that he copied. In short, the manuscript's explicit most likely designates 1478 as the year of its execution, and does not definitively resolve the question of the date of the composition of its contents. Nevertheless, a number of elements indicate that "Le narre des faiz et gestes des francoys" was indeed composed in or shortly before 1478. For one thing, the likelihood is high that the two works contained in the manuscript were composed by the same author. It was not uncommon for late-medieval authors of histories of France to append short catalogues of the French kings to their works. Indeed, it is probable that the "Genealogie", which concluded with the reign of Louis XI, served not only as a convenient summary of the preceeding chronicle, but also as a continuation inasmuch as the text of the Grandes Chroniques abridged by the author concluded in 1380. Furthermore, "Le narre des faiz et gestes des francoys" is indeed, as its full title indicates, an abbreviation of the Grandes Chroniques, and we know that there was a copy of the Grandes

Chroniques at Boulogne in1478.^60 while the full title of the work would seem to imply that it was based on a single copy of the Grandes Chroniques and that that copy was located at Saint-Denis,

^^^Bernard Guenee, "Histoire d'un succès," in François Avril, Marie-Thérèse Gousset, and Bernard Guenée, Les Grandes Chroniques de France. Paris 1987, 132, indicated the presence of a manuscript of the Grandes Chroniques, which he did not identify, at Boulogne in 1478. 127 neither was in fact the case. For the period up to and including the death of Louis VIII (1226), the author of "Le narre des faiz et gestes des francoys" used a copy of the Grandes Chroniques that concluded with the death of the said monarch and that belonged to the abbot of

Lagny-sur-M arne.’6i He then proceeded, for the period from the accession of Louis IX to that of Charles VI, to base his work on another copy of the Grandes Chroniques, a copy that terminated in 1380 and which in all probability was the one known to have been at Boulogne in1478.162

16lThe author, after having recounted the reign of Louis VIII, wrote that "Cy finissent les croniques dont les choses dessus narrées sont extraictes Lesquelles avoient este trouvées ches labbe de laigny sur marne. Et les autres choses qui sensuivent sont extraictes dautres croniques prinses autrepart" (B.N., fr. 10137, fol. 31v). While copies of the Grandes Chroniques that concluded in 1226 (that is to say, that included the work of Primat, which concluded in 1223, plus a French translation of the Gesta Ludovici Octavi. a work written at Saint-Denis shortly after 1285) were not numerous, they did enjoy a certain diffusion in ecclesiastical circles in the fourteenth century. Bernard Guenée, "Les Grandes Chroniques de France. Le Roman aux roys (1274- 1518)," in Pierre Nora (éd.). Les Lieux de mémoire. 11. La nation. 1, Paris 1986, 196 and 203, signalled four such manuscripts - Cambrai, Bibl. mun., 682; Chartres, Bibl. mun., 271; Reims, Bibl. mun., 1469; Saint-Omer, Bibl. mun., 707 - ail of which, early in the fifteenth century, belonged to ecclesiastical^ establishments. Whether one of the four manuscripts known to Guenée came into the possession of the abbot of Lagny-sur-Mame and was used by the author of B.N., fr. 10137, or whether the latter used a Fifth and hitherto unknown copy of the Grandes Chroniques terminating in 1226,1 am unable to say. i62on the numerous late-fourteenth and fifteenth-century copies of the Grandes Chroniques that terminated in 1380, see Bernard Guenee, "Les Grandes Chroniques de France. Le Roman aux roys (1274-1518)," 201-208. In ail likelihood, the full title of "Le narre des faiz et gestes des francoys" included the phrase "qui sont a saint dénis en france" simply by way of clarification. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the Grandes Chroniques de France were - like numerous other chronicles - generally known as "les croniques de France". It will have been to make clear that he had abridged the most authoritative and prestigious "croniques de France" that the author will have designated them as "les croniques de france qui sont a saint denis en france". On late-medieval titles of the Grandes Chroniques see Bernard Guenée, "Histoire d'un succès," 102. 128 In sum, a preponderance of the evidence indicates but does not prove that the work in question, an abbreviation of the Grandes Chroniques to 1380, was completed at Boulogne shortly before it was copied there in 1478. While B.N., fr. 10137 betrays neither the identity of its author nor that of his patron, it is clear that the latter, and perhaps even the former, were individuals of some prominence. Due to the extreme length of the Grandes Chroniques, even unadorned copies of that work written on paper wereexpensive, ^^3 and yet the author, through his own doing or through that of his patron, was able to consult the copies of two individuals rich enough to possess them. His own work was copied on parchment and adorned with a small miniature depicting Saint Louis and with seventy-one illuminated initials, one at the start of every chapter. While considerably shorter than the Grandes Chroniques, the manuscript now known as B.N., fr. 10137 was nevertheless a luxury product destined for a wealthy purchaser interested in the history of France.

(S) B.N.. lat. 5195 While it is extremely difficult to date with precision and to identify in a meaningful way the authors of most of the unofficial histories that 1 studied, such is not the case for the history of the French kings from the destruction of Troy to 1479 contained in B.N., lat. 5195 (fols. 8-17) and lat. 5659 (fols. 111-131). This chronicle.

^^^^Bernard Guenee, "Les Grandes Chroniques de France. Le Roman aux roys (1274-1518)," 202. 129 which is joined in both manuscripts with chronicles of the archbishops of Rouen and with a chronicle of the dukes of Normandy composed by the same author as the chronicle of the French kings, forms the first half of a two-part work entitled "La genealogie des

roys de france et ducz de normendie"J64 was written sometime between 1479 and 1483, by a canon of the cathedral chapter of Rouen.

164This work, which is known to exist only in the two manuscripts in question, is recognizeable by the incioit "Apres la subversion et totale destruction de la grant et noble cite de troye....". The contents of the manuscripts are as follows. B.N., lat. 5195 contains, all in the same hand, a chronicle of the archbishops of Rouen to 1493, with a continuation to 1575 and a second continuation to 1594 (fols. 2-7v); the chronicle of the French kings in question, to 1479 (fols. 8-17); and a chronicle of the dukes of Normandy to 1475 (fols. 18-24v). B.N., lat. 5659 contains a much longer chronicle of the archbishops of Rouen to 1510 (fois. 1- 109v, of which fols. 1-76 are in the same hand as the subsequent chronicies of the French kings and Norman dukes; fols. 76-90 are in a second hand; fols. 91- 106 are a seventeenth-century copy of fols. 76-90; and fols. 106-109v are a continuation to 1631); the chronicle of the French kings (fols. 111-131); the chronicle of the Norman dukes (fols. 133-145). In this manuscript, the section of the chronicle of the archbishops of Rouen comprising the years 1284-1510 (fols. 76-90) was composed by Jean Masselin, canon of tiie cathedral chapter of Rouen (and homonym of his better-known uncle, the author of the Tournai des Etats Généraux de France tenus à Tours en 1484). on whom and on the manuscript in question, see Adhelm Bernier, "Notice sur Jehan Masselin," in his edition of the elder Masselin's Journal des Etats Généraux tenus à Tours en 1484 (Collection de documents inédits sur l'histoire de France) Paris 1835, i-xix. The French and Norman chronicles were in all probability composed by the same individual because: (1) they share a common title, "La genealogie des roys de france et ducz de normendie," in both manuscripts (B.N., lat. 5195, fol. 8; lat. 5659, fol. I ll) , which indicates that they were intended to form two parts of a whole; (2) they have similar terminal points, 1479 in the case of the French chronicle (see the next note) and 1475 in that of the Norman one, which concludes with the Treaty of Picquigny; (3) there are numerous factual correspondances between them, including some spectacular factual errors. Both, for example, claimed that the future Louis Vlll captured John of England during his campaign in England (1216) and that John was subsequently imprisoned at Paris (B.N., lat. 5195, fol. 13 [French chronicle] and fol. 21v [Norman chronicle]). Likewise, both mistakenly amalgamated Henry IV and Henry V of England into one individual and identified him as the son of Edward 111 (B.N., lat. 5195, fol. 15v [French chronicle] and fols. 22v-23 [Norman chronicle]). 130 While its date of composition is clearly given by its author's references to the battle of Guinegate (1479) and to Louis XI (d.l483) as the reigning monarch,165 the two surviving copies of "La genealogie des roys de france et ducz de normendie" were made during the reigns of Charles VIII or Louis XII. The one contained in

B.N., lat. 5195 was executed sometime between 1493 and 1510,166 and the one contained in B.N., lat. 5659 was made probably after the former copy and before 1513.167 There can be little doubt that the author was a Norman and a canon of the cathedral chapter of Rouen. His work is found only in l65The battle of Guinegate is the latest event recorded by the chronicler: "Le samedi devant la saint laurens en aoust lan mil IIIIc LXXK moururent grant nombre de francz archiers devant therouenne et la furent prins les pages auduc dautriche et grant nombre de chevaliers. Et fut ladite bataille au village nomme agingate" (B.N., lat. 5195, fols. 16v-17). Louis XI reigned at the time of the chronicle's composition: "La veille saint martin mil IIIIc XXIII. fut ne son filz loys a present roy de france" (fol. 16); "Lan mil IIIIc XLII. fut prinse la bastille de dieppe par mons.r le daulphin loys a present roy de france" (fol. 16).

I66in B.N., lat. 5195, the chronicle of the archbishops of Rouen, which was copied by the same hand as the French and Norman chronicles, concluded by noting that George of Amboise succeeded Robert of Croismare as archbishop in 1493: " cui sucessit Robertas de croismart anno M.o CCCC.o octua.o tercio. Roberto sucessit georgius damboize anno M.o CCCCC.o nonage.o tercio" (fol. 7). A later hand then added a continuation which began by noting the death of George of Amboise in 1510: "hie georgius damboyse ad dominum migravit anno M.o CCCCC.o X.o die XXV.o mai " (fol. 7). Because he noted George's elevation to the see but not his death and the name of his successor, it stands to reason that the copyist of the manuscript worked sometime between 1493 and 1510.

^ 67The copy contained in B.N., lat. 5659 appears to be a copy of the one contained in B.N., lat. 5195. While the two texts are rather similar, the differences between lat. 5659 and lat. 5195 all lie in the omission or abbreviation, from the former, of material contained in the latter. The manuscript was in any event extant by 1513, at which time a marginal note indicated its possession by Jean Masselin, canon of the cathedral chapter of Rouen: "Ce livre de croniques appartient a M. Jehan Masselin chanoyne en leglise de Rouen mil Vc XIII" (B.N., lat. 5659, fol. 17). 131 manuscripts that also contain chronicles of the archbishops of the Norman capital. He himself authored a chronicle of the dukes of Normandy, and he peppered his chronicle of the French kings with events particular to Normandy in general and to Rouen in particular.! 68 His work on the French kings contained historical

notes relative to eleven archbishops ofR o u e n .! 69 Finally, his work appears to have been destined for the use of the canons. One of the two manuscripts in which it survives was in the hands of a canon of Rouen in 1513, and both manuscripts appear to have remained in their possession throughout the sixteenthcentury. !70

!68His chronicle of the French kings contains numerous mentions of the dukes of Normandy. Some of them, such as Rollo and William the Bastard, are mentioned in reference to events dealt with by almost all late-medieval histories of France. Others, however, appear to have been included for their own sake, for example: "En icellui temps richart sans peur filz longue espee estoit due de normendie" (B.N., lat. 5195, fol. 11); "Apres la mort dudit roy guiUaume Robert son filz aisne fut duc de normendie " (fol. 12). Note in addition several references to churches in Rouen - "Environ ce temps la grant eglise de Rouen fut parfaitte par le duc guiUaume le conquérant" (fol. 12); "U [Charles V] regna XVII ans. et est son cueur entre deux platz dargent dedens le cueur de nostre dame de Rouen" (fol. 15v) - as weU as the inclusion of the fact that "En iceUui an [1436] fut commencée luniversite et estude a caen" (fol. 16), and the description of Enguerrand de Marigny as a "bon chevalier et sage natif de normendie" (fol. 14).

!69"En temps duquel roy saint godart estoit archevesque de rouen et saint flane son successeur" (B.N., lat. 5195, fol. 8v); "[Chilperic I] fist deposer le bon archevesque de Rouen pretetaxtus. et in fine martirium subiit" (fol. 9); " ou temps dudit dagoubert et de son pere clotaire Saint Romain estoit archevesque de Rouen" (fol. 9); "Cestui Charles martel fut oncle de saint hue archevesque de rouen" (fol. 9v); "Cestui Charles martel engendra le roy pépin et saint remy qui fut archevesque de Rouen. In principio regni Karoli magni" (fol. 9v); " et le [Rollo] fist faire chrestien et baptize par franco, archevesque de Rouen " (fol. 11); "Environ ce temps la grant eglise de Rouen fut parfaitte Et fut dedice en cedit temps par maurille archevesque dudit lieu" (fol. 12); "En son temps odo Rigault fut archevesque de Rouen" (fol. 14); "Endit temps flanencourt estoit archevesque de Rouen" (fol. 14); " pierres rogier archevesque de Rouen fut fait pape de romme" (fol. 15).

!!^*^he chronicle of the archbishops of Rouen contained in B.N., lat. 5195 received two brief continuations, one sometime between 1575 and 1590, one 132 While nothing indicates that "La genealogie des roys de france et ducz de normendie" ever circulated outside of the city and the ecclesiastical milieu in which it was composed, it is a work well worth studying. It reveals what a Norman canon writing late in the reign of Louis XI believed to be most important in the history of France because, having at his disposal a copy of Noël de Fribois' rather long Abrégé des Chroniques de France and a copy of the even longer Grandes Chroniques.^ 71 he abridged a vast amount of material into a short, convenient chronicle for the instruction of his colleagues and successors. Finally, although I have considered B.N. lat. 5195 and lat. 5659 to represent two copies of the same work, one should note that the two manuscripts are not quite identical. In lat. 5659, the later of the two manuscripts, the accounts of the reigns of Charles V, Charles VI, and Charles VII are considerably abbreviated relative to the accounts in lat. 5195. The two manuscripts also differ in their interpretations of two important late-medieval events. Whereas lat. 5195 stated that John ll's capture at the battle of Poitiers (1356) and his subsequent ransom was "a divine punishment, because he had levied tailles and subsidies on all the after 1594, and both presumably done by canons of the cathedral. B.N., lat. 5659 was in the hands of the canon Jean Masselin in 1513 (fol. 17: "Ce livre de croniques appartient a M. Jehan Masselin chanoyne en leglise de Rouen mil Vc XlII"), and the chronicle of the archbishops contained therein received a continuation, probably also by a canon of Rouen, sometime after 1631.

^^^For a demonstration of the fact that the author used both Noël de Fribois' Abrégé des Chroniques de France and the Grandes Chroniques in preparing his work, and for an important conclusion that a comparison of his texts with these sources permits one to make about his views on the French monarchy, see Chapter IV, "The French Kill Their Kings". 133 people of his kingdom," the copyist of lat. 5659 simply omitted this phrase. 172 Whereas lat. 5195 reported that Charles VI, who for the better part of his reign was in fact insane, was afflicted with an illness "on account of which he was, for the remainder of his life, mad, and from which he never recovered," the copyist of lat. 5659 wrote merely that "he was sick for a longtime". 173 High taxes and unfit governors being no less unpopular and scandalous in fifteenth-century France than they are today, the copyist of lat. 5659 confronted two important political issues and, making a political decision, resolved them in the manner most favorable to the French monarchy. As a result of his politics, readers of the manuscript he copied were, on these two sensitive questions, given information quite different from the information given to readers of lat. 5195. Although considering lat. 5195 and lat. 5659 to be two copies of the same work will not harm my analysis, it is important to realize that doing so is merely a modern convenience. The medieval reality underlined by this case is that medieval

^ 72compare "Cestui [John II] fut prins en bataille par edouart dangleterre avec XVII.c chevaliers. II paia troys millions dor pour sa recon son filz phelippe avecques lui et disoit len que cestoit pugnicion divine, car il avoit leve tailles et succides sur tous les gens de son royaulme. Il regna XIII ans " (B.N., lat. 5195, fol. 15) to "Cestui fut prins en bataille par edouart dangleterre avec XVII.c chevaliers. Et paya III millions dor pour sa rencon son filz phelippe fut mene avecquez luy. II regna XIII ans " (B.N., lat. 5659, fol. 128).

ï73compare "Il [Charles VI] fist grans guerres aux flamens et aussi en bretaigne en la ville du mans lui print une maladie de quoy il fut tout le demourant de sa vie. incense ne oncques nen garist. En lan mil IIII.c fut une grande et merveilleuse cornette en france " (B.N., lat. 5195, fol. 15v) to "II fist grans guerres aux flamens et aussi en bretaigne n fut long temps m^ade En cedit temps fut veue une tresmerveilleuse et grande comecte " (B.N., lat. 5659, fol. 128v). 134 readers did not read "histories". They read manuscripts of histories. In subsequent chapters, this history will be represented by the copy in B.N., lat. 5195.

(T) B.N.. fr. 5696 B.N., fr. 5696 contains the latest version of "A tous nobles" of which I am aware. This chronicle covers French history from the Trojan origins to the time of Charles Vlll. The manuscript in question is the only one in which 1 know it tos u r v i v e . ^ 7 4 The text was composed during the reign of Charles Vlll (1483-

1 4 9 8 ).175 It would seem, furthermore, to have been written relatively early in the reign of that monarch. In his penultimate chapter, the author noted the dates of the birth, accession, coronation, and death of Louis XI, but excused himself from relating the deeds of that king on the grounds that he lacked a source, those deeds being "not yet chronicled".176 in his final chapter, he noted

174por a description of the manuscript, in which the chronicle in question is the sole item, see the Catalogue des manuscrits français de la Bibliothèque Nationale. V, 69. l75The date of composition is indicated by the text's final chapter, which gives Charles VIII as the reigning monarch: "Charles huitiesme de ce nom a present regnant " (fol. 55v). i76The chapter on Louis XI reads as follows: "Loys unz.me de ce nom fut ne a Bourges le Ill.e jour de juillet lan mil CCCC XXIII. et fut roy le jour de la magdaleine mil CCCC LXI, ouquel jour decedda le roy Charles son pere Et fut sacre roy a Reims le samedi quinz.me jour daoust jour de lassumption nostre dame Et quant a ses faictz ilz ont este grans et dignes de mémoire lesquelz ne sont point encores cronnicquez par le cronicqueur Ledict roy loys decedda aux moncilz les tours lan mil CCCC IIIIxx III. et gist a nostre dame de clery" (fols. 55-55v). 135 only the dates of the birth and accession of Charles Vlll.177 The author appears to have been a Parisian.^78 The manuscript in which his work survives was executed in the late-fifteenth or early-sixteenth century. ’ 79 Like most of the manuscripts of the different versions of "A tous nobles" that 1 studied, it is a relatively modest one. B.N., fr. 5696 is a parchment manuscript with painted initials, but it is relatively short (56 leaves), features no illuminations

^77 The chapter on Charles VIII reads: "Charles huitiesme de ce nom a present regnant fut ne a amboise le samedi dernier jour de juing mil CCCC LXX, et commença a regner le XXX.me jour daoust mil CCCC. IIILxx III par le decez du roy loys son pere que dieu absoille. dieu luy doint bien regner" (fol. 55v).

^ 78The author included, under the reign of Charles VI, an event in local Parisian history his account of which reveals a knowledge of Parisian geography: "Ou temps dudict roy Charles six.me mil CCCC, V. ung des paiges dun chevalier nomme messire Charles desavoisy, qui chevauchoit ung cheval en venant de le mener boire le cheval esclabouta ung escollier lequel avec les autres alloit en procession a saincte katherine Lequel escollier frappa ledict paige et lors les gens dudict chevalier saillirent de son hostel embastonnez poursuyvans lesdicts escoUiers jusques a saincte katherine. et ung des gens dudict chevalier tira une fleiche dedans leglise jusques au grant autel ou le prestre chantoit messe dont pour ce fait luniversite de paris feist telle poursuicte a lencontre dudict chevallier que sa maison fut abbatue et fut ledict chevalier banny hors du royaume de france et excommunie et sen alla devers le pappe qui labsolut et de la alla sur les mescroyans et y gangna moult davoir et fut faicte sa paix et feist redifRer sondict hostel a paris qui ne fut pas achevé comme il appert de present assez près la culture saincte katherine" (fols. 52v- 53). Astonishingly, this episode, which is recorded in no other version of "A tous nobles" of which I am aware, is the only historical event of the reign of Charles VI recorded in this one. Perhaps the author lived in the neighborhood of Ste. Catherine du Val des Ecoliers and/or was tied to that church in some way and/or was acquainted with or even descended from individuals involved in the incident.

^79i have been unable to determine with precision the date of the manuscript’s execution. On the one hand, it is unlikely but by no means impossible that a post-1498 copyist would have left intact the statement that Charles VIII was the reigning monarch. On the other hand, the Catalogue and Robert Bossuat, who very briefly discussed B.N., fr. 5696 in "Le Pit des Rovs. Chronique rimee du XlVe siècle," in Melanges de Linguistique romane et de Philologie médiévale offerts à M. Maurice Delbouille. II (Gembloux 1964) 51-52, identified the copyist's hand as a sixteenth-century one. 136 or miniatures, and lacks the genealogical tree found in many other copies of "A tous nobles". This seventh and latest distinct version of "A tous nobles" of which 1 am aware, written at least seventy years after the composition of the earliest version that 1 studied, is final testimony to the popularity of "A tous nobles" as a short and accessible guide to the history of the French kings throughout the fifteenth century.

(U) B.N.. fr. 5704 B.N., fr. 5704 contains another history of France written during the reign of Charles Vlll. It is untitled, and is recognizeable by the incipit "Cy sensuyt la generation de la bible qui comprent dadam jusques au deluge ".’so Its composition dates to the years 1488-

ISOpor a description of B.N., fr. 5704, in which the work in question is the sole item, see the Catalogue des manuscrits français de la Bibliothèque Nationale V, 71. According to the files of the Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes (Paris, section romane), another copy is in Vatican, Reg. lat. 611, fols. 6-70. The chronicle in question may also have been published in several printed editions. Along with B.N., fr. 5704 and Vat., Reg. lat. 611, the Institut de Recherche et d'Histoire des Textes, section romane, has catalogued (1) the "Chroniques abregees des rois de France, depuis le commencement du monde jusqu'a Louis le Débonnaire, extraites de differens auteurs" published at Paris by Pierre Levet and Germain Bineault in 1490 (B.N., Res. des Impr. L.35 4B); (2) the "Chroniques de France abregees avec la generation dadam et deve; et de noe et de leurs generations, et les villes et cites que fondèrent ceulx qui yssirent deux. Imprime a Paris le XXVI iour du moys de mars lan mil quatre cens quatre vingz et Xim par Jehan Treperel" published at Paris by Jean Trepperel in 1494; (3) the "Chroniques de france abergees avec la generation de adam et eve, et de noe, et de leurs generations, et les villes et cites que fondèrent ceulx qui yssirent deulx, nouvellement corrigées et imprimées a paris : Imprime a paris le quinziesme jour du moys de novembre, lan mil quatre cens quatre vingz et XVlll. Par Jehan Treperel" published at Paris by Jean Trepperel in 1498 (B.N., Res. des Impr. L.35 5); (4) another, undated "Chroniques de France abregees, avec la generation dadam et deve et de noe et de leurs generation et les villes et cites que fondèrent ceulx qui yssirent deulx" and (5) a "genealogie des rois de France" printed at Lyons around 1490 (B.N., Res. des Impr. L.35 4). 1 am not, for having not examined these editions, able to confirm or deny the identity of their texts to the text of B.N., fr. 5704. 137 1498, and the copy found in B.N., fr. 5704 was in all likelihood

executed during the same p e r io d .i8 i Although his identity is unknown, its author clearly designated his intended audience and his purpose in the preface to his work. "Princes and people of high estate" desire to know the deeds of their predecessors, but, he wrote, certain obstacles prevent them from so doing. For one thing, their public duties do not afford them the time to read the long books in which those deeds are recorded. For

iS l^ y line Qf reasoning is as follows: (1) The chronicle was definitely composed after the death of Louis XI, who, in the prologue, the author twice described as "recently deceased" (B.N., fr. 5704, fols. 5 and 5v); (2) according to Jacques Riche, "L'historien Nicole Gilles (14--? - 1503)," Ecole des Chartes. Positions des thèses (1930) 138-9, the text of B.N., fr. 5704 is extremely similar to the Annates et chroniques de France of Nicole Gilles for the reign of Charles VII, and is identical to Gilles' work for the reign of Louis XI. The date of composition of Gilles' work is therefore relevant to establishing the terminus post quem for the composition of the chronicle found in B.N., fr. 5704; (3) Unfortunately, that date has yet to be established with precision. Arlette Jouanna, discussing Gilles in "La quête des origines dans l’historiographie française de la fin du XVe et du début du XVIe siècle," in Bernard Chevalier and Philippe Contamine (eds.). La France de la fin du XVe siècle. Renouveau et Apogée. Paris 1985, 301-311, gave 1492 as the date of his Annales et Chroniques de France. Kathleen Daly, who discussed Gilles and his history of France in "Mixing Business with Leisure: Some French Royal Notaries and Secretaries and their Histories of France, c.1459-1509," in Christopher Allmand (ed.). Power. Culture, and Religion in France c.l350-c.l550. Woodbridge 1989,99-115, did not date his work. The earliest surviving printed edition of Gilles' work dates to 1525, but Remy Scheurer, "Nicole Gilles et Antoine Verard," BEG CXXVIII (1970) 415-19, posited a lost printed edition dating to 1492. While I have examined neither the autograph manuscript of Gilles' work (B.N., n.a. fr. 1417) nor any of the eight known sixteenth and early-seventeenth-century printed editions, I can, for having read his account of the reign of Louis XI in B.N., fr. 5704, affirm it to have been written after Pierre de Beaujeu became duke of Bourbon in 1488 (B.N., fr. 5704, fol. 67: " ma dame anne [de Beaujeu] qui fut mariee au duc de bourbon a present duc de bourbon et dauvergne conte de Clermont de la marche de foretz et de beaujolois") and before Charles VIII died in 1498 (fol. 73: " Charles a present roy de france au quel dieu doint bonne vie et longuement vivre et regner"). It follows that the author of B.N., fr. 5704, making use of Gilles' text, wrote in or after 1488; (4) Because both the author of the chronicle found in B.N., fr. 5704 and the copyist of the manuscript let stand Gilles' reference to Charles VIII as the reigning monarch, it is extremely likely that the text was both composed and copied before that monarch's death. 138 another, the fact that such books contain obscure passages and all sorts of varied material renders difficult and tiresome their attempts to locate "the histories of the very high and notable deeds of their predecessors". Indeed, relative to the amount of material on other peoples that they contain, many books contain all too little information on the deeds of the French. In sum, having identified prolixity and diversity of contents as the chief impediments to their historical knowledge, the author set out to provide princes and nobles with a short work that focused specifically on "the great and notable deeds done by the French." 1^2 Like many late-medieval historians of France, he terminated his account of those deeds with the completion of the most recent royal reign, in this case with the death of Louis XI. However, while nearly all of his colleagues' works set out either from the Trojan origins of the Franks or from the reign of Pharamond, his has the distinction of beginning with the Creation. The author of "Cy sensuyt la generation de la bible " reached the Trojan War only in his thirtieth chapter and Pharamond only in his fortieth. Nevertheless,

^82b.n., fr. 5704, fols. 4v-5: "Et pource que sur toutes choses les princes et gens de hault estât et entendement desirent veoir les hystoires des treshaulx et notables faiz de leurs predecesseurs qui sont dignes de mémoire et de perpétuelle recommandacion et qui ne peuent vacquer a veoir au long les grans et compendieux livres ou iceulx sont traictes pour leur prolicite et aussi pour les grandes occupacions qullz ont continuellement pour les affaires de la chose publique pour complaire aussi aux entendemens de ceulx qui ont autrefois veu lesdictes hystoires au long et les garder de peine et dennuy quilz pourroient avoir a revisiter les livres ou celles sont couchees pour les obscurs et divers passages qui y sont nonobstant que entre les aultres histoires veu les grans et notables fais que ont fait les francois soit peu escript diceulx au regart des grecz romains et athéniens cartagiens et aultres. Si sera icy en ce petit livre touche par mémoire de cronique abergee des notables fais desdicts francoys ". 139 there can be no doubt that the entirety of his work is a history of France. The author clearly explained his intention to trace the origin and descent of the French all the way from A d a m ,183 and, as we have seen, he explicitly identified the deeds of the French as his subject. He also attempted to preempt criticism of what might be perceived as his work's unwarranted exaltation of the French,184 and he in fact devoted the bulk of his text to the deeds of the French kings from Pharamond to Louis Xl.i8s "Cy sensuyt la generation de la bible " was intended for princes and nobles, and the copy found in B.N., fr. 5704 did reach its

183B,N., fr. 5704, fol. 5: "Si sera icy en ce petit livre touche par mémoire de cronique abergee des notables fais desdits francoys dont ils sont venus et descendus de puis adam jusques a noe de noe jusques a nembroth premier roy de caldee. de nembroth au grant roy priam de croie de priam a francion premier roy de sincambre de francion a faramond premier roy des francoys ou qui commença la premiere lignee des rois de france. de pharamond au roy pépin le bref pere de charlemaigne en qui commença la seconde lignee de pépin au roy hue capet qui fut grant conte de paris, en qui commença la tierce de hue capet au roy philippe de valoys qui commença la quarte ligne de laquelle ligne est le roy loys dixiesme fi.e.. Louis XI] derrenier decede et plusieurs aultres princes de son royaulme." What is noteworthy here is not the notion of tracing the origin of the French back to Adam, since that it precisely what the authors of universal histories always did; it is, rather, the author's insistence on doing so in a work conceived as a history of France.

^ 84xhe author provided a list of his sources so as to prove to those who might reproach him for having added imaginary material designed "to exalt the French nation" that he had not done so: "Mais pource que on pourroit dire que le compositeur dicelluy livre y a mis plusieurs choses a son plaisir pour eslever la nation franscoise pource que on ne treuve point livre ou il soit de si loing ne si particulièrement parle des fais desdits francois sans y mesler ou entre mettre autres hystoires affin que on congnoisse que ledit composeur ny a mis rien du sien II a voulu descripre les lieulx dont il les a extraitz pour les mettre et coucher en bref en cedit petit livre " (B.N., fr. 5704, fols. 5-5v).

^85Following a table of contents and the preface, the thirty-nine chapters prior to the reign of Pharamond occupy fifteen leaves (fols. 6-20). The remaining forty-eight chapters, organized by the reigns of French kings from Pharamond to Louis XI, occupy seventy-five leaves (fols. 20-94v). 140 author’s desired audience. The manuscript, which is on parchment and is adorned with numerous illuminated initials, may have belonged to the royal family and definitely belonged to the noble family whose arms it bears. ^ 86

(V) B.N.. fr. 4954 Finally, I studied two histories of France written during the reign of Louis XII (1498-1515). The first is known to exist only in B.N., fr. 4954. Its author, who was in all likelihood familiar with the Grandes Chroniques, devoted two chapters, one genealogical and chronological and one describing the noteworthy deeds of the monarch in question, to each of forty-seven French kings from Pharamond to Charles VIII, and one chapter to the reigning monarch.

186b.n ., fr. 5704 bears, on fol. 3v and on fol. 4, arms that the Catalogue des manuscrits français de la Bibliothèque Nationale V, 71, identified as those of the "dauphin Charles". Unfortunately, I have as yet been unable to determine whether the Charles in question is the future Charles VIII or his son, the dauphin Charles-Orland, who died at the age of three in 1495. In the event that the arms are those of the future Charles VIll, their relationship to the text is problematic: since Charles was dauphin only from his birth in 1470 to his accession in 1483, and since the text of the chronicle could have been neither composed nor copied prior to 1488, it is evident that the arms and the text could not have been entered into the manuscript at the same time. It would seem that the arms of the dauphin Charles were painted into a volume which, at a later date, received the text of "Cy sensuyt la generation de la bible ". Therefore, while the volume could conceivably have been presented to Charles, now king, the presence of the arms indicates neither that the author of "Cy sensuyt la generation de la bible " wrote under a royal commission or intended to present his work to the king - indeed, he made no mention of Charles in his prologue - nor that B.N., fr. 5704 was ever actually presented to him. In the event that the arms are those of the young Charles Orland, one can narrow the possible dates of the chronicle's composition to 1488-1495 and the dates of the manuscript's execution to 1492-1495. B.N., fr. 5704 was, however, undoubtedly owned by the unidentified family whose arms are painted on fol. 4 of the manuscript. 141 Louis XII. Appropriately, he entitled his work "Les Roys de France".! 87 While internal evidence permits one to date his work only to the time of Louis XII, it is likely that he wrote it not long after that monarch's accession. The author devoted only one chapter to the reigning monarch, writing simply: "Louis of Orleans. Louis of Orleans, son of Charles, duke of Orleans, descended from father to son from king Charles the Fifth, was king in the year 1497 Fsicl and reigns at present."!88 The absence of a second chapter might indicate the newness of his reign, Louis having yet to perform any deeds worthy of memory. So might the author's reference to him as "Louis of Orleans", for throughout his work the author of "Les Roys de france" showed a concern for providing laudatory sobriquets for the French kings. In addition to using such conventional ones as "the Fair", "the Wise", "the Beloved", and "the Well-Served" (for, respectively, Philip IV and Charles IV, Charles V, Charles VI, and Charles VII), he employed several little-used sobriquets - "the Lion" for Louis VIII, "the Catholic" for Philip VI, "the Victorious" for Louis XI - as well as one that appears to be of his own invention, "the

! 87por a description of the manuscript, see the Catalogue des manuscrits français de la Bibliothèque Nationale IV, 451. The incinit is: "Les Roys de france. Lan CCCC. XIX. Pour mieulx scavoir et entendre en quelz temps les choses et faiz dignes de mémoire que len ecript estre advenues durant les régnés des roys de france ". "419" refers to the supposed year of the election of Pharamond as the first French king. On the author's familiarity with the Grandes Chroniques, and for some further comments on his work, see Chapter 111, "Clovis the Bastard".

! 88b.n ., fr. 4954, fol. 24: "Loys dorleans filz de Charles due dorleans descendu de pere a filz du roy Charles le quint, fut roy Ian mil CCCC lIII.xx dixsept fsicl. et regne a present." 142 Courtly" for Louis VJ89 seen in this context, his failure to find a lofty sobriquet for Louis Xll could reflect a date of composition not long after the Duke of Orleans' accession to the throne. The vellum manuscript in which "Les Roys de france" survives is a rather luxurious one, containing a large miniature depicting the coronation of a French king and numerous illuminated letters. It was, to judge from the coat of arms painted on its first leaf, executed for a noble family, the Morlay du Museau, who may well have patronized the author of the text it contains.

(W) B.N.. fr. 5709 The most recent text that 1 read is contained in B.N., fr. 5709. The manuscript contains an untitled universal chronicle (fols. l-79v) to which the chronicle's author added an abridged translation of the

Enseignements de Saint Louis (fols. 8 0 -8 4 ) . The eighth and final

189-pheUppe [IV] le bel" (B.N., fr. 4954, fol. 18v); "Charles [IV] le bel" (fol. 20); "Charles cinquiesme dit le saige" (fol. 21v); "Charles Vl.e de ce nom dit le bien ayme" (fol. 22); Charles Vll.e de ce nom dit le bien servy" (fol. 22v); "Loys [Vlll] leon" (fol. 17v); "Phelippe [VI] le catholique" (fol. 20v); "Loys [XI] le victorieux" (fol. 23); "Loys [V] le courtois" (fol. 13v). The author also used some license in transforming Philip V "le Long" into "Phelippe le grant" (fol. 19v).

1 QO^ccording to the Catalogue des manuscrits français de la Bibliothèque Nationale IV, 451. iSlThe universal chronicle, the incinit of which is "Le premier jour dieu créa les Anges le second créa les cieulx ", is known to exist only in this manuscript. The chapter on Louis IX in the book of the chronicle that deals with the French kings makes reference to the Enseignements that, by design, follow the chronicle in the manuscript: "Loys XLIIIe roy de france fut sainet, duquel a la fin de ceste cronique plusieurs enseignemens dignes de commander a mémoire a tous princes et roys sont redigez par escript" (B.N., fr. 5709, fol. 78). For a description of the manuscript, see the Catalogue des manuscrits français de la Bibliothèque Nationale V, 72. 143 book (fols. 71-79) of the chronicle is a brief history of the French kings from the Trojan origins to the reign of LouisX ll. 192 n was written in 1504.193 While the text in question forms part of a larger whole, considering it as an unofficial history of France is warranted. For one thing, its author drew the information contained in the eighth book of his work not from other universal chronicles, but from sources, derived from the Grandes Chroniques, that dealt exclusively with the history of France. 194 it is therefore, like all of the other histories I

192xhe eighth book of the chronicle is entitled "Le huytiesme livre de ceste cronique est du regne des treschrestiens roys de france," and its incipit is "Les francoys ainsi que plusieurs autres nations ont leur commancement et nom des troyens ". It follows a book on the Assyrians (fols. 1-6), one on the Medes (fols. 6-8v), one on the Persians (fols. 9-14v), one on the Macedonians (fols. 14v-16v), two on the Romans until the transfer of the Western Empire to Charlemagne (fols. 17-67), and one on the (Holy Roman) Empire from Charlemagne to Maximillian 1 (fols. 67-70v).

I93xhe book on the French kings concludes by noting that "Loys Xlle de ce nom est cinquante septiesme roy de france qui a present regne en lan de grace mil Vc et quatre" (B.N., fr. 5709, fol. 79v). Likewise, the seventh book, on the (Holy Roman) Emperors, terminates with "Maximian lequel est a present empereur lan de grace mil cinq cens et quatre" (fol. 70v).

I94in writing his eighth book, the author of the chronicle relied primarily on Robert Gaguin's Compendium de origine et gestis Francorum. to which he referred three times: "Les francoys ainsi que plusieurs autres nations ont leur commancement et nom des troyens car il furent nommez francoys ainsi que recite maistre Robert Gaguin en sa cronique " (B.N., fr. 5709, fol. 71); " touchant la genealogie de francion jusques audit marcomirus on ne la treuve en cronique digne dauctorite Car mastre Robert Gaguin confesse ignorer la vente " (fol. 71); "Il [Clodion] régna celon gaguin XX ans " (fol. 72). On Gaguin and bis work, which was based primarily on the Grandes Chroniques, and four editions of which he published between 1495 and his death in 1501, see Auguste Molinier, Les Sources de l'histoire de France des origines aux guerres d'Italie (1494) ,V (Paris 1904) 26-28, and Mireille Schmidt- Chaz^, "Histoire et sentiment national chez Robert Gaguin," in Bernard Guenêe (éd.). Le métier d'historien au Moyen Age. Etudes sur l'historiographie médiévale. Paris 1977, 233-300. The author of the chronicle also referred in his eighth book to a certain "nuprone [?] laucteur des croniques de france, lesquelles furent escriptes durant le regne de Charles huytiesme de ce nom" (fol. 71v), whom I have been unable to identify. 144 examined, an abbreviation of much longer works on French history. For another, rather than scattering information relative to French history throughout his work, placing bits and pieces in their proper places in a universal chronology, he concentrated it in one place. He did, therefore, in effect write a short history of the French kings. The facts that his chronicle exists in only one manuscript and that it doesn't contain a prologue make it difficult to assess the author, his aims, and his intended and real audiences. B.N., fr. 5709 belonged to a member of Louis Xll's family, for a preliminary leaf in the manuscript bears the arms of the house of Orleans. While the royal family's possession of the manuscript is sure, the proposition that the text it contains was written for and/or at the command of one of its members is not. Indeed, royal or princely patronage is argued against by the fact that the author addressed himself to no one in particular, by the lack of a prologue in general, and by the manuscript itself, which is unadorned, is on paper, and bears a sloppily-written text.^^s The author of the chronicle contained in B.N., fr. 5709 appears to have tired towards the end of his labor. His eighth and final book, which is organized by royal reigns, begins with nine fairly substantial chapters relative to the Trojan origins and the first eight French monarchs. However, he then proceeded to write extremely

is, in other words, certainly not a presentation manuscript. One would expect an author who had written on the command of the king to have addressed his work to the monarch, to have praised the king and the kingship in a prologue, and to have noted, relative to Louis XII, something more than "Loys Xlle de ce nom est cinquante septiesme roy de france qui a present regne en lan de grace nul Vc et quatre" (B.N., fr. 5709, fol. 79v). 145 brief chapters for most of the remaining French kings, in many cases noting nothing other than the given monarch's number in the order of succession. His eighth book is, therefore, primarily of interest as a numbered list of the French kings, and it is as such that I will analyze it in detail in a later chapter. ^ 96

Collective Portrait of the Unofficial Histories Viewed individually, the twenty-three unofficial histories of France presented above are a diverse lot. Some achieved more success than others in terms of their diffusion in manuscript copies, in time, and in space. They were written for different reasons, and they related the history of France in varying lengths and in unequal degrees of detail. They found audiences unequal in size and unalike in background. The manuscripts in which they survive varied in terms of content, quality, and cost. Their authors came from different places and from different social and occupational milieus, and they used different sources. This diversity is important, and should not be forgotten. However, viewed together, the mass of discrete details outlined thus far does yield a collective portrait of the histories that 1 studied. To begin with, while the twenty-three works under consideration in no way constitute a statistically-valid sample of unofficial histories of France written between 1380 and 1515, they do in two important respects offer a meaningful historical sample. iSGpor a consideration of the work in question as a list of the French kings, and for an analysis of that list, see Chapter VI, "Lists of the French Kings, 1", and Chapter Vll, "Lists of the French Kings, II". 146 First, they provide a well-balanced chronological sampling of unofficial histories written between the accession of Charles VI and the death of Louis XII. Their possible dates of composition are well- distributed in time and collectively embrace all but twenty-four

years of the 135-year period under consideration. 197 Second, they provide a sufficient number of manuscripts of unofficial histories of France. Collectively, the works under consideration exist in at least seventy-one manuscripts and possibly in as many as 108.^98 Their collective diffusion therefore

*97in this note and in all the remaining notes in this chapter, 1 shall for the sake of brevity and clarity refer to the twenty-three histories under consideration by the letters that denote the sections of this chapter wherein each is treated in detail. Recapitulating their dates of composition, (A) was composed between 1380-1388; (B) shortly after 1380; (C) in 1381; (D) between 1409-1415; (E) between 1415-1417; (F) around 1422; (G) during the reign of Charles VI; (H) around 1423; (I) between 1422-1436; (J) between 1444-1461 and perhaps, more precisely, 1444-1447; (K) surely between 1440-1470, quite likely 1440-1461, possibly 1445-1459; (L) between 1444-1461; (M) between 1449-1453; (N) in 1459; (O) between 1433-1476 and probably before 1462; (P) around 1461; (Q) between 1461-1483; (R) between 1476-1478; (S) between 1479-1483; (T) between 1483-1498; (U) between 1488-1498; (V) between 1498-1515; (W) in 1504. It follows that, discounting the very indeterminate date of (G), the possible dates of composition of the works in question embrace all years between 1380 and 1515 except 1389-1408 and 1418-1421. This is not to claim that the works in question represent any sort of "scientific" chronological sample. It is merely a way of pointing out that they cover the period under consideration in a rather even and adequate manner.

'98to recapitulate, (A) is known to exist in 3 manuscripts and possibly in a fourth; (B) in 7; (C) in 1; (D) in 1, but see below; (E) in 1, but see below; (F) in 1; (G) in 3; (H) in 1; (I) in 1; (J) in 6, but see below; (K) in 4, three of which also contain (J), and see below; (L) in 1, but see below; (M) in 1; (N) in 22; (O) in 1; (P) in 1; (Q) in 2, but see below, (R) in 2; (S) in 2; (T) in 1, but see below, (U) in 2; (V) in 1; (W) in 1. The sure total thus far, not counting three manuscripts of (K) twice, is 63. While I studied thirteen manuscripts of different versions of "A tous nobles" (D,E,J,K,L,Q,T), that text definitely exists, in one or other version, in eight additional manuscripts. Their addition raises the total to 71. It probably also exists in 36 more manuscripts. The addition of those thirty-six and the possible fourth manuscript of (A) yields 108. For a list of all of the 21 definite and 36 probable manuscripts containing "A tous nobles", see section (D) of the present chapter. 147 approximates or even surpasses the contemporary diffusion of the Grandes Chroniques, which survive in approximately eighty-seven manuscripts dating to the period 1380-1518.^99 In addition to providing a meaningful chronological sample and a sufficient number of manuscripts, the twenty-three works in question also share certain characteristics that mark them out as a consistent, coherent body of historical literature. Obviously but importantly, they share a common subject. With but two partial exceptions, they are histories ofFrance. 200 in other words, their authors wrote the same tvne of history. They composed neither universal chronicles that related French history within a broader, international context, nor regnal histories that related the deeds of a particular French king, nor local or municipal or monastic or seigneurial chronicles that touched only incidentally upon national events. Instead, they wrote works which, by design, dealt with French history in its entirety and from a national or at least a royal perspective. With but one exception, they began their accounts with the supposed Trojan origins of the Franks or with the reign of

199See note 1 above.

ZOOrhe exceptions are (H) and (W), which are universal chronicles. However, as noted in the appropriate sections of this chapter, each of them in fact contains an uninterrupted history of France from die Trojan origins to the time of its composition. The author of (H) grouped together his material on French history rather than dispersing it throughout his work. (W) contains eight distinct books, the last of which is a history of France. It is true that (E) is a universal chronicle, but I do not consider it to be an exception. Its author consigned French history to its own column in this four-colunm work, and the text of the French column is a version of "A tous nobles", a history of France known also to exist independently. 148 Pharamond, supposedly the first king of France, and pursued them to contemporary or near-contemporary times.201 Without exception, they organized their material in terms of the reigns of the French kings. To be sure, the length and depth in which they related French history varied. Nevertheless, in studying their works together, one is not comparing apples to oranges. One is considering and comparing texts that address the same subject, embrace the same time span, and are structured in the same way. One is also comparing texts that, to a great extent, shared a common purpose and common sources. It is fundamental, in this regard, to keep in mind that all of the works under consideration are abbreviated histories of France. None of their authors aspired to meet the modern standard of originality, a standard for the most part foreign to the mentality of medieval historians. Instead, they selected what they judged to be relevant information from old, long, and authoritative texts. They then incorporated that information, usually in summary form and sometimes with additions, omissions, and comments of their own, into their own much shorter works. It follows that beyond whatever particular purposes they may have had, they also shared the important common one of making short, convenient (and, in many cases, relatively inexpensive) histories of France available to their eventual audiences. The fact that those histories varied considerably in length and in depth

20lThe exception is (U). As noted in the appropriate section of this chapter, the author began his work, which he explicitly identified as a history of France, with the Creation. 149 should not be allowed to obscure the fact that, relative to their sources, they were all rather short and shallow works. Furthermore, because the most authoritative history of France in the late-fourteenth and fifteenth centuries was the Grandes Chroniques, it also follows that most of the unofficial historians whose works I studied based their histories on that source. Indeed, fully twenty of the histories under consideration were based in whole or in part on either the Grandes Chroniques or other histories of France themselves derived from the Grandes Chroniques.202 in studying them as a group, one is comparing texts whose authors in a sense followed the same procedure, for the same reason. They abbreviated the Grandes Chroniques so as to provide brief histories of France to those who were unable to afford the Grandes Chroniques, to those who lacked the time or interest to read them in

202xo recapitulate, (B) was based on the Chronique abrégée of Guillaume de Nangis, which itself was based on the Grandes Chroniques: (C) was based on the second or third edition of Bernard Gui's Reees Francorum. which itself was based in part on the Grandes Chroniques and the Chronique abrégée of Guillaume de Nangis; (D), (E), (J), (K), (L), (Q), and (T), that is, different versions of "A tous nobles", were based largely on the Grandes Chroniques: (F) probably made use of the Chronique abreeee of Guillaume de Nangis or the Pit des Roys, which itself was based on the former work; (G) was based on the Chronique abreeee of Guillaume de Nangis; the author of (1) was familiar with the Grandes Chroniques: (N) was written by Noël de Fribois, whose sources included the Grandes Chroniques: (O) made use of one of Bernard Gui's works on the history of the French monarchy, which were based in part on the Grandes Chroniques and Guillaume de Nangis’s Chronique abreeee: (P) made use of the Grandes Chroniques or a work derived therefrom; (R) was based on the Grandes Chroniques: (S) made use of the Grandes Chroniques and the work of Noël de Fribois, itself based in part on the Grandes Chroniques: (U) used the work of Nicole GUles, which itself made use of the Grandes Chroniques: the author of (V) was familiar with the Grandes Chroniques or one of its derivatives; (W) made use of the work of Robert Gaguin, itself based largely on the Grandes Chroniques. 150 their entirety, and to those who desired to possess and to consult shorter and more convenient guides to the French past. Finally, one is also comparing texts written outside of the monastery of Saint-Denis and without the benefit of royal patronage. None of the works in question was composed by the monks of Saint- Denis or by individuals known to be in any way connected to their monastery. The texts and the known manuscripts of nineteen of the histories under consideration bear no signs of authorial association to the monarchy. Copies of only three of them belonged to members of the royal family, but those works themselves reveal no indications of royal patronage.203 only one of them was addressed to a French king, but nothing proves that its author worked on a royal commission.204 In sum, their collective profile reveals that the unofficial histories of France that I studied constitute a homogenous group of texts in several important respects. They shared a common subject, a common time span, and a common structure. While their authors had their own purposes, they also shared the common goal of abbreviating longer works so as to make available short and convenient histories of France. Many of them used the same sources, and all of them wrote outside the umbrella of royal patronage. It is appropriate to study their works together, for they (and other texts

203Namely, (M), (U), and (W).

204isfamely, (N). 151 like them) constitute a coherent body of late-medieval historical literature. Indeed, in addition to forming a coherent body of historical literature relative to one another, the twenty-three unofficial histories of France that 1 studied also constitute a coherent set of texts relative to the official historv of late-medieval France. We have already seen some of the important respects in which they mirror the Grandes Chroniques. The unofficial histories were written during the peak of the popularity of the official history, and they survive in a comparable number of manuscripts. They shared the subject, the chronological scope, the structure, and the language of the official history. Indeed, since almost all of the unofficial historians based their works in whole or in part upon the Grandes Chroniques or works derived from the Grandes Chroniques, the official history in a sense stood behind and informed the unofficial ones. It provided the unofficial historians much of their material, and it was against the backdrop of its length, its complexity, and its cost that they sought to write shorter, more convenient, and less expensive histories of France. Furthermore, their collective profile also reveals that the social and occupational diffusion of the unofficial histories that 1 studied roughly mirrored the contemporary diffusion of the Grandes Chroniques in several important respects. To begin with, despite the fact that they were written by monks, the Grandes Chroniques never achieved considerable popularity among either the regular or secular clergy in France. The 152 vernacular national history that they contained appealed primarily to laymen, who constituted the overwhelming majority of the known late-medieval possessors of copies of the Grandes Chroniques.zos A similar lay predominance characterized the collective audience of the unofficial histories that I studied. Eight (47%) of the seventeen histories, at least one possessor of which 1 have been able to identify, came into the hands of clergymen. However, this figure is deceptively high, for only ten (37%) of the twenty-seven manuscripts one or more possessors of which 1 have been able to identify came into clerical hands, and clergymen represented only ten (33%) of the thirty known possessors of those twenty-seven manuscripts.206 one will also note that only three of the works that 1

205(juenee, "Les Grandes Chroniques de France. Le Roman aux roys (1274- 1518)," 203.

206it will be useful, here, to recapitulate the known possessors of copies of the works that I studied, including, for the additional light that they shed on the milieus in which those works circulated, their known sixteenth-century possessors. One of the manuscripts of (A) belonged at an indeterminate date to a certain Jehan de Menehou. One of the manuscripts of (B) belonged to the Norman chronicler and apostolic notary Pierre Cochon late in the reign of Charles VI or during the first decades of the reign of Charles VII. The known manuscript of (C) belonged at an indeterminate date to the monks of Saint Victor of Paris. The known manuscript of (E) belonged at an indeterminate date to a certain "Herouard". One of the manuscripts of (G) belonged at an indeterminate date to the Celestines of Paris. The known manuscript of (H) belonged first to Antoine de Talentes, canon of Bayeux, and then to Tristan Lermite, lord of Le Moulins and Le Bouchet, royal counselor and provost of the marshals of France and of the royal household, to whom the former gave it in 1463. The known manuscript of (I) was executed for Robert Jolivet, abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel, in 1436, One copy of (J) belonged at an indeterminate date to a certain "de Pommereul"; another copy was made for a "sire de Bellegarde" in the second half of the fifteenth century; another copy belonged to Olivier de Launay, sire of Chamsermynes, in 1557. The manuscript of (J) that belonged to Olivier de Launay also contained a copy of (K); another copy of (K) belonged at an indeterminate date to one Olivier Rocar, and later, in the late- sixteenth or early seventeenth-century, to "dom GUles Baril de la parouesse de Saint-Ouen"; another copy of (K) may have been executed for a certain "Bassompierre" in the second half of the fifteenth century. The known 153 studied bear internal evidence sufficient to permit one to propose with a good deal of certitude that their authors were monks or priests.207 Thus, while clerics figured more prominently in the collective audience of the works that 1 studied than in the public of the Grandes Chroniques, it remains that the unofficial histories under consideration were conceived and diffused in a decidedly lay environment. Twelve (71%) of the seventeen histories at least one manuscript of (M) belonged to Anne of Brittany, queen of France, sometime between 1499 and 1514. One copy of (N) belonged to Jean Le Bègue, a royal notary and secretary and greffier in the Chambre des Comptes from 1407 to 1456; another belonged to Etienne Chevalier, a royal notary and secretary and later trésorier to Charles VII and Louis XI; another was in the possession of Jacques Le Picart, a royal notary and secretary by 1475 and a clerk in the Chambre des Comptes from 1487 to 1505; Nicole Gilles, a royal notary and secretary by 1476 and clerc et contrôleur in the royal Trésor from 1484 to 1503, used (N) in composing his own history of France and may therefore be counted among those who at some point had a copy in his possession; another copy was possessed by a priest; another by a merchant; sometime between 1479 and 1483, a canon of the cathedral chapter of Rouen used (N) in composing his own history of France, and therefore at some time had a copy in his possession. The known manuscript of (P) belonged to Jehan de Littré in the sixteenth century. One of the manuscripts of (Q) belonged to A. Thevet of Angoulême in 1547. One of the manuscripts of (S) belonged to Jean Masselin, canon of the cathedral chapter of Rouen, in 1513; in all probability, the other known manuscript also belonged to the canons of the cathedral chapter of Rouen. One of the manuscripts of (U) may have belonged to Charles Vlll or have been executed for his young son, Charles-Orland, and did belong to the unidentified noble family whose arms it bears. The known manuscript of (V) belonged to a noble family, the Morlay du Museau, early in the sixteenth century. Finally, the known manuscript of (W) belonged to a member of the royal house of Orleans early in the sixteenth century. 1 have not examined every manuscript in which the twenty-three unofficial histories in question are known to exist, and this imperfect list, which includes thirty possessors of twenty-seven manuscripts of seventeen of the unofficial histories that 1 studied, represents only the present state of my knowledge. The eight histories that definitely came into the hands of clergymen are (B), (C), (G), (H), (1), (K), (N), and (S). The ten manuscripts, each with one known clerical possessor, are single copies of (B), (C), (G), (H), (1), and (K), and two copies of (N) and of (S).

207Namely, (1), (K), and (S). 154 possessor of which I have been able to identify came into the hands of laymen. Nineteen (70%) of the twenty-seven manuscripts at least one possessor of which I have been able to discern came into lay hands. Laymen accounted for twenty (66%) of the thirty known possessors of those twenty-seven manuscripts.^os What is more, despite some important differences worthy of attention, the social and occupational backgrounds of those laymen roughly mirrored the milieus from which the known lay possessors of the Grandes Chroniques came. Nobles constituted the single largest group of possessors of manuscripts of the official history in the late-fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, and members of the royal family and other great noble families predominated within that group.209 Neither, however, was the case for the collective audience of the unofficial histories that 1 studied. Their diffusion among noblemen equalled their diffusion among clerics. Eight (47%) of the seventeen histories with known possessors and nine (33%) of the twenty-seven manuscripts with

208xhe twelve histories that came into the possession of laymen are (A), (E), (H), (J), (K), (M), (N), (P), (Q), (U), (V), and (W). The nineteen manuscripts known to have belonged to laymen are single copies of (A), (E), (H), (M), (P), (Q), (U), (V), and (W), three copies of (J), two copies of (K)(and not three, because the third copy of K also contains J), and five copies of (N). Each of these manuscripts belonged to one lay possessor, except for the copy of (U), which belonged to two. For details, see note 206 above.

ZO^Guenee, "Les Grandes Chroniques de France. Le Roman aux roys (1274- 1518)," 202-203,206. 155 known possessors belonged to nobles, who accounted for ten (33%) of the thirty known possessors of thosemanuscripts .210 Furthermore, those ten noble possessors were divided roughly equally between substantial figures and much lesser lights. The former - a member of the royal family during the reign of Charles Vlll, Anne of Brittany, the Morlay du Museau, and a member of the house of Orleans during the reign of Louis Xll - possessed only four (24%) of the seventeen histories with known possessors, only four (15%) of the twenty-seven manuscripts with known possessors passed through their hands, and they represented but four (13%) of the thirty known possessors of those manuscripts.211 What is more, they possessed only four (50%) of the eight histories and four (44%) of the nine manuscripts known to have been in the hands of all nobles, and they represented only four (40%) of the ten nobles known to have possessed manuscripts of the works Istudied.212 Thus, members of the royal family and of great noble families dominated neither the collective general public nor the collective noble public of the works that I studied to the extent that they

210Eight histories came into the possession of all nobles: (A), (J), (K), (M), (P), (U), (V), and (W). Nine manuscripts came into their possession: single copies of (A), (M), (P), (U), (V), and (W), and three copies of (J) (one of which includes a copy of K). Nobles account for ten laiown possessors because each of these nine manuscripts belonged to one noble possessor, with the exception of (U), which belonged to two. For details, see note 206 above.

21lThe figures are thus because each one is known to have possessed one manuscript of one history, namely, respectively, (U), (M), (V), and (W). For details, see note 206 above.

2i2jhese figures result from the comparison of the data for all nobles (see note 210) to the data for members of the royal family and of great noble families (see note 211). 156 dominated the general and noble audiences of the Grandes Chroniques. Instead, they constituted a rather small minority of the general public of the works under consideration, and they shared the noble audience with obscure figures. The minor noblemen Jean de Menehou, a certain "de Pommereul", the "sire de Bellegarde", Olivier de Launay, Jean de Littré, and an unidentified noble family possessed copies of five (63%) of the eight histories and six (67%) of the nine manuscripts known to have passed through noble hands, and they represented six (60%) of the ten known noble possessors of the works under consideration.2t3 It is entirely possible that the rather limited presence of members of the royal family and of great noble families in the collective audience of the works that 1 studied simply reflects the particulars of this analysis. In other words, it goes without saying that the discovery of additional possessors of additional manuscripts of the works in question, or the addition of the known possessors of manuscripts of additional unofficial histories to this analysis, would necessarily alter to some extent all of the data relative to noblemen related above, indeed, all of the data related in this discussion of the diffusion of the unofficial histories. Nevertheless, I would venture that the above data relative to the noble possessors of the works that I studied are meaningful and reflect historical realities.

five histories that came into the hands of these six minor noble possessors are (A), (J), (K), (P), and (U). The six manuscripts are single copies of (A), (P), and (U), and three copies of (J) (one of which also contains a copy of K). The figures noted in the text above result from the comparison of these data to the data for all noblemen, for which see the note 210. 157 The limited appeal of the unofficial histories to members of the royal family and of great noble families simply reflects the fact that such persons constituted the heart of the audience of the Grandes Chroniques. Because they could afford the generally luxurious and always lengthy (and correspondingly expensive) manuscripts in which that work circulated, they had relatively little use for the generally less luxurious and always shorter (and correspondingly cheaper) manuscripts of the unofficial histories that I studied. The sizeable presence of obscure noblemen within the collective noble audience of the unofficial histories simply reflects the fact that these works appealed to lesser nobles who, while interested in the history of France, could not afford to purchase the Grandes Chroniques. In sum, the works that I studied appealed relatively less to great, wealthy nobles than did the Grandes Chroniques, they appealed relatively more to lesser nobles than did the Grandes Chroniques, and, because of the former phenomenon, they appealed relatively less to nobles as a whole than did the Grandes Chroniques. These differences are important, and should be kept in mind. However, it does remain the case, mirroring here the diffusion of the Grandes Chroniques, that no other audience of the unofficial histories exceeded their noble audience, and that nobles as a whole dominated their known collective lay audience. Noblemen possessed copies of eight (67%) of the twelve histories that I know to have come into lay hands. Nine (47%) of the nineteen manuscripts that I know to have come into lay hands came into theirs. They accounted for ten (50%) 158 of the twenty laymen that I know to have possessed those manuscrlpts.214 The remaining, non-noble members of the collective lay audience of the works that 1 studied bear one important similarity to, and one notable difference from, the non-noble lay public of the Grandes Chroniques. The similarity lies in the presence of royal officials in both. Officials in the central organs of the royal government and in the Parlement of Paris figured very prominently among the possessors of the Grandes Chroniques in the second half of the fifteenth century.2is The same holds true, to a somewhat lesser extent, for the unofficial histories under consideration. Collectively, royal officials are known to have possessed only two (12%) of the seventeen histories at least one possessor of which 1 have been able to discern. However, this figure is deceptively low, for they possessed five (19%) of the twenty-seven manuscripts at least one possessor of which 1 have been able to identify, and they accounted for five (17%) of the thirty known possessors of those manuscripts.216 Furthermore, because they possessed two (17%) of

2l4jhese figures result from the comparison of the data contained in note 210 above, relative to all nobles, to the data contained in note 208 above, relative to all laymen.

2l5see the examples adduced by Guenee, "Les Grandes Chroniques de France. Le Roman aux roys (1274-1518)," 206-207.

2l6The two histories in question are (H) and (N), which was itself written by a royal official. The five manuscripts, each of which was possessed by one royal official, are a single copy of (H) and four copies of (N). For details, see note 206 above. 159 the twelve histories and five (26%) of the nineteen manuscripts that I know to have belonged to laymen and because they represented five (25%) of the twenty known lay possessors of the works in question, royal officials constituted a significant segment of the collective lay audience of the works that I studied.2^7 The difference between the non-noble lay public of the Grandes Chroniques and that of the unofficial histories lies in the presence of a group of non-nobles unassociated with the royal government in the latter. A merchant figured in that non-noble lay audience, as did a certain "Herouard", one Olivier Rocar, a "Bassompierre", and a certain A. Thevet. In terms of both the entire collective audience of the works that I studied and the collective lay audience of those works, these obscure non-noble individuals without known connections to the royal government figured just as prominently as did members of the royal family and great noble families and as did royal officials. They possessed four (24%) of the seventeen histories and five (19%) of the twenty-seven manuscripts for which 1 found possessors, and they represented five (17%) of the thirty known possessors thereof.218 They possessed four (33%) of the twelve histories and

21 ^xhese figures result from the comparison of the data contained in the previous note, relative to royal officials, to the data contained in note 208 above, relative to all laymen.

four histories in question are (E), (K), (N), and (Q). The five manuscripts, each with one non-noble possessor unassociated with the royal government, are single copies of (E), (N), and (Q), and two copies of (K). For details, see note 206 above. While it is possible that the individuals concerned were minor noblemen or clerics, nothing indicates that they were. 160 five (26%) of the nineteen manuscripts that I know to have come into the hands of laymen, and they accounted for five (25%) of the twenty known lay possessors of the works that studied.2i9I There is nothing comparable in the diffusion of the Grandes Chroniques, for Bernard Guenee identified only one non-noble lay possessor unassociated with the royal government, am e r c h a n t.220 Consequently, while the degrees to which the unofficial histories that I studied circulated among clerics, members of the royal family and great noble families, lesser nobles, noblemen as a whole, and royal officials differed from the degrees to which the Grandes Chroniq ues circulated in those milieus, the former also reached an audience almost entirely foreign to the latter. One imagines that relatively few non-noble laymen unassociated with the exercise of royal authority could afford to buy, or spare the time to read, the Grandes Chroniques. Thus, in addition to offering the traditional audiences of the Grandes Chroniques shorter and more convenient accounts of the French past, the unofficial histories also served to satisfy the interest in the history of France expressed by those without access to the official history. In sum, the collective portrait of the social and occupational diffusion of the twenty-three unofficial histories of France under consideration reveals both noteworthy differences from, and

219These figures result from the comparison of the data contained in the previous note, relative to non-nobles unassociated with the royal government, to note 208 above, relative to all laymen.

220Guenee, "Les Grandes Chroniques de France. Le Roman aux roys (1274- 1518)," 207. 161 important similarities to, the contemporary diffusion of the Grandes Chroniques. On the one hand, the differences, the most important of which stem primarily from the fact that the Grandes Chroniques circulated in often luxurious and always lengthy manuscripts, should not be forgotten. The unofficial histories appealed more to lesser nobles than did the official history. They appealed less to royalty and great nobility than did the Grandes Chroniques and, therefore, they appealed less to nobles a whole than did the Grandes Chroniques. They reached a more sizeable clerical audience, and a slightly less substantial audience of royal officials. They also reached an audience of non-noble laymen unassociated with the royal government, a public virtually untapped by the Grandes Chroniques. On the other hand, the differences should not be permitted to obscure the similarities, which permit the conclusion that the collective social and occupational diffusion of the unofficial histories roughly mirrored that of the Grandes Chroniques. Non-noble laymen unassociated with monarchical authority were the only group reached by the unofficial histories but not by the official one. The other differences were ones of degree. Like the Grandes Chroniques, the unofficial histories found a predominantly lay audience. Royal officials constituted a significant slice of their collective public. For all the nuances indicated above, noblemen as a whole were very prominent among the possessors of the unofficial histories that 1 studied, and they represented the largest segment of their collective lay public. 162 Finally, their collective profile also reveals that the geographical diffusion of the twenty-three unofficial histories that I studied roughly mirrored the geographical diffusion of the Grandes Chroniques in the late-fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Studying the latter, Bernard Guenee concluded that the diffusion of the Grandes Chroniques was restricted almost entirely to the environs of Paris and the north of France prior to 1450. In the second half of the fifteenth century, while they still circulated most densely within those regions, the diffusion of the Grandes Chroniques embraced the entire northern half of the kingdom, that is, all regions north of the Loire. At no point, finally, did they circulate in meaningful numbers south of the L o ire.221 Evidence of three different but complimentary sorts reveals a similar collective spatial diffusion of the unofficial histories that sI t u d ie d .222

22lGuenee, ibid.. 204,207, and "Histoire d'un success," 130-132.

222it will be useful, here, to recapitulate what I have been able to determine about the geographical origins of the authors of the works that I studied and about the geographical circulation of manuscripts of those works, including, for the light that they shed on the question, sixteenth-century indications. The author of (B) was in all likelihood a Parisian, and a manuscript of (B) was in the possession of Pierre Cochon, a Norman who lived in Rouen, late in the reign of Charles VI or during the first decades of the reign of Charles VII. The known manuscript of (C) belonged, at an indeterminate date, to the monks of Saint Victor of Paris. The author of (F) was most likely a Parisian. A manuscript of (G) belonged, at an indeterminate date, to the Celestines of Paris. The author of (H) composed his work at Paris or at Soissons, and the known manuscript of (H) was exchanged between two Normans at Bayeux in 1463. The author of (I) in all likelihood was a Norman who composed his work at Rouen, and the known manuscript of (I) was definitely executed at Rouen in 1436 and in all likelihood was possessed by a Norman, Robert Jolivet, abbot of Mont- Saint-Michel, who resided at Rouen at the time. A manuscript of (J), which also contains a copy of (K), belonged, in 1557, to Olivier de Launay, sire of Charmsermynes, which is in the Vendee. The author of (K) may well have written his work in Brittany or a nearby region of western France, perhaps Lower Normandy or Anjou,; a manuscript of (K) belonged to "dom Gilles Baril de la parouesse de Saint-Ouen", outside of Paris, in the late-sixteenth or early- 163 For one thing, six (60%) of the ten authors for whom satisfactory geographical evidence is available came from, and/or wrote their works in, the Ile-de-France or the North. Three of them were in all likelihood Parisian in origin, a fourth was a Norman who in all likelihood wrote his work at Paris, a fifth composed his history at Paris or at Soissons, and a sixth wrote his atB o u lo g n e.223 of the remaining four authors for whom reliable evidence is available, two (20% of the total) were Normans who wrote their histories at

R ou en ,224 and two (20% of the total) were in all likelihood from

Brittany or neighboring parts of westernF r a n c e.225 seventeenth century; another manuscript of (K) is Parisian in origin. The author of (M) was probably of Breton or western French origin, and the miniatures in the known manuscript of (M) are known to have been executed in western France, perhaps in Poitou, sometime around 1470 to 1480. Noël de Fribois, the author of (N), was a Norman who in all likelihood wrote his history at Paris; it is reasonable to view four known possessors of as many manuscripts of his work - Jean Le Bègue, Etienne Chevalier, Jacques Le Picart, and Nicole Gilles, all officials in central organs of the royal government - as residents of Paris; another manuscript of (N) was in the possession of a Norman canon of the cathedral chapter of Rouen between 1479 and 1483. The known manuscript of (P) was sold at Le Mans at the end of the sixteenth century. A manuscript of (Q) belonged to A. Thevet, of Angouleme, in 1547. The author of (R) in all likelihood composed his work at Boulogne, and a manuscript of (R) was executed at Boulogne in 1478. The author of (S) was a Norman canon of the cathedral chapter of Rouen; a manuscript of (S) belonged to Jean Masselin, canon of the cathedral chapter of Rouen, in 1513; in all probability, another manuscript of (S), which was executed between 1493 and 1510, also belonged to the said cathedral chapter. The author of (T) was in all likelihood a Parisian. This list takes account of ten of the authors whose works I read, of nineteen of the manuscripts in which those works survive, and of fifteen of the histories that I studied. As I have not examined every manuscript in which the twenty- three unofficial histories of France under consideration are known to exist, it is imperfect and reflects only the present state of my knowledge.

223Respectively, the authors of (B), (F), (T), (N), (H), and (R). For details, see the preceding note.

224Namely, the authors of (I) and (S). For details, see note 222 above.

225Namely, the authors of (K) and (M). For details, see note 222 above. 164 Furthermore, nine (47%) of the nineteen manuscripts for which satisfactory evidence is available bore discernible relations to the Ile-de-France or the North. One manuscript was Parisian in origin, seven belonged to possessors who resided in or near Paris, and one was copied at B o u lo g n e.226 six (32%) of the manuscripts surfaced in Normandy. One was executed at Rouen, four belonged to residents of the Norman capital, and one was exchanged between two Normans at

Bayeux.227 Three (16%) of the manuscripts found their way further West. One was sold at Le Mans, one belonged to a resident of the Vendee, and one contains miniatures executed in western France, possibly in P o it o u .228 Finally, one manuscript belonged to a resident of Angouleme.229 Finally, of the fifteen histories for which I have been able to discern either the geographical origin of the author and/or the geographical destination of one or more of the manuscripts, ten (67%) bore relations of one or both sorts to the Ile-de-France or the

N o rth .2 3 0 Likewise, five (33%) of the fifteen histories for which 1

226Respectively, a manuscript of (K), single manuscripts of (C) and (G), a manuscript containing both (K) and (J), four manuscripts of (N), and a manuscript of (R). For details, see note 222 above.

227Respectively, single copies of (I), (B), and (N), two copies of (S), and one copy of (H). For details, see note 222 above.

228Respectively, manuscripts of (P), (K, which contains a copy of J), and (M). For details, see note 222 above.

22%amely, a copy of (Q). For details, see note 222 above.

230rhis figure results from the comparison of notes 223 and 226 above. The authors of (B), (F), (H), and (T) are known to have composed their works in the Ile-de-France or the North. Copies of (C), (G), (K), and (J) are known to have circulated in the regions in question. The authors of (N) and (R) are known to have composed their works in the regions in question, and copies of their 165 found geographical indications were composed in and/or circulated in N orm an d y,231 and four (27%) of the fifteen were composed in and/or circulated in Brittany or neighboring parts of western France,232 The foregoing collective portrait of the known geographical diffusion of the works that I studied does differ in some respects from the picture of the geographical diffusion of the Grandes Chroniques provided by Guenee. For one thing, the evidence that I have been able to muster did not indicate that any of the works in question were either written or circulated in the East of France. None of them, for example, bore discernible relations to Champagne or Burgundy, two regions where the Grandes Chroniques circulated in the second half of the fifteenth century. Furthermore, Normandy figured more prominently in the collective geographical profile of the works that I studied than in the geographical diffusion of the Grandes Chroniques. A fifth of the authors, a third of the manuscripts, and a third of the histories for works are known to have circulated there. It results that ten histories had one or more discernible relation to those regions.

23lThis figure results from the comparison of notes 224 and 227 above. Copies of (B), (H), and (N) are known to have circulated in Normandy. The authors of (I) and (S) are known to have composed there works in Normandy and copies of their works are known to have circulated there. It results that five histories had one or more discernible relation to Normandy.

232xhis figure results from the comparison of notes 225 and 228 above. A copy of (J) is known to have circulated in Brittany or nearby parts of western France. The authors of (K), (M), and (P) are known to have composed their works in those regions and copies of their works are known to have circulated there. It results that four histories had one or more discernible relation to the regions in question. 166 which I found satisfactory geographical indications bore discernible relations to that region. Indeed, the juxtaposition of the known Norman geographical indications and the known Norman chronological indications points to Normans as active writers and readers of unofficial histories of France throughout the entire period under consideration. A copy of one of the unofficial histories was possessed by a resident of Rouen late in the reign of Charles VI or during the first decades of that of Charles Vll. Another was probably written, and definitely copied, at Rouen in 1436. A copy of a third was exchanged at Bayeux in 1463, and a copy of a fourth was possessed at Rouen between 1479 and1483. A fifth was composed at Rouen between 1479 and 1483. A copy of the latter was made there between 1493 and 1510, and another copy of the same was possessed there in 1513.233 However, the similarities between the collective geographical diffusion of the works that 1 studied and that of the Grandes Chroniques are clear and pronounced. Like the Grandes Chroniques. the unofficial histories under consideration were, collectively, identified primarily with the Ile-de-France and the North. Three- fifths of the authors, half of the manuscripts, and two-thirds of the histories for which 1 found satisfactory geographical indications bore discernible relations to those regions. The environs of Paris and the north of France dominated the known geographical diffusion of the works in question both absolutely and relative to any other region in

233Respectively, a copy of (B); (I); a copy of (H); a copy of (N); (S); a copy of (S); another copy of (S). For details, see note 222 above. 167 which one or more of those works are known to have been composed and/or to have circulated. With the exception of the East, the works that I studied are, like the Grandes Chroniques, known collectively to have circulated in all regions north of the Loire. We have already noted their diffusion in the Ile-de-France and the North. They enjoyed a marked diffusion in Normandy. Further to the west, and on a smaller scale, they bore discernible relations to Brittany, Maine, and Anjou. Finally, like the Grandes Chroniques, the works that I studied did not, collectively, penetrate south of the Loire to an appreciable extent. Only one manuscript of one of them is known to have been possessed by an individual residing significantly south of that historical and linguistic border, namely, a certain A. Thevet of Angouleme. Even if one admitted the marginal cases of a manuscript possessed in the Vendee and of a manuscript possibly illuminated in Poitou, it would remain the case that the collective diffusion of the works that I studied was to an overwhelming extent limited to regions north of the Loire. In short, the unofficial histories that I studied were identified most markedly with the Ile-de-France and the North and they did not penetrate south of the Loire to a significant extent. Thus, while they are not known collectively to have circulated in all regions reached by the Grandes Chroniques (Le., Champagne, Burgundy), and while they circulated more densely than did the Grandes Chroniques in one region touched by the latter (Le., Normandy), their collective 168 geographical diffusion on the whole mirrored that of the official history.

Conclusion The twenty-three unofficial histories that I studied constitute a coherent body of historical literature not only because they share certain characteristics in common, but also because their common characteristics give them coherence and definition relative to the official history embodied in the Grandes Chroniques. They were written during the period of the greatest popularity, diffusion, and authority of the official history. They collectively circulated in a comparable number of manuscripts. They shared the subject, the time frame, the organization, and the language of the Grandes Chroniques. Because their authors used the Grandes Chroniques and derivatives thereof as sources, their contents were informed by those of the official history. Because they were written so as to provide histories of France shorter, more convenient, and cheaper than the Grandes Chroniques, the official history informed the common nature and the common purpose of the unofficial ones. Despite some significant differences that 1 have underlined, they were read by substantially the same sorts of people who read the Grandes Chroniques, in substantially the same places. Because they appealed to a predominantly lay audience, and because their lay audience was composed primarily of nobles and royal officials, their collective social and occupational diffusion roughly mirrored 169 that of the Grandes Chroniques. Because they barely circulated south of the Loire, circulated in most regions north of the Loire, and circulated most densely in the Ile-de-France and the North, their collective geographical diffusion roughly mirrored that of the Grandes Chroniques. In short, the twenty-three unofficial histories of France that I studied constitute a body of historical literature given coherence and definition not only by certain common characteristics within the group, but also by the group's collective characteristics relative to the Grandes Chroniques. In terms of dates of composition, number of manuscripts, subject, time frame, organization, language, sources, purpose, social and occupational diffusion, and geographical diffusion, they are the unofficial analogues of the Grandes Chroniques. That is why they (and other works like them) offer the ideal material for an investigation of unofficial late-medieval interpretations of French history. CHAPTER III CLOVIS THE BASTARD

Introduction In the interpretation of French history dominant in the later Middle Ages, the deeds of certain kings in particular and certain characteristics of the monarchy in general were held to demonstrate the unique qualities and the unrivalled excellence of the French crown. One of those kings was Clovis (481-511), and one of those characteristics was the notion that the royal line had from its inception been free of bastardy. Colette Beaune studied in detail the process by which Clovis's reputation improved markedly in the later Middle Ages.i For one thing, late-fourteenth and flfteenth-century historians magnified and ennobled the martial exploits of France's first Christian king. Clovis played a more active role in battles, won more battles with the help of God, and expanded the borders of his kingdom to a greater extent after the fourteenth century than he had done previously. His

^The following paragraph is a summary of Colette Beaune, "Saint Clovis," Chapter 2 in her The Birth of an Ideology: Myths and Symbols of Nation in Late-Medieval France, trans. Susan Ross Huston, ed. Frederic L. Cheyette, Berkeley 1991, 70-89. 170 171 personality also changed as late-medieval authors enhanced the list of his virtues and held him up as a model of the ideal king and the ideal Christian. Furthermore, while he had long been the divinely- favored recipient of the holy ampulla, those authors innovated in attributing to Clovis the other special attributes of the French monarchy. The belief that he had been the first to bear the oriflamme first appeared in the late fourteenth century and spread during the fifteenth. The tale according to which the lilies of the French royal arms had been given by an angel to a hermit and by the hermit to Clovis appeared in the early fourteenth century and achieved widespread currency during and after the reign of Charles V. The notion that Clovis had touched to cure scrofula, while not asserted by any late-medieval text, nevertheless surfaced in two late fifteenth-century miniatures. Finally, the belief that Clovis was a saint first appeared shortly before 1400 and was both asserted by several texts and manifested in actual veneration at a number of cult sites during the succeeding century. This glorification of Clovis was not without ideological purposes or results. In an age that sought to justify every current reality by historical precedents, the new and improved Clovis served to enhance the prestige of France's embattled fourteenth and fifteenth- century monarchs. The monarchy, if it had been founded by Pharamond, had been re-founded by the nation's first Christian king, and the attribution of its divinely-granted prerogatives to Clovis proved that it had been "Most Christian" from the very beginning. In the veins of every late-medieval king ran the blood not only of Philip 172 II "the God-given", Saint Louis, and (according to some) Saint Charlemagne, but also that of "Saint Clovis". Popularized through histories, treatises, sermons, and pictorial representations, knowledge of the illustrious founder of Christian France came to figure prominently in the historical consciousness of Frenchmen.^ As the recipient of the special prerogatives of the French crown, as a divinely-favored victor over heretics and foreign enemies, and as a saint, Clovis served as one of the monarchy's best historical arguments and one of the most potent historical stimuli of French national pride. While certain kings such as Clovis stood out as exemplary monarchs, all of France's kings were representatives of an exemplary monarchy. In the dominant late-medieval interpretation of French history, numerous historical arguments were held up as proof of the superiority of the royal line itself. Colette Beaune characterized a cluster of those arguments as constituting a "political theology of the royal bloodline". The bloodline of the French kings was said to be continuous and perpetual. It was said to be inherently holy. It was also held to be pure, that is, unsullied by illegitimacy.^

Zpor instance, in studying the historical facts mentioned and the historical arguments advanced in seventy-two trials which took place between 1419 and 1436 before the Burgundian parlement at Paris and the Parlement of Charles VII at Poitiers, Alain Demurger found that Clovis was among the historical figures most often mentioned by French lawyers. See his interesting article, "L'histoire au secours de la chicane: la place de l'histoire dans les procès au parlement au début du quinzième siècle (1419-1436)," Tournai des Savants (1985)231-312.

^Beaune, The Birth of an Ideology. 180-193. 173 The notion that the French royal line had from the beginning been free of bastards appeared during the reign of Philip the Fair (1285-1314), and became a commonplace repeatedly asserted by royal propagandists and enthusiasts of the monarchy during the next two centuries.4 What is more, at the same time that the dominant interpretation of French history insisted that France's dynastic past was free of bastardy, the threat of royal bastardy in the present provoked three enormous scandals in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. The supposed adultery of the wives of the three sons of Philip the Fair resulted in the untimely deaths of two of the king's daughters-in-law and the execution of their alleged lovers, and may have contributed to the exclusion of Louis X's daughter, Joan, from the throne in 1316.5 n was rumored that the discovery of queenly adultery stood behind the death of Bonne, wife of the future John the Good, in 1349, and the execution of her supposed lover, the Count of Eu, in 1350. The alleged bastardy of Charles Vll appears to have

^The present paragraph is a summary of Beaune, The Birth of an Ideology. 183-186. Note, however, that Beaune erred in dating one of the examples of the notion that France's dynastic past had been free of bastardy that she adduced (Bibl. Ste.-Geneviève, ms. 1994) to the reign of Philip IV and in citing it as stating that "adultery cannot engender a ^ g of France" (p. 183, and note 76). The text in question, which will be cited in full and discussed at length in the present chapter, was written late in the reign of Charles VII or early in that of Louis IX. Furthermore, while the statement "adultery cannot engender a king of France" no doubt accurately summarizes the thought of its author, these words are not in fact in the text.

50n the exclusion of Joan and what it indicates about the prevalent concept of royal legitimacy in fourteenth-century France, see Charles T. Wood, "Queens, Queans, and Kingship: An Inquiry into Theories of Royal Legitimacy in Late Medieval England and France," in W.C. Jordan, B. McNab, and T.F. Ruiz (eds.). Order and Innovation in the Middle Ages. Essavs in Honor of losenh R. Straver. Princeton 1976,387-400, 562-66. 174 caused Charles himself to doubt that he was his father's son and heir and in the minds of many others it explained and justified his exclusion from the throne by the Treaty of Troyes (1420). In the present as in the past, bastardy was simply inadmissible in the view of the royal bloodline dominant in late-medieval France. While the relationship between the notion that France's dynastic past was free of bastardy and the fact that Clovis came to represent the most positive aspects of the French monarchy may not be evident, the purpose of this chapter is to explore a little-known intersection between these two themes in late-medieval French historiography. It is true that very many fourteenth and fifteenth- century authors held up Clovis as a striking example of all that was good about the French monarchy. It is true that numerous late- medieval historians and propagandists held up the absence of illegitimacy in France's dynastic history as an example of the uniqueness and superiority of the royal bloodline. But is also true that most unofficial historians of France were aware of the possibility, and one even openly proclaimed, that Clovis was a bastard.

The Reign of Childeric I Clovis's bastardy was, to be sure, not his own fault. In order to understand how belief in his illegitimacy could have circulated in late fourteenth and fifteenth-century France, one must examine what late-medieval historians and their readers knew about Clovis's father, Childeric 1. 175 Now restored by modem scholars to his rightful place as one late fifth-century Frankish king among many,6 Childeric was something quite different in the Middle Ages. To late-medieval historians, he was the fourth king of France and, as such, they all devoted a chapter to his reign. What is more, many of their accounts were, taken in context, not brief. Indeed, Childeric was typically among the three or four Merovingians with whom late-medieval historians of France dealt at the greatest length. One chronicle of the French kings written during the reign of Charles VI even devoted more space to Childeric than to any other French monarch.^ All Frenchmen versed in their national history will, then, have been familiar with the story of Childeric. That story - which was originated by Gregory of Tours in the sixth century,^ embellished by

the historical Childeric, see Patrick Geary, Before France and Germany. The Creation and Transformation of the Merovingian World. New York 1988, 80-82; Edward James, The Origins of France. From Clovis to the Capetians. 500- 1000. London 1982, 27-28; Godefroid Kurth, Clovis. 2nded., Paris 1901,1,197-221; Karl Ferdinand Wemer, Les origines (avant l'an mil), vol. 1 of Jean Favier (éd.). Histoire de France. Paris 1984, 285-288, 295-299. On the tomb of Childeric, which was unearthed at Tournai in 1653, see L'abbé Cochet, Le tombeau de Childeric 1er, roi des Francs, restitué à l'aide de l'archéologie. Paris 1859.

^Namely, the version of the verse history of France known as the Pit des Rovs contained in B.N., fr. 1707. Its author devoted 35 lines to the reign of Childeric I. Clovis, to whom he devoted the second greatest number of lines, was treated in 25, and was followed by Charles V (14 lines), Charlemagne and Louis DC (12 lines each), Dagobert I, Clovis 11, and Charles the Bald (10 lines each). On the work in question, see section (B) of Chapter II, "The Sources".

^Gregory of Tours, Historiae. II. 12, in Bruno Krusch (ed.), Gregorii episcopi turonensis historiarum libri X. MGH. Scrintores Rerum Merovingicarum. 3 vols., Hanover 1937,1, 61-62. For an analysis of the accounts of the reign of Childeric in Gregory of Tours, Fredegarius, and the Liber Historiae Francorum. see Godefroid Kurth, Histoire noetiaue des Mérovingiens. Paris 1893. 176 the Pseudo-Fredegarius^ and the anonymous author of the Liber Historiae Francorum^o in the seventh and eighth centuries, and amplified by Aimoin of Fleury around lOOQi i - was enshrined in the Grandes Chroniques at the end of the thirteenth century. The tale, as recounted by Primat in the Grandes Chroniques, was as fo llo w s . 12 Shortly after Childeric, the son of Merovech, had succeeded his father as king, the young monarch's uncontrollable lust earned him the hatred of his barons. "He took their daughters or their wives by force," wrote Primat, "when they pleased him, to accomplish the pleasures of his flesh." Childeric, aware of the anger of the barons, consulted one of his closest friends and advisors, a nobleman named Guinement. Guinement told Childeric that, in the event of the latter's expulsion from the kingdom, he would do all he could to reconcile the barons to the king. He then split a gold coin in two and, keeping one half for himself and giving the other to Childeric, promised to send the king his half as a sign that he might return safely to France. The preparations of Childeric and his trusted advisor came none too soon, for the barons, no longer able to tolerate the king's unrestrained debauchery, drove him out of his kingdom. Childeric

^Fredegarius, Chronicon. III. 11-12, in MGH. Scrintores Rerum Merovingicarum. II, Hanover 1884, 95-98.

^^Liber Historiae Francorum. 6-7, in MGH. Scrintores Rerum Merovingicarum. II, Hanover 1884, 246-250.

I ^Aimoin of Fleury, De Gestis Regum Francorum. I. 7-8, in Receuil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France. III, Paris 1869, 31-33. l^The following summary is based on Jules Viard (ed.). Les Grandes Chroniques de France. 10 vols., Paris (Société de l'Histoire de France) 1920-1953,1, 27-35, 54-55. 177 fled to exile at the court of Basinus, king of Thuringia. In his absence, the barons elected a Roman named Gilles as king. The new king then made the mistake of allowing Guinement, operating as a sort of double agent, to become his most trusted advisor. Working in the interest of Childeric, Guinement advised Gilles to tax the French to excess and to execute several of the most noble and powerful barons. Outraged by the cruelty of Gilles, and unaware of the role of Guinement in provoking it, the barons then sought the latter's counsel. After berating them for their folly in having replaced their natural lord with a foreign tyrant, Guinement advised the barons to recall Childeric. Having persuaded them to do so, he sent his half of the gold coin to the exiled monarch. While Gilles fled to Soissons, Childeric returned to a hero's welcome. He was followed back to France by Basina, wife of his erstwhile host, Basinus of Thuringia, whom he had known - carnally - during his exile. He married her, "like the pagan that he was," thereby forgetting, as Primat wrote, "the good things and the benefits that Basinus, the king of Thuringia, her first husband, had done for him when he had been driven from France," and they had a son named Clovis. Proving himself to be a fine warrior, Childeric defeated the Saxons in battle and beseiged and took Orleans and Angers, thereby expanding his kingdom. He reigned for twenty-four years (or twenty-six, depending on the manuscript) and was succeeded by Clovis. At first glance, one might be surprised to find such a tale enshrined in the Grandes Chroniques, an official history written 178 under the patronage and to the glory of the Capetian kings. It does present a rather negative view of one of their predecessors as well as an historical example of French kings being made and unmade by the nobility. On closer examination, however, one realizes that Primat's account is by no means hostile to the French monarchy. On the one hand, he indicated to his readers - more than once - that Childeric wasn't really all that bad. Guinement told the barons that the king was "courtly by nature" 13 and that his debauchery was an evil lesser than the cruelty of G ille s . ^ 4 Childeric demonstrated his magnaminity when, upon his return to France, he abolished the annual tribute owed to him by the city of Bar-le-Duc.is Basina claimed to have abandoned her husband in favor of Childeric because of the latter's "temperance and v ir t u e " .^ 6 The king, after his return, proved to be "a good knight" and "wise in c o u n s e l" . l^Viard (ed.), Les Grandes Chroniques de France. I, 31: "Vous avez despit et chacie vostre roi, ne et crie de vous meismes, qui estoit debonaires par nature et peust encor estre plus debonaires et profitables au roiaume s'il eust lessie la jolivete de son cors, que ü ne maintenist pas touz jors."

'4viard (éd.), GCF. 1, 31-32: "Mais se vous volez croire mon conseil, je vous lo que vous le rapelez et que vous li rapaisiez son cuer que il a trouble vers vous pour la honte que vous li avez faite. Certes ce est moult dure chose que vous ne povez souffrir la luxure d'un seul home, et vous souffrez la perdition de tant de nobles princes [i.e.. those who suffered unjustly during the reign of Gilles]." l^Viard (ed.), GCF. 1,33: "Moult leur [i.e.. the people of Bar-le-Duc] en sot li rois bon gre, et pour I'oneur que il li orent faite selonc sa libéralité les franchi du treu que la vile li devoir touz les anz." l^Viard (éd.), GCF. I, 35: '"Je suis, dist ele, a toi venue pour ce que je ai cogneue et esprovee ta temprance et ta vertu, et se je cuidasse meilleur de toi trover en nules des parties dou monde, nus gries de voie ne nus travaus de cors ne me tenist que je ne l'alasse requerre'." l^Viard (éd.), GCF. I, 33: "Li rois Childeris, qui estoit bons chevaliers de sa main et sages de conseil, esmut ses oz contre Oudouacre le roi de Saisoigne ". 179 On the other hand, Primat's account made it clear that the barons had acted foolishly in replacing Childeric by Gilles. The theme of Guinement's tirade against the repentant barons was that their misfortune resulted from the madness of having replaced "your rightful lord, bom of your own people" by "an arrogant man of a foreign nation", and the barons came to lament "the shame and villanies that we have inflicted on our own k in g " .^ 8 primat's account left little doubt that the legitimate French king - even a king like Childeric - was preferable to a foreign monarch. The moral of the story was patriotic and monarchical, and the tale was presented in such a way as to blunt criticism of Childeric's character and to discredit and to de-legitimize the action of the barons. Indeed, in the later Middle Ages, neither Childeric's vices nor the fact of his forced exile appear to have troubled the authors of histories of France who, deriving the greater part of their information from the Grandes Chroniques, generally repeated that Childeric had been vicious and that he had been compelled to leave the kingdom. When I examined the accounts of Childeric's reign contained in the unofficial histories of France that I studied, I found

^8viard (ed.), GCF. I, 31-32: "’Quel forsenerie vous dementoit quant vous getastes fors de son regne vostre droit seigneur ne de vostre gent, et vous souzmeistes a un orguelleus d'aliene nation'."; "'Nous nous repentons moult de la honte et des vilenies que nous avons fetes a nostre propre roi, et se nous savions la ou l'en le peust trover, nous envoissens a lui messages et li priissons humblement que il retornast a son regne'." 180 that only four of their authors failed to mention Childeric’s vicious character and the fact of his e x ile . 19 One unofficial historian, who was not particularly interested in the Merovingians, simply noted that Childeric was the son of

Merovech.20 Another, who throughout his work reported odd "facts" not found in other late-medieval histories of France, made Childeric’s supposed construction of a castle along the Seine the central event of his reign.2i A third, the canon of the cathedral chapter of Rouen who authored the history of France found in B.N., lat. 5195, noted only

l^Because of an error, I was unable to include one of the twenty-three unofficial histories of France that I studied, namely, B.N., n.a. fr. 4209, in the following analysis. The twenty-two accounts of the reign of Childeric analyzed in this chapter are: B.N., fr. 1233, fols. 84-127 (fol. 86b); fr. 1623 (fol. 89v); fr. 1707, fols. 30-37 (fols. 31-31v); fr. 4940, fols. 123v-125v (fol. 123v); fr. 4954 (fol. 3v); fir. 4991 (fol. 2vA); fir. 5696 (fols. 8-8v); ff. 5697 (fols. 7v-8); fr. 5704 (fols. 20V-21); fr. 5709 (fol. 73); fr. 5734, fols. 93-115 (fol. 97v); fr. 9688 (fol. 31); fr. 10137 (fols, lv-2); fr. 10139, fols. 2-14v (fol. 4); fr. 10468, fols. 105-1 lOv (fol. 105v); fr. 23019 (fols. 18a-19a); fr. 24976, fols. 1-83 (fols, llv-12); n.a. fr. 4811 (fol. 3); n.a. fr. 7519, fols. 15-85v (fols. 18-18v); lat. 5027, fols. 67-109 (fol. 67v); lat. 5159, fols. 8-17 (fol. 8v); lat. 14663, fols. 14-19v and 30 (fol. 14v). The foliation immediately following the catalogue numbers refers to the foliation of the works in question found in manuscripts wherein they are not the sole items. In all cases, the foliation in parentheses refers to the accounts of the reign of Childeric I.

20b.N., n.a. fr. 4811, fol. 3: "Et [Merovech] eust pour fds: Childeric." The author, after having mentioned Pharamond, Clodion, Merovech, and Childeric, stated that "Adoncques es tous ces roys merouvingiens il y en eust trois tant seulement qui feurent nostables", and proceeded to mention only Clovis, Chilperic I, and Dagobert I. On this history of France, see section (M) of Chapter II, "The Sources".

21b.N., fr. 1623, wherein the account of Childeric's reign reads as follows (fol. 89v): "Le quart roy de france fu appelle childeric et régna XXVI ans. Et fist faire ung chastel sur seine en ce propre lieu ou sciet a present le chastellet de paris Et le meist nom la belle garde. Et ot femme qui ot nom Bazine fille a ung duc sarrazin qui lors tenoit lorraine." On the work in question, see section (F) of Chapter II, "The Sources". 181 Childeric's filiation and regnal years .22 inasmuch as he was familiar with the Grandes Chroniques and with Noël de Fribois' Abrégé des Chroniques de France, a work that reported that Childeric was exiled on account of his "bad and dissolute behavior", he deliberately chose not to discuss Childeric's vice and his expulsion from the kingdom.23 The simple necessity of abbreviation may well have led him to do so. However, one cannot dismiss the possibility that the forced exile of a debauched king was simply unacceptable to his monarchic sensibilities.24 One can argue with greater assurance that such an ideological cause prompted a fourth unofficial historian not to mention Childeric's vice or his exile. The author of the chronicle of the French kings contained in B.N. fr. 4954 devoted his account of Childeric's reign almost exclusively to the king's military exploits, which he magnified far beyond those set forth in the Grandes Chroniques. Not only did Childeric defeat the Saxons and take Orleans and Angers,

22b.N., lat. 5195, fol. 8v: "Childeric son fi.e.. Merovech's] filz regna après lui XXVI ans. Il regna en lan de lincamacion nostre seigneur llllc LXII."

23Noël de Fribois wrote that "Childeric filz de meronee regna après son pere ving six ans et par son mauvais et dissolu gouvernement fut par huit ans débouté hors du royaume des francois" (B.N., fr. 1233, fol. 86b). On the chronicle of the French kings contained in B.N,, lat, 5195, see section (S) of Chapter II, "The Sources". For a demonstration of its author's familiarity with the Grandes Chroniques and with Fribois' work, see Chapter IV, "The French KiU Their Kings".

24As I shall demonstrate in Chapter IV, "The French Kill Their Kings," the author of B.N,, lat, 5195 was among the very few late-medieval unofficial historians who deliberately struck all mention of regicide from the French past. His decision not to note the forced exile of Childeric is consistent with his refusal to admit that the French had ever engaged in acts of disloyalty towards their kings. 182 but he also conquered Treves and Cologne, subjugated the Alamani, and attacked the Vandals, the Alans, the Goths, and the H u n s.^ s Inasmuch as the author was probably familiar with the Grandes Chroniques and inasmuch as his work was an unabashed glorification of the French monarchy which vigorously defended and lauded a number of French kings who typically came in for criticism in late- medieval French historiography, he would seem deliberately to have suppressed mention of Childeric's libidinal excess and ejection from the kingdom.26 That a historian who deliberately sought to rehabilitate the reputations of traditionally "bad" monarchs chose to suppress the fact of Childeric's lasciviousness and that of his exile indicates that those facts did embarrass at least one particularly fervant devotee of

25b.N., fr. 4954, wherein the account of Childeric's reign reads as follows (fol. 3v): "Childeric filz du roy meronee fut roy lan IIII.c cinquante huit et deceda payen le vingt six.me an de son regne lan ini.c IIII.xx et quatre. Le dit roy childeric fut fort chevaiereux et acrust moult son royaume. Il quicta le treu aux francois demourans a bar quilz luy devoient chascun an. Il conquist la cite de treves sur le fleuve de mezelle, la cite dorleans et celle danglers, et desconfit les saxonnes et subiuga les almans. Il print aussi la cite de couloigne et en chassa ung duc rommain nomme gilles. Il invada les vandales, les alains, les gothz et les huns ou hongres, et après tout le pays des gaules. Il desconfist audouacre roy de sessongne et le chassa jusques a Orleans." On this work, see section (V) of Chapter II, "The Sources".

26xhat the author of B.N., fr. 4954 was familiar with the traditional account of the reign of Childeric is indicated by his mention of Childeric's annulation of the annual tribute owed to him by the city of Bar-le-Duc, a fact mentioned in the Grandes Chroniques (ed. Viard, I, 33) but in no other late-medieval history of France with which I am familar. This is not the place fully to demonstrate the ways in which he glorified the history of the French monarchy. It will suffice to point out that his accounts of the reigns of several kings who did not enjoy good reputations in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries are unique in late-medieval French historiography. By omitting facts usually mentioned by late-medieval historians, and by including facts that they rarely or never mentioned, he sought to rehabilitate the reputations of such traditionally "bad" kings as Clovis II (fols. 6-6v), Louis V (fols. 13v-14), and Philip I (fol. 16). 183 the monarchy. They do not, however, appear to have troubled the majority of the unofficial historians whose works 1 examined.

Eighteen of them stated that Childeric was e x ile d .2 7 What is more, sixteen of those eighteen indicated that the Childeric's vicious behavior was sexual in nature. Ten of them described Childeric as "lascivious" or "dissolute" or stated that he was exiled on account of his " lu st" .28 Two of them described his treatment of the wives and daughters of the b a r o n s . 29 Four of them did both, three by noting that he was lascivious or was exiled on account of his lust and by explaining that he took the wives and/or daughters of the barons by force, and one by stating that he

27 b,N., fr. 1233, fol. 86b ("fut par huit ans débouté du royaume des francois"); fr. 1707, fois. 31-31v ("sen fut si hays/Quii sen fouyt hors du pays"); fr. 4940, foi. 123v ("les barons ie chacerent hors"); fr. 4991, foi. 2vA ("les francois ie boutèrent hors de france et de la coronne"); fr. 5696, foi. 8v ("il fut gecte hors du royauime neuf ans"); fr. 5697, foi. 7v ("fut boute hors de france"); fr. 5704, foi. 20v ("et pour ce fut il gecte de france"); ff. 5709, foi. 73 ("pour tant quii fut vicieux fut exiiie"); ff. 5734, foi. 97v ("Il fut gette hors du royaume de france IX ans"); fr. 9688, fol. 31 ("Et pour ce fut boute hors"); fr. 10137, foi. Iv ("fut boute hors pai' les barons"); fr. 10139, foi. 4 ("Et fut boute hors de france"); fr. 10468, foi. 105v ("fu chassie hors du royaume VIII ans"); fr. 23019, fol. 19a ("fut boute hors de france"); fr. 24976, foi. l l v ("fut boute hors de france"); n.a. fr. 7519, foi. 18 ("fut gite hors du royaume de france neuff ans"); iat. 5027, fol. 67v ("il fu débouté du royaume par iX ans"); iat. 14663, foi. 14v ("les barons ie chacierent hors du royaume").

28childeric was "luxurieux": B.N., fr. 4940, foi. 123v. He was exiled on account of his "mauvais et dissolu gouvernement": B.N., fr. 1233, foi. 86b. He was exiled on account of his "luxure": B.N., fr. 5696, fol. 8v; fr. 5697, foi. 7v; fr. 5734, foi. 97v; fr. 10137, foi. Iv; fr. 10139, foi. 4; fr. 10468, foi. 105v; fr. 24976, fol. llv ; n.a. fr. 7519, foi. 18.

29b.N., fr. 1707, foi. 31: "Mais tant fut plain de mauvais ars./Qjii fut hors du royaume jettes/Si orres par queiz foiietes/Les femmes des barons plus hauix./Et les filles tant estoit chaulx/Esforcoit sen fut si hays/Quii sen fouyt hors du pays"; B.N., iat. 14663, foi. 14v: " mais pour ce quii ne vivoit pas honnestement, et prenoit les filles de ses hommes et se couchoit avecques elles, les barons ie chacierent hors du royaume ". 184 was exiled on account of his lust and that "he desired and liked women very m u c h " .3 0 Only two of them, by providing vague descriptions of his vice and by omitting the details of his behavior, failed clearly to indicate the sexual nature of his wrongdoing. One noted that "Childeric for as much as he was vicious, was exiled."^ i The other explained that "for the excesses he committed he was driven out of the kingdom."32 They alone appear to have been more sensitive to the nature of Childeric's wrongdoing than to the fact of his exile. In sum, sixteen of the historians whose works 1 examined indicated that "Childeric was so debauched that he was driven out of France." It was the standard piece of information retained by the authors of late-medieval unofficial histories of France and communicated by them to their readers. Many of those historians also retained, and many of their readers consequently knew, that Childeric was replaced by Gilles during his exile. On the one hand, in addition to the four historians who made no mention of Childeric's exile, five of those who did mention it neglected to tell their readers what had happened in

fr. 5704, fol. 20v: "Cestuy fut si luxurieulx que il faisoit moult de villenies aux filles de ces barons Et les prenoit a force et pour ce fut il gecte de france fr. 9688, fol. 31: "Cestui fut si luxurieux quii faisoit moult de violence et villanie aux femmes et filles de ses barons et les prenoit a force. Et pour ce fut boute hors fr. 23019, fol. 19a: "Et fut boute hors de france pour lorde vie quii menoit sur le fait de luxure VIII ans. car il prenoit a force les femmes et les filles de ses barons"; fr. 4991, fol. 2a: "Il convoitoit et amoit moult les femmes Et pour lorde vie quii menoit sur le fait de luxure, et par enuie. les francois le boutèrent hors ".

fr. 5709, fol. 73: "Childeric pour tant quii fut vicieux fut exille ".

32b,N., lat. 5027, fol. 67v: " pour les outragez quii faisoit il fu débouté du royaume par K ans ". 185 France during the king's absence.33 On the other, thirteen of the unofficial historians whose works I studied did note that Childeric had been replaced by Gilles. One might expect the fact of Gilles's reign to have embarrased those late-medieval historians who were particularly patriotic supporters of the French monarchy. The barons, afterall, had elected a foreigner to replace the legitimate king. What is more, the ruler of a kingdom that was supposed to be exempt from imperial authority had been a Roman. Consequently, it is not surprising to discover certain significant variations in our authors' treatments of Gilles. For one thing, while seven of the thirteen accounts that mentioned him stated that Gilles was Roman,34 six did not.3S For another, while five of the accounts called Gilles "king",36 the authors of the other eight accounts that mentioned him did not use the royal title. One referred to Gilles as "he who held the place" of the exiled

33Namely, B.N., fr. 5696, fol. 8v ("il fut gecte hors du royauime neuf ans Et puis fut rappelle"); fr. 5697, fols. 7v-8 ("fut boute hors de france Et sen ala vers le roy de lorraine Et puis fut rappelle en france"); fr. 5734, fol. 97v ("Il fu gette hors du royaume de france IX ans, et puis fu rappelle"); fr. 23019, fol. 19a ("Et fut boute hors de france Et sen ala par devers le roy basin de lorraine Et puis fut rappelle en france"); fr. 24976, fol. llv ("fut boute hors de france et sen ala au roy basin de lorrainie et puis fu rappelle en france").

34b.N., fr. 1233, fol. 86b ("Gilon Rommain"); fr. 4940, fol. 123v ("Gille qui estoit rommain"); fr. 5709, fol. 73 ("ung roy romain nomme giles"); fr. 10137, fol. Iv ("ung rommain nomme gilon"); fr. 10468, fol. 105v ("Ung rommain nomme gilles"); lat. 5027, fol. 67v ("gillez duc des rommains"); lat. 14663, fol. 14v ("les barons esleurent un romain").

35Namely, the accounts in B.N., fr. 1707, fols. 31-3Iv; fr. 4991, fol. 2vA; fr. 5704, fols. 20v-21; fr. 9688, fol. 31; fr. 10139, fol. 4; n.a. fr. 7519, fols. 18-18v.

36 b.N., fr. 4990, fol. 123v; fr. 4991, fol. 2vA; fr. 5709, fol. 73; fr. 10137, fol. Iv; fr. 10139, fol. 4. 186 Childeric,37 another noted that "a lord named Gilles held the said

kingdom" during Childeric's a b s e n c e ,3 8 and a third likewise wrote that Gilles "was named for him", that is, that he held Childeric's

p la c e.3 9 Five others noted simply that Gilles "governed" the kingdom during Childeric's absence.40 it results from all of this that four of the thirteen accounts that mentioned him said neither that Gilles was Roman nor king, that four presented him as Roman but not king, that two presented him as king but not Roman, and that only three explictly stated that France was ruled by a Roman king during the exile of Childeric.^i While his nationality and the position that he had held were controversial, the means by which Gilles had come to power were even more so. Only one of the thirteen accounts that mentioned

Gilles explicitly stated that he was elected by the b a r o n s.^ z Of the

37 b.N., fr. 1707, fol. 31v: " cellui qui le lieu tenoit/Du roy qui chasse en estoit."

38b.N., n.a. fr. 7519, fol. 18: " et tint ledit royaume un seigneur nomme gilles."

3%.N., lat. 5027, fol. 67v: " et fut ordonne pour lui gillez duc des rommains."

40b.N., fr. 1233, fol. 86b ("Et durant ce temps Gilon Rommain gouverna les francois pour et ou lieu dudit childeric"); fr. 5704, fol. 21 ("ung prince nomme gille gouverna le pais de france"); fr. 9688, fol. 31 ("ung prince nomme gilles gouverna le reaume"); fr. 10468, fol. 105v ("ung rommain nomme gilles gouverna le royaume durant son exil"); lat. 14663, fol. 67v ("les barons esleurent un romain pour gouverner le pais"). vieilles was neither Roman nor king: B.N., fr. 1707, fols. 31-3Iv; fr. 5704, fols. 20v-21; fr. 9688, fol. 31; n.a. fr. 7519, fols. 18-18v. He was Roman but not king: B.N., fr. 1233, fol. 86b; fr. 10468, fol. 105v; lat. 5027, fol. 67v; lat. 14663, fol. 14v. He was king but not Roman: B.N., fr. 4991, fol. 2vA; fr. 10139, fol. 4. He was a Roman king: B.N., fr. 4940, fol. 123v; fr. 5709, fol. 73; fr. 10137, fols. lv-2.

42b.N., lat. 14663, fol. 14v: " les barons le chacierent hors du royaume et esleurent un romain pour gouverner le pais ". 187 remainder, one stated that he was "made" king by the b a r o n s ,43 one reported that he was "made" king by "the French",44 one noted that he was "constituted" king by unnamed a c t o r s ,4 s one declared that unspecified persons "named" him to hold Childeric's p la c e ,4 6 and eight introduced him without providing the least indication of the means or the agents through which he came top o w e r .4 ? Inasmuch as the one author who explicitly stated that Gilles was elected by the barons did not consider Gilles to have been king, it results that not one of the unofficial historians under consideration stated that, upon the departure of Childeric, the barons elected a Roman king to rule in France. In sum, the reign of Gilles posed a problem for late-medieval authors of histories of France. While some of them, writing abbreviated histories, no doubt omitted the episode simply for lack of space, it is likely that others chose deliberately to suppress it. Indeed, it is instructive in this regard to note that Gilles's replacement of Childeric was recorded by the authors of three

43b.N., fr. 10137, fol. Iv: "En lieu de luy les barons firent roy ung romain nomme gilon."

44b.N., fr. 4991, fol. 2vA: " les francois le boutèrent hors de france et de la coronne Et firent roy en son lieu ung nomey gillon qui estoit puissant seigneur."

45b.N., fr. 5709, fol. 73: "Childeric pour tant quii fut vicieux fut exille et fut constitue ung roy romain nomme giles ".

46 b.N., lat. 5027, fol. 67v; " et fut ordonne pour lui gillez duc des rommains ".

47 b.N., fr. 1707, fol. 31v; fr. 1233, fol. 86b; fr. 4940, fol. 123v; fr. 5704, fol. 21; fr. 9688, fol. 31; fr. 10139, fol. 4; fr. 10468, fol. 105v; n.a. fr. 7519, fol. 18. 188 versions of the history of the French kings known by the incioit "A tous nobles", but not by the authors of four other versions of that work.48 As for those historians who did include the episode, a comparison of their accounts indicates that Gilles's nationality, his position, and, above all, the means by which he had acquired it, were sensitive matters in late-medieval French historiography. To consider only the authors of the three versions of "A tous nobles" that did take note of Gilles, one stated that he was made king by the French, another described him as king without explaining how he had acquired that position, and a third reported that he was a "lord" who "held" the kingdom in Childeric's absence.49 Some late-medieval historians were simply more willing than others to admit Gilles's Romanity, his kingship, and his election. Nevertheless, and despite significant variations, the fact that Childeric had been replaced by Gilles was a feature prominent in late-medieval accounts of his reign. Like Childeric's viciousness and his exile, it was retained by quite a few unofficial historians, and it was known to quite a few Frenchmen interested in their national past. The same, however, cannot be said of another component of the traditional tale of Childeric's reign, namely, his marriage to Basina. The Grandes Chroniques, like Gregory of Tours, the Pseudo-

^^That Gilles replaced Childeric during his exile was noted by the authors of B.N., fr. 4991 (fol. 2vA), fr. 10139 (fol. 4) and n.a. fr. 7519 (fols. 18-18v), but not by the authors of B.N., fr. 5696 (fols. 8-8v), fr. 5697 (fols. 7v-8), fr. 5734 (fol. 97), and fr. 23019 (fols. 18a-19a).

^^Respectively, B.N., fr. 49 9 1 (fol. 2vA), fr. 1 0 1 3 9 (fol. 4), and n.a. fr. 7 5 1 9 (fols. 18-18V). 189 Fredegarius, the Liber Historiae Francorum. and Almoin of Fleury before them, were quite clear about the nuptials of Childeric. He bad married Basina, wife of Basinus of Thuringia, and together they bad bad a son named Clovis. One would expect unofficial historians of France to have included these facts in their works. The unofficial historians were familiar with them, because most of them derived their information from the Grandes Chroniques or sources based upon the Grandes Chroniques. Furthermore, most of the unofficial historians accorded great importance to the genealogy of the French kings. Consequently, the infrequency with which they recorded the full story of Childeric's marriage is astonishing. Of the unofficial histories of France that I examined, only four provided the whole story.50 The others fell short, to varying degrees and in significant ways. To begin with, ten of the historians whose accounts I studied made no mention whatever of Basina. Eight noted simply that Childeric was the father of Clovis, and two of them indicated not even thabSi

5ÛB.N., fr. 10137, fols, lv-2: "A celluy childeric vint basine autrement dicte barinne femme dudit roy thoringe. Elle délaissa son mary et childeric la recent a femme, et en ot clovis"; fr. 10468, fol. 105v: "11 engendra clovis premier roy chrestien en basine femme du roy de thoringe qui laissa son mary pour luy"; n.a. fr. 7519, fols. 18-18v: " et espousa la femme du roy basin, et lui engendra ung filz qui ot nom clovis"; lat. 5027, fol. 67v: " elle laissa basin son mary roy de thoringe et vint audit cilderic lequel engendra en elle clovis qui après lui fut roy des francoys et premier roy chrestien diceulx."

5 'The following eight accounts did not mention Basina and stated that Childeric was the father Clovis; B.N., fr. 1233, fol. 86b ("Clovis filz de Childeric fut roy "); fr. 1707, fol. 31v ("Trente et quatre ans /Régna Syderic roy francois/Clovis son filz fut après roys"); fr. 4940, fol. 123v ("Clovis filz chilperic Fsicl "); fr. 4954, fol. 3v ("Clovis filz du roy childeric "); fr. 5696, fol. 8v (" et [Childeric] ot ung filz qui ot nom clovis"); fr. 5709, fol. 73 ("Il eut 190 In addition, four other historians did mention Basina, but failed to identify her as the wife of Basinus of Thuringia at the time of her marriage to Childeric. One referred to Childeric's wife as "the daughter of a pagan duke who at the time held Lorraine."52 Another stated that after his return to France, Childeric "married a woman named Basina and they had a son named Clovis."53 in a third work, Basina appeared only in the genealogical tree of the French kings that accompanied the text. Alongside Childeric, the author noted that

"Basina was the wife of this k in g ." 5 4 in a fourth, in which Basina likewise appeared only in the genealogical tree, the author identified her - more amply, but still inexactly - as "Basina, wife of king

Childeric, and previously of the king o f L orrain e." 5S Finally, four other historians did identify Basina as the wife of Basinus of Thuringia at the time of her marriage to Childeric, but never explicitly stated that she was the mother of Clovis. One simply reported that during his exile at the court of Basinus, Childeric "took ung filz nomme clodoveus quon dit le roy clovis"); fr. 5734, fol. 97v (" et [Childeric] eut ung filz qui ot nom clovis"); fr. 24976, fol. 12 ("Cestui roy fut pere a clovis"). Two others, in addition to failing to mention Basina, did not state that Childeric was the father of Clovis; B.N., n.a. fr. 4811, fol. 3; lat. 5159, fol. 8v. On the possible significance of the latter omission, see note 107 below.

52b.N., fr. 1623, fol. 89v: "Et [Childeric] ot femme qui ot nom Bazine fille a ung due sarrazin qui lors tenoit lorraine."

53b.N., fr. 4991, fol. 2vA: "Lors sen retourna childerich en france ou il fut arrier coronnez. Et puis se maria a une femme nommee Basine et se tint et gouverna gracieusement et eurent ung filz nomme clovis qui fut roy après son pere."

54b.N., fr. 10139, fol. 3v: "Baline fut femme de ce roy."

55b.N., fr. 5697, fol. 8: "Basine femme du roy childerich. et par avant au roy de lorraine." 191 his wife away from him," despite the warm welcome that the

Thuringian king had accorded the French monarch.56 Another provided more detail, stating that Childeric "took away" Basinus's wife, that he had intimate relations with her, and that he subsequently married her. He went on, after having recorded Childeric's military accomplishments, to note that "He had a son named Clovis."57 Likewise, a third, after having stated that "Childeric took away the wife of king Basinus and later he married her," and after having detailed the restored king's martial deeds, concluded his account by noting that "This Childeric had a son named Clovis." 5» A fourth noted that "the wife of Basinus, who was named Basina, loved Childeric more than her own lord and he took Basina [back to France] with him," and went on, at the outset of his account of the

reign of Clovis, to mention that the latter was "the son ofChilderic."59

56 b.N., fr. 23019, fol. 19a; "Et [Childeric] sen ala par devers le roy basin de lorraine qui lui fist bonne chiere. Mais il luy fortray sa femme."

fr. 5704, fol. 21: "Cestuy childeric forfist la femme au roy basin et baissa la femme du roy basin et depuis lespousa. Et puis le roy childeric print la cite de coulongne sur le rin lan llll cens LXXV. et en lan IlII cens LXXVI print la cite dorleans. Et en lan quatre cens llll vingts ardit la cite dangiers et occist le conte qui eut nom pol et régna XXVI ans et ne fut pas cristien. et eut ung filz qui eut nom Clovis."

58b.N., fr. 9688, fol. 31: "Cestui chilperic fsicl fortrait la femme au roy basin. Et fut re[n]voie quérir chilperic. et rapelle et requelly douchement. Et sen vint après ly la femme au roy basin. Et depuis lespousa. Et puis en lan lIII.c IIIIxx et I. il ardit la cite dangiers. En lan IIII.c LXXV. le roy childeric print la cite de couloigne. Et en lan IIII.c LXXVl print la cite de treves. Et en lan lIILc LXXVII. print la cite dorliens. Cestui roy régna XXVI ans. comprins le temps de son exil. Et ne fut pas chrestien. Cestui chilperic out ung filz qui out a nom clovis."

59b.N., lat. 14663, fol. 14v: " et childeri se ala a bisine le roy de turinge. avecques lequel il demoura. VIII. ans. et la fame bisine qui avoit nom bassine 192 In sum, the authors of the unofficial histories of France that I studied were more reluctant to discuss Childeric's marriage to Basina than his viciousness, his exile, and his replacement by Gilles. Accounts of Childeric's reign that mentioned his debauchery and consequent exile outnumbered those tliat noted that he fathered Clovis with Basina, wife of Basinus of Thuringia, by four to one. More of the authors whose works 1 examined mentioned Childeric's replacement than his wife. The authors of different versions of "A tous nobles" wrote accounts of Childeric's marriage that differed even more dramatically than their accounts of the reign of Gilles. Two of them did not mention Basina, two identified her as Childeric's wife, one stated that she had in addition previously been married to Basinus, one noted that Childeric "took away" Basinus's wife, and one reported that Childeric "married the wife of king Basinus, and engendered in her a son who was named C lovis, "^o What held true for the authors of different versions of "A tous nobles" in particular also held true for late-medieval historians of France in general. Only twelve of the works 1 studied mentioned Basina at all, only eight of those twelve identified her as the wife of Basinus at the time of her marriage to Childeric, and only four of those eight clearly designated her as the mother of Clovis.

ama plus childeri que son propre segneur et amena avec soy bassine [Clovis] filz childery ".

^^Respectively, B.N., fr. 5696 (fols. 8-8v) and fr. 5734 (fol. 97v); fr. 4991 (fol. 2vA) and fr. 10139 (fol. 4); ff. 5697 (fols. 7v-8); fr. 23019 (fols. 18a-19a); n.a. fr. 7519 (fols. 18-18V). 193 Why were late-medieval authors of histories of France so reluctant to discuss Basina? Why did historians who on the whole devoted careful attention to the genealogy of the French royal family produce so many texts that failed to inform their readers that Basina was Childeric's wife and Clovis's mother? While one must guard vigorously against qualifying every "missing" fact in a history of France as a deliberate omission and avoid reading too much into an author's every apparent subtlety of language and presentation, this collective late-medieval silence about Clovis's mother is in fact susceptible to a rational explanation. Indeed, the reason so many late-medieval histories of France did not relate the full story of Childeric's marriage is indicated by two of the few that did. In the short history of the French kings contained in B.N. fr. 10468, the chapter on Childeric read as follows: "Childeric the son of Merovech reigned after his father. He conquered Cologne, Treves, Orleans and Angers. And for his lust he was driven out of the kingdom for eight years and since was recalled. A Roman named Gilles governed the kingdom during his exile. He engendered Clovis, the first Christian king, in Basina, wife of the king of Thuringia, who left her husband for him. He died in 484 and reigned twenty-six years.61 The chapter on Clovis followed immediately after this

fr. 10468, fol. lOSv: "Chipperich fils meronee regna après son pere. II conquist coulongne treves Orleans et anglers. Et par sa luxure fu chassie hors du royaume VIII ans et depuis fu rappeliez. Ung rommain nomme gilles gouverna le royaume durant son exil. 11 engendra clovis premier roy chrestien en basine femme du roy de thoringe qui laissa son mary pour luy. Il mourut lan llll.c IIllxx IIII et regna XXVI ans." 194 account. It began by noting that "Clovis or Clodove, the illegitimate son of Childeric, reigned after his fa th e r ." 6 2 Another history of the French kings, contained in at least four fifteenth-century manuscripts, related substantially the same information, including the fact that Childeric "married the wife of king Basinus, and engendered in her a son who was named Clovis," in its chapter on Childeric.63 That chapter was, however, accompanied in all four manuscripts by a marginal gloss, which read as follows: "An Italian historiographer, who does not name himself, speaks of the birth of Clovis. And he says that from Priant until Pharamond, and from Pharamond until a certain Childeric, the kings of France were all pagans. And, as he recounts, this Childeric king of the French was so lascivious and so ribald that he wanted to rape the wives and daughters of the country, for which he was driven out of the kingdom. And they made a certain Valerian king. This Childeric, made to leave the kingdom, took himself to one of his uncles, the king of Thuringia, and he became intimately acquainted with his aunt Basina, his wife. And he stayed there for seven years, until the said Valerian, taken as king of the French, had died, when this

fr. 10468, fol. lOSv; "Clovis ou Ciodoue fils non legitime de chipperich regna après son pere ".

63B.N., n.a. fr. 7519, fols. 18-18v: "Apres cestui li.e.. Merovech] fut roy childeric son filz. qui commancza a regner en lan IIII.c LVIII et pour lorde vie quil menoit sur le fait de luxure fut gîte hors du royaume de france neuff ans. et tint ledit royaume un seigneur nomme gilles. puis fut childeric rapelle en sa seigneurie, et espousa la femme du roy basin, et lui engendra ung filz qui ot nom clovis. Cestui childeric nestoit pas chrestien et regna XVI ans." The work in question is also contained in B.N., fr. 4990, and Bibl. Ste.-Genevieve, 1993 and 1994. 195 Childeric returned to France and was restored as king. And after him came the said Basina, queen of Thuringia, and she left her husband. Which Basina in this adultery had a son named Clovis who, according to the said historian. Saint Remigius baptized. But it does not at all seem to be thus. For the other historians say this Clovis, the fifth king of France, to have been the son of Clodion; neither of this Childeric nor of the other brother-in-law do Richard [of Poitiers] or Vincent [of Beauvais] make any mention; and it is more probable that this Christian king Clovis was engendered by Clodion than by this vile debauched man Childeric.64 In the estimation of the first author, Clovis was the illegitimate son of Childeric. In that of the glossator, he would have been, had Childeric and Basina in fact been his parents. In both

64The gloss is contained in B.N., fr. 4990 and n.a. fr. 7519 and Bibl. Ste.- Geneviève 1993 and 1994. The text in B.N., n.a. fr. 7519, fol. 19, corrected by comparison to B.N., fr. 4990, fol. 4v, wherein the text is slightly better, is the one translated here: "de la nativité de clovis. parle une histoire graphe ytalien qui ne se nomme point, et dit que depuis priant jusques a pharamon et de pharamon jusques a ung nomme childeric, les rois de france furent touz païens, et comme il raconte cestui childeric roy des francois estoit si luxieux et tant ribault quil vouloit les femmes et les filles du pais violer pourquoy il fut degete du royaulme Et firent roy ung nomme valerien Cestui childeric gite du royaume se tira vers un sien oncle roy de toringe et sacointa de son ante basine sa femme, et la [fr. 4990: se] tint par VII ans. Jusques ad ce que ledict valerien prins en roy des francois fut mort, que lors icelui childeric sen retourna en france et fut restitue roy. Et après lui sen alla la dicte basine royne de thoringe, et laissa son mary, laquelle basine en cest adultéré ot un filz nomme clovis qui selon ledict historien st remy baptiza. Mais ne semble point ainsi estre, car les autres historiens dient cestui clovis quint roy de france avoir este fils de clodioue de celui childeric ne de lautre seurourge ne nen font Richart ne Vincent aucune mention Et est plus vroy semblable [fr. 4990: avoir este filz de clodio ne de cestuy childerich ne de lautre cyrourge ne font richart et Vincent aulcune mencion et est plus vray semblable ] que cestui roy chrestien clovis fust engendre de clodio que de ce vil luxurieux childeric." For some brief comments on this text, see Andre Bossuat, "Les origines troyennes: Leur rôle dans la littérature historique au XVe siècle," Annales de Normandie 8 ( 19581 192-193. 196 cases, the reason is plain to see. Since Basina was married to Basinus at the time she engendered Clovis, her relationship with Childeric was an adultery. Consequently, as the product of an adulterous relationship, Clovis was a bastard. The first historian, alone among the authors of the late-medieval histories of France that 1 studied, explicitly stated the conclusion that so many others seem to have taken great pains to forestall. The second, also alone among the authors of the texts with which I am familiar, explicitly denied the conclusion reached by the former and, to judge from his gloss, by others. These two texts, because of their singularity and because of the light they throw on other late-medieval accounts of the reign of Childeric in particular and on the late-medieval significance of Clovis's bastardy in general, require further commentary.

B.N.. fr. 10468 The first text, the short history of the French kings contained in B.N. fr. 10468, was written in Normandy, probably at Rouen and probably by a cleric, after October 1422 and before the end of 1436, on the order of Robert Jolivet, abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel from 1411 to 1444.65

65on this work, see section (I) of Chapter II, "The Sources". The latest event mentioned in the chronicle is the death of Charles VI (21 October 1422), and a note at the end of the manuscript, which contains, in addition to the chronicle in question and a number of other items, copies of Guillaume de Nangis's Chronique abreeee and of the Chronique des quatre premiers Valois, states that its contents were copied at Rouen on the order of Robert, abbot of Mont- Saint-Michel, and that the copyist completed his work in 1436 (foi. 302v): "Cronicas Normannie et francie ceterasque alias scripturas superius scriptas varias materias continentes scribi fecit Robertas abbas montis sancti michaelis in periculo maris apud Rothomagum. in pluribus annis Et finaliter perfecit usque hie anno domini mille.mo CCCC.mo tricesimo sexto." The chronicle, then, had to have been composed after the death of Charles VI and 197 This unofficial history of France is a fascinating document written in the entourage of a fascinating man. It began, quite typically of fifteenth-century histories of France, with the Trojan origins of the Franks. It ended, however, quite untypically. After qualifying Philip VI as "too pompous and not very virtuous",^6 indicating that John 11 was "arrogant and too pompous",^7 calling Charles V "too pompous",68 describing his son, Louis, duke of Orleans, as "full of vices and useless",69 claiming that Charles VI was governed by "bad and disloyal people",70 and failing to include Charles Vll in his list of the latter's children,7i its author stated the before, at the latest, the end of 1436, by which time it had been copied into the manuscript in which it survives. It is probable, given the identity of the political stance of the chronicler and that of Jolivet (see below), that the abbot not only ordered it to be copied into the manuscript, but also ordered it to be composed in the first place. Inasmuch as Jolivet established himself at Rouen after his departure from Mont-Saint-Michel in 1420, it is likely that the author of the chronicle, whose work reveals great interest in the sollicitude shown to the churches of France by French kings, was a member of Jolivet’s entourage, perhaps a monk of Mont-Saint-Michel who had followed his abbot into the obedience of the English.

66 b.N., fr. 10468, fol. 110: "II fu trop pompeux, et pou vertueux."

67 b.N., fr. 10468, fol. 110: John II "fu vaillant chevalier et aimoit iustice et leglise", but "Aucuns dient quil fut orgueyleux. et trop pompeux."

68b.N., fr. 10468, fol. 110: "Il fu sages homs et eut trop de adversités, et par son sens remist le royaume en estât, toutesvoies il fu trop pompeux."

69 b.N., fr. 10468, fol. 110: "Il [Charles V] eut deux fils Charles qui fu roy. Et Louys duc dorleans plain de vices et inutile." The chronicler passed over the assassination of Louis of Orleans in silence.

70 b.N., fr. 10468, fol. llOv: "Cestui roy Charles eut trop dadversites. Car son pere le laissa en laage de XII ans. Et depuis a este gouverne par mauvaise gent et desloyal qui lont perdu et eulx aussi."

71 b.N., fr. 10468, fols. llO-llOv. The chronicler provided the following list of the children of Charles VI and Isabelle of Baviara: "II en eut plusieurs enfans Charles qui mouru en aubes, et une fille aussi [i.e.. Joan, 1388-1390] ysabel qui 198 terms of the Treaty of Troyes and concluded his narrative with the peaceful and legitimate accession of Henry VI of England to the

kingdom of France upon the death of Charles V1J 2 This distaste for the Valois, condemnation of the Armagnacs, and refusal to recognize Charles VII were the historical reflections of the actual political stance of the chronicle's patron. For Robert Jolivet, after having acted rapidly and vigorously to defend his monastery against the English in 1417-1419, had defected to Henry V sometime in the Spring of 1420.^3

fu mariee au roy richart dangleterre. Jehanne au duc de bretaigne Charles qui ne vesquit que XII ans. marie nonnain a poissi Michielle femme au duc phelipe de bourgougne. Louys qui vesqui XX ans qui fu marie a la fille au duc de bourgougne. Jehan qui fu marie a la fille au duc de holande katherine au roy henri dangleterre [at this point in the manuscript, several words have been erased]." The list is complete, with the exception of Charles VII.

fr. 10468, fol. llOv: "Le regne dudit roy henri [VI] commença en royaume de france en sondit premier an de son aage le XXLe jour doctobre endit an IIII.c XXII par le trespas de Charles roy de france. Et aussi fu roy de lun et de lautre royaume. Car par lad. paix le roy Charles devoit jouir sa vie durant du royaume de france par le quel trespas ledit roy henry vint ou jouissement de tout le royaume de france."

^^An act of Charles VI, dated 3 August 1418 and published as Pièce diverse 1 in Simeon Luce (ed.). Chronique du Mont-Saint-Michel (1343-1468). 2 vols., Paris 1879 (S.A.T.F.), I, 87-91, indicates that Jolivet had begun to put his abbey in a state of defense in, at the latest, August 1417, that is, in all likelihood, immediately after the descent of Henry V in Normandy (9 August 1417). He was still supervising the defense of the abbey and was still loyal to the French cause in November 1419. At that time, the future Charles VII, responding to a request from his "beloved and loyal counsellor Robert, abbot of Mont-Saint- Michel", granted him the right to coUect an aide the proceeds of which were to be employed in shoring up the defensive capacity of the fortress of Mont- Saint-Mchel (Luce (ed.). Chronique du Mont-Saint-Michel 1, Pièce diverse 4, pp. 93-95). The precise date of Jolivet's defection is uncertain. The Chronique du Mont-Saint-Michel (ed. Luce, 1, 22) noted that Jean de Harcourt, count of Aumale, came to the abbey on 1 May 1420 " et print possession de par le roy de la capitainerie de la place", thus indicating that, sometime prior to that date, the future Charles Vll had named him captain of Mont-Saint-Michel, a post that Jolivet had held since 1411. Furthermore, Jolivet was definitely absent from his abbey on 21 May 1420, at which time Jean de Harcourt, in the presence of the monks and in "the absence of the abbot of the said place" took 199 While the cause and the precise date of Jolivet's change of heart are difficult to determine, it was in any event profitable. Whereas the English had confiscated and redistributed the abbot's property in the Spring of 1419,^4 the Fall of 1421 saw Henry V order all the goods and revenues of the abbey to be placed in Jolivet's h a n d s.7 5 Inasmuch as the monastery's sources of income were located in territory occupied by the English, its revenues flowed directly into Jolivet's own coffers: "He takes and applies to his singular profit all that he can ravish and have of the said rents and revenues," complained the monks to the duke of Alençon in 1 4 3 2 .^ 6 Indeed, Jolivet, who had established himself at one of his

possession of certain jewels belonging to the abbey (Luce (ed.), Chronique du Mont-Saint-Michel. I, Pièce diverse 5, pp. 96-97). On the authority of these two texts, Luce (ibid.. 22-23, note 4) and Germain Bazin, Le Mont Saint-Michel: histoire et archéologie de l'origine a nos jours. 2nd edition, New York 1978, 43, placed the defection of Jolivet shortly before the nomination of Jean de Harcourt as captain of Mont-Saint-Michel, that is, on a date anterior to 1 May 1420 and, consequently, to the promulgation of the Treaty of Troyes (21 May). On Robert Jolivet and on Mont-Saint-Michel during the English occupation of Normandy see, in addition to the works cited above, Simone Deloison-Joanno, "Robert Jolivet et la guerre du Mont-Saint-Michel," Bulletin de la Socie^te d'archeologie et d'histoire de Saint-Valèrv-sur-Somme ( 1978) 19-28, and Etienne Dupont and Jacques Fauchon, "L'abbé Robert Jolivet," Revue de l'Avranchin et du oavs de Granville 67 ( 1989) 125-60.

^^Luce (éd.). Chronique du Mont-Saint-Michel. I, 96, note 2.

^^Luce (éd.). Chronique du Mont-Saint-Michel. I, 22-23, note 4.

^^Luce (éd.). Chronique du Mont-Saint-Michel. I, Pièce diverse 122, p. 309. On 8 June 1432, the duke of Alençon acted to provide financial relief to the abbey in response to the monks' complaint that they had been reduced to poverty " parceque leurs rentes et revenues sont et ont este de long temps occuppees et empeschees par les Anglois, anciens ennemis de ce royaume, et aussi que leur abbe, tenant et favorisant le dampnable party des dis ennemis, prend et applique a son singulier proffit tout ce qu'il peut ravir et avoir des dictes rentes et revenues ". 200 monastery's priories in Rouen after his departure from Mont-Saint- Michel,^ 7 even bought himself a new home in the Norman capital/& All of this was not a mere gift on the part of the English. Throughout the possible period of composition of the chronicle in question, Jolivet played an active role in the English government in Normandy and in the long and unsuccessful English attempt to wrest Mont-Saint-Michel from its stalwart French defenders. In 1423, one finds him, described in an act of Henry VI as "our beloved and faithful counsellor", delegated to assist Jean de la Pole in the latter's attempts to secure the peaceful surrender of Mont-Saint-Michel.79 Subsequently, as "counsellor and commissioner of the king in Lower Normandy for the recovery of the fortress of Mont-Saint-Michel," Jolivet, who as such received an annual salary,so played a leading role in organizing and supervising the land and sea blockade set before his monastery by the English between September 1424 and

77Bazin, Le Mont Saint-Michel. 32.

78Luce (ed.). Chronique du Mont-Saint-Michel. II, Pièce diverse 299, 257. As late as 1463, the monks were still seeking to recover "une maison assise en la dicte viUe de Rouen, avec ung jardin assis au dehors d'icelle que avoit acquis le dit abbe deffunct” on the grounds that Jolivet "avoit fait les dictes acquisitions des deniers et revenues d'icelle abbaie dont il avoit totalement lui tenant et demeurant eu dit parti des Englois ".

79Luce (éd.), Chronique du Mont-Saint-Michel. I, Pièce diverse 20, p. 127; "Et avecques ce lui li.e.. Jean de la Pole] avons donne et donnons pvoir de traictier et composer avecques ceulx qui détiennent et occuppent la dicte place du Mont Saint Mchiel ou autres que besoing sera, pour iceUe avoir et recouvrer par voye amiable, appeliez a ce faire noz amez et feaulx conseilliers l'abbe du dit lieu du Mont et Jehan Pophain ou l'un d’eulx, et par leur bon advis et conseil."

SOBazin, Le Mont Saint-Michel. 33. 201 June 1425.81 In 1429, he was involved in English preparations to recruit an army and a fleet for the purpose of besieging Mont-Saint- Michel.82 Two years later, he was delegated the authority to negotiate and to receive the submission to Henry VI of anyone who desired so to submit. 83 One finds him supervising the deployment of

8lQn this unsuccessful English attempt to capture Mont-Saint-Michel, see Luce (ed.). Chronique du Mont-Saint-Michel. I, 26-28. From 14 March to 15 July 1425, Jolivet undertook a "voiage a Harfleu, Caen, Saint Lo, Carenten, Constances, la bastide de Ardevon et Tombellaine, pour le fait du siege par mer devant le Mont Saint Michiel et autres grosses besongnes a lui enchargees faire pour le roy" (ibid.. Pièce diverse 54, p. 184). On 12 May he was at Coutances, from whence, in an act in which he qualified himself as "Robert, par la permission divine humble abbe du Mont Saint Michiel ou peril de la mer, conseiller du roy nostre seigneur et commissaire d'icellui seigneur ou pais de la basse marche de Normendie pour le recouvrement de la place du dit Mont Saint Michiel", he arranged for the payment of the garrison of the fortress of Ardevon, from whence Mont-Saint-Michel was beseiged by land (ibid.. Pièce diverse 57, pp. 199-200). In the course of the same month, he recruited troops to serve at the siege of his abbey (ibid.. Pièce diverse 58, pp. 200-201). On 8 June, he again arranged for the payment of the garrison of the fortress of Ardevon in an act that described him as "conseilher et commissaire du roy nostre sire, envoie ou pais de la basse marche de Normendie pour le recouvrement de la place du dit Mont Saint-Michiel, aiant povoir de augmenter et acroistre le nombre des gens d'armes et de trait ordonnes pour tenir siege devant le dit Mont, tant par terre comme par mer" (ibid.. Pièce diverse 60, p. 203).

82Luce (éd.), Chronique du Mont-Saint-Michel. 1, Pièce diverse 104, pp. 281- 283. From 27 May to 3 June 1429, Jolivet travelled to Gamaches and to Eu to discuss the "siege advise estre mis par mer et par terre devant la place du Mont Saint Michiel occuppee par les ennemis" with several of Henry Vi's advisors and officials.

83[uce (ed.). Chronique du Mont-Saint-Michel. I, Pièce diverse 126, pp. 318- 320. By an act dated 14 February 1431, Henry VI delegated Jolivet and two others "plain povoir, auctorite et mandement especisd de traictier, communiquer, appoinctier et conclure afin de venir en nostre obéissance et subgeccion avec tous seigneurs, ducs, contes, barons, chevaliers, excuiers et autres, qui vouldront venir soubz iceles noz subgecion et obéissance, de les y recevoir pour et ou nom de nous, de prendre d'eulx le serment ". The piece in question, which contains a transcription of Henry VI's act, shows Jolivet exercising this power at Coutances on 5 July 1432. 202 English troops near Avranches in 1432,84 travelling from Rouen to Caen to hold an assembly of the local estates in 1437,85 and attending English royal councils throughout the period in question.86 In sum, Charles VIl's assessment of Jolivet was an accurate one; the abbot was "remaining in the obedience of our ancient enemies the English supporting, comforting, and favoring them with all his power against us," stated the act whereby Jolivet was condemned for high treason in July 1432.87 Having rejected the French side in contemporary politics, Jolivet patronized the writing of a text that rejected the official history of France. The chronicle in question was vehement in its criticism of the Grandes Chroniques, attacking the "chronicles of Saint-Denis" in no less than eight passages. Its author began by rehabilitating the much-maligned Merovingian Clovis II (638-657) on the grounds that "The chronicles of Saint-Denis, against the truth, wrote too many bad things about this king, for he led a good life. But

84luc0 (ed.). Chronique du Mont-Saint-Michel. I, Pièce diverse 124 (18 June 1432),pp. 314-316.

85Luce (ed.), Chronique du Mont-Saint-Michel. II, Pièce diverse 197, pp. 101- 102. On 22 August 1437, Jolivet was at Caen, whence he had come from Rouen to hold the assembly of the Estates of the bailliages of Caen, Cotentin, Alen^on, and the diocese of lisieux.

86Bazin, Le Mont Saint-Michel. 33. See also Luce (ed.). Chronique du Mont- Saint-Michel. I, Pièce diverse 117 (Mantes, 10 December 1431), p. 302; I, Pièce diverse 118 (Paris, 21 December 1431), p. 304; II, Pièce diverse 170 (Rouen, 9 April 1435), p. 64.

87luce (ed.). Chronique du Mont-Saint-Michel. I, Pièce diverse 127, p. 321: " frere Robert, a present abbe du dit lieu du Mont Saint Michiel, est tout notoirement demourant en l'obeissance de noz anciens ermemis les Anglois et de leur Conseil, en les soustenant, confortant et favorisant de tout son povoir a Rencontre de nous, par quoy il a commis crime de lese mageste ". 203 of him and of the other kings who didn't give anything to them [Le., to the monks of Saint-Denis] they always wrote poorly, silencing their virtues, as one sees and knows clearly by other authors. "88 He then went on to apply this principle to nine additional historical figures, eight of them French kings. "Those of Saint-Denis," he explained, have defamed Charles Martel, Pepin, and Charlemagne, "because they exalt only those who

gave to th e m ." 89 Louis the Pious was a valiant man who loved God, the Church, and Justice, but "those of Saint-Denis silence his virtues

because he didn't give them anything."90 Louis the Stammerer was a fine man who did good things for a number of churches other than Saint-Denis, but one would not know it by reading Dionysian histories.9i If information about the deeds of Hugh Capet, Robert the

88b.N., fr. 10468, fol. 106; "Clovis ou Louys fils dagoubert commença a regner lan VI.C XLVI et regna en paix XVII ans. Saincte baudoux fu sa femme et fonda corbie et chiele. II mouru Ian VI.c LXIII. Les croniques de saint denis contre verite escripuent de cestui roy trop de maulx. quar il fu de bonne vie Mais de cestui et des autres roys qui ne leur ont riens donnez escripuent ilz tousiours en mal en taisant leurs vertus comme on le voit et sceit clairement par autres acteurs. Il laissa III fils clotaire thierri et childerich."

89b.N., fr. 10468, fol. 107: "Et se neussent este Charles martel peppin et charlemaine la foy chrestienne estoit perdue par ceulx de mahommet. Ces trois honnourerent france et accrurent la seigneurie et acquirent par leur vaillance les nobles previleges et libertés que ont encores les roys de france par dessus tous autres. Et toutesvoies ceulx de saint dénis les diffament en leurs croniques. se taisant de leurs vaillances, quar ilz ne exaltent seulement que ceulx qui leur ont donne."

90b.N., fr. 10468, fol. 107: "Il fu vaillant homme. Et aima dieu leglise et iustice. mais ceulx de saint dénis taisent assez de ses vertus pource quil ne leur donna riens."

91b.N., fr. 10468, fol. 107v: "Louys le begue fils de Charles le chauve commença a regner lan VIII.c LXXK. Il regna deux ans. Il lessa sa femme grosse de Charles le simple. Il gist a compiegne. Il vainquit les normans. et fut preudomme Et toutesvoies ceulx de saint dénis sen taisent mais U fist moult de biens a plusieurs autres églises." 204 Pious, and Heniy I is difficult to come by, it is because the first Capetians "loved churches and founded several of them, but they didn't give anything to those FLe.. to the monks] ofSaint-Denis,"^^ Finally, "the chronicles of Saint-Denis" not only passed over the virtues of Philip I, but also positively slandered him "because he did not give them anything."93 What is more, the author of the chronicle accused the historical school of Saint-Denis not only of falsely defaming good kings who hadn't supported the abbey, but also of falsely lauding bad kings who had. Such, he wrote, was the case for Charles the Bald. On the one hand, Charles was in fact "the least valiant and the least powerful [king] since Pepin," a monarch who "did not at all live according to the custom of his predecessors," who did not care for churches, and who "lost nearly all that the valiant men, his predecessors, had conquered." On the other hand, he received unwarranted praise in the Grandes Chroniques, wherein "those of Saint-Denis say too many good things because he translated the

Lendit from Aix to Saint-Denis."94 in sum, the author of the

92b.N., fr. 10468, fol. 108v: "Henry fils robert regna XXX ans. II fu bon chevalier. II commença a regner lan mil XXIX. mais de luy ne de son pere [Robert the Pious] et ayeul [Hugh Capet] ne sceit on gaires de leurs fais. Et toutesvoies ilz aimerent les églises et fondèrent plusieurs maiz ilz ne donnèrent riens a ceulx de saint dénis."

93b.N., fr. 10468, fol. 108v; "il fu bon chevalier et aima iustice et leglise. et vescut en prospérité Les croniques de Saint dénis ne taisent pas seulement ses vertus et preudommie, mais en dient trop de iniures contre verite et pource quil ne leur donna riens."

94b.N., fr. 10468, fols. 107-107v; "Apres ilz [the sons of Louis the Pious] deviserent le royaume en trois, qui depuis ne fu rassemble. Lotaire tint ytalie et Romme lorrene et prouvence. 11 devint moine. Louys. germanie. et Charles 205 chronicle, on the basis of what one might call a principle of historical criticism, denied that the Grandes Chroniques contained an accurate account of the history of the French kings: "Those of Saint-Denis always exalt only those who gave to them, no matter who they were, for which reason it [i.e., their history of France] is poorlyd o n e /'^ s The only positive assertion of Clovis's bastardy in the late- medieval histories of France of which I am aware appeared, then, in a chronicle written in the entourage of a notorious partisan of the English, a chronicle that strongly criticized the Valois, bitterly attacked the official history that one of them (Charles V) had done so much to popularize, and included Henry VI of England in the legitimate line of French monarchs. Taken together with the silence of so many other histories of France, the context in which the silence was broken provides a valuable and powerful indication of the gravity of the question of Clovis's birth in the fifteenth century. The conclusion that Clovis was a bastard because he was born of an adultery could have been reached by any reader of the Grandes Chroniques or of one of the late-medieval histories of France that contained the full account of Childeric's marriage. Such is probably france qui fu le moins vaillant et moins puissant depuis peppin. 11 pilla et roba ais et coulongne par quoy le pais le laissa. Il ne vivoit point selon la coustume de ses predecesseurs. Il donnoit les abbaies a ses chevaliers pour les gaster. 11 se combati aux normans baudouin forestier ravi sa fille Judich. la quelle il luy donna puis en mariage avec la conte de flandres. Ceulx de saint dénis contrevuent et en dient trop de biens pour ce quil translata lendit days a saint dénis. Il perdi presque tout ce que les vaillans hommes ses predecesseurs avoient conquis. 11 fu le plus povre et desnue de tous biens et plus âpre tant quil vesquit de ses predecesseurs."

95b.N., fr. 10468, fol. 108: "Et ceulx de saint dénis tousiours exaltent ceulx qui leur donnrent seulement quelx quilz fussent de quoy cest mal fait." 206 how the author of the chronicle in question, who was certainly familiar with the Grandes Chroniques or with one of its derivatives, had come to it. That this particular historian was the only one explicitly to state what so many could have concluded and what so many were at pains to obscure leaves the impression that that conclusion was one whose consequences for the French monarchy were so damaging as to be inadmissible. It is an impression that will only be strengthened by an analysis of our second text.

The glossed version of "A tous nobles" The gloss that denied the bastardy of Clovis appeared in the margins of the copies of the version of the history of France known by the incipit "A tous nobles" contained in B.N., fr. 4990 and n.a. fr. 7519 and Bibl. Ste.-Genevieve 1993 and 1994.96 The gloss, which ran from Christ to the reign of Charles the Bald in one manuscript and to the reign of Louis VI in the three others, was written by the same individual who composed the version of "A tous nobles" to which it was attached. Its date of composition is difficult to determine: one can date it to the period 1440-1470 with certitude, to the period 1440-1461 with high probability, and to the period 1445-1459 with somewhat less assurance. The author of the gloss was in all probability a cleric, and he may have written in Brittany or a nearby region, perhaps Anjou or Lower Normandy. A

96on the glossed version of "A tous nobles" and the manuscripts in which it survives, see section (K) of Chapter 11, "The Sources," of which the following paragraph is a summary. 207 close examination of his gloss on Clovis's birth will provide further insight into the late-medieval significance of that king's bastardy. For one thing, inasmuch as the gloss came as the negation of an account of Childeric's reign according to which Clovis was born of an adultery, it stands as evidence of a second late-medieval assertion of his bastardy. Whereas the first assertion of Clovis's bastardy came from Lancastrian Normandy between 1422 and 1436, the second came from Italy sometime before, at the latest, 1470. Like the former, the latter was penned in a place not governed by the king of France. This is significant, for the gravity of the question, which has already been indicated by the general reluctance of late-medieval French historians to discuss Childeric's marriage and by the fact that the only one of them explicitly to call Clovis a bastard was a partisan of the English, is only underlined by the fact that the only one explicitly to deny it did so in response to an Italian. That anonymous Italian historian, one gathers from the gloss, had stated that Childeric had been lascivious and that he had imposed himself upon his female subjects; that he had been driven out of his kingdom, had been replaced, and had sought refuge at the court of the Thuringian king; that he had known the latter's wife carnally and that, abandoning her husband, she had followed him back to France after his restitution; and that, "in this adultery", she had given birth to Clovis. These elements of the story of Childeric were not new; all of the facts were available in the Grandes Chroniques. However, the Italian historian added a precision found neither in the Grandes Chroniques nor in any of the late-medieval 208 histories of France of which I am aware, namely, that Basinus was Childeric's uncle and Basina his aunt. What is more, it was to the latter that he was related by blood. The glossator, in doubting the historical existence of Basinus, referred to him as "the other brother- in-law". While this passage of the gloss is rather obscure, it would appear to indicate that according to the account the glossator sought to rebut, Basinus was the husband of a sister of Childeric's father, Merovech. In the Italian historian's account, then, Clovis was bom not only of adultery, but also of incest. On the one hand, nothing proves that this Italian account circulated in France prior to the composition of the gloss. The latter's clerical author could, for example, have read it, in Latin, in Italy. On the other hand, it is certain that it did circulate there, in French and after at the latest 1470, thanks - ironically - to the glossator. Unfortunately, indications of fifteenth-century possessors of the manuscripts containing the gloss are lacking. The manuscripts were, however, diffused over a long period of time, and later evidence hints at their wide geographical circulation. One manuscript was executed around 1470. It was possessed at an indeterminate date by a certain Olivier Rocar and, in the late- sixteenth or early-seventeenth century, by one "Dom Gilles Baril, of the parish of Saint-Ouen".^? A second, which was also executed around 1470, belonged to a minor nobleman, "Olivier de Launay, sire of Chamsermynes," who in 1577 used some empty space at the end

^^Namely, Bibl. Ste.-Geneviève 1993. See section (K) of Chapter II, "The Sources". 209 of the volume to note a number of strange occurrences in the

V e n d e e 98 a third was executed after 1444 at Paris, by or for a

certain "Bassompierre".99 a fourth, none of the possessors of which

are known, was executed in or after 1 4 5 9 .'oo We have already seen a manuscript executed at Rouen in 1436 describe Clovis as a bastard, and the issue of his bastardy was known to the author of the gloss, writing probably in Brittany or a region bordering it sometime between 1440 and 1470. Taken together, these elements indicate that while late-medieval assertions of the bastardy of Clovis were not numerous, their circulation was diffused in space and sustained in time. Such assertions were known to readers of unofficial histories of France in Paris, in Normandy, and in different parts of western France. They were known from the time of Charles VII well into the sixteenth century. The extent to which this assertion about a fifth-century monarch was damaging for the fifteenth-century French monarchy is further indicated by the glossator's efforts to disprove it. For one thing, he did some historical research. He consulted the Speculum historiale of Vincent of Beauvais and the universal chronicle of Richard of Poitiers, and failed to find any mention of Childeric in those works.ioi He also appears to have consulted additional

98Namely, Bibl. Ste.-Geneviève 1994. See section (K) of Chapter II, "The Sources".

99NameIy, B.N., fr. 4990. See section (K) of Chapter II, "The Sources".

^O^Namely, B.N., n.a. fr. 7519. See section (K) of Chapter II, "The Sources".

^*^llt is true that Vincent of Beauvais' work did not include a chapter on Childeric and that Cliilderic was not mentioned in the chapters on Clovis. He 210 sources, namely, unnamed "other historians" who said that Clovis was the son of Clodion. What is more, having done this research, the glossator proposed a solution to the problem of Clovis's birth that, in an attempt to legitimize that king, wrought havoc on the traditional genealogy of the first French monarchs. As we shall see in Chapters VI and Vll, there was no established canon of the French kings in the late-fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Late-medieval French historians did, however, agree on the inclusion of certain monarchs. With the rare exception of king lists that included Childeric's replacement, Gilles, they always listed the first five kings of France in the same order. In the Grandes Chroniques and in nearly every late-medieval history of France of which I am aware, those five monarchs were, in order, Pharamond,

Clodion, Merovech, Childeric, and C lo v is. 102 Each was the son of his predecessor, with the exception of Merovech. France's third king, said the Grandes Chroniques, "was not the son of Clodion, but was of was, however, menrioned towards the end of the Speculum historiale. where, in the chapter on the Reditus resni ad stirpem Karoli Maeni (Book 30, Chapter 124) he was said to have been the father of Clovis: "Childerico eorum Rege mortuo, qui civitatem Treurerim caepit, Clodovaeus filius eius fortiter regnum tenuit et ampliauit " (Vincent of Beauvais, Speculum Quadruplex Sive Speculum Maius. TV (Speculum Historiale). Graz 1965 [reprint of 1624 Douai edition], 1275. As for the la te-twelfth-century universal chronicle of Richard of Poitiers, monk of Cluny, I have been unable to verify the assertion of the glossator: the partial editions in MGH. Scriptores. XXVI, 76-84, and in RHF. VII, 258; IX, 21-24; XI, 285; XII, 411-421, do not include the passages relative to the early Merovingians.

^02only one of the twenty-two works under consideration in this chapter both called Gilles "king" and devoted a separate chapter to his reign: B.N., fr. 4940, fol. 123v. On this work, which is also found in B.N., fr. 4948, see section (A) of Chapter II, "The Sources". For a consideration of the list of the French kings provided by its author and on his inclusion of Gilles therein, see Chapter VI, "Lists of the French Kings, I", and Chapter VII, "Lists of the French Kings, II". 211 his lignage", and most late-medieval historians said the same.^o^ Indeed, the version of "A tous nobles" glossed by our author featured both the standard order and the standard genealogy of the first Merovingians. On the one hand, the author of the gloss accepted the traditional order of the earliest French kings. While he appears to have questioned the very existence of Childeric and Basinus on the grounds of their absence in the works of Vincent of Beauvais and Richard of Poitiers, he must inevitably have accepted that of the

lOSviard (ed.), GCF. I, 26: "Quant li rois Clodio out regne XX anz, 11 paia le treu de nature. Apres lui regna Merovees. Gil Merovees ne fu pas ses fiuz, mais il fu de son lignage. De cetui eissi la premiere generation des rois de france; si dura sanz faillir d'oir en hoir jusques a la generation Pepin le secont, le pere le grant Challemaine." Sixteen of the twenty-two late-medieval histories of France considered in this chapter likewise indicated that Merovech was a relative, but not the son, of Clodion. Twelve repeated the rather vague phrase of the Grandes Chroniques: B.N., fr. 4991, fol. 2b ("il ne fut pas filz du roy clodio. mais il fut de son lignaige"); fr. 5696, fol. 8 ("et ne fut pas filz clodio mais il fut de son lignaige"); fr. 5697, fol. 7v ("Meronnee ne fut mie filz de clodio mais il regna après lui. et estoit de son lignaige"); fr. 5704, fol. 20v ("et ne fut pas filz de Claudio, mais il fut de son lignaige"); fr. 5734, fol. 97 ("et ne fu pas filz de clodio. mais ilz estoit de son linaige"); fr. 9688, fol. 31 ("Et ne fut pas filz clodio mais il fut de son lignage"); fr. 10137, fol. Iv ("Et ne fut filz Clodio mais il estoit de son lignaige"); fr. 10139, fol. 3v ("ne fut pas filz Clodio mais il fut de son lignage"); fr. 23019, fol. 18a ("Meronee ne fut pas filz Clodio mais il fut de son lignage"); fr. 24976, fol. llv ("Il ne fu pas filz Clodis mais il fut de son lignaige"); n.a. fr. 4811, fol. 2v ("et ne fut pas filz clodio, mais il fut de son lignage"); n.a. fr. 7519, fol. 18 ("et nestoit pas filz Cldio, mais de son lignage fut"). One stated that Merovech was a relative of Clodion, and one that he was Clodion's nearest relative: B.N., fr. 4954, fol. 3 ("Meronee parent de Clodio"); fr. 5709, fol. 72v ("Meroveus prochain parent de clodio succéda au royaulme"). Finally, two others specified a relationship other than that of father and son. According to one author, Merovech was descended from Clodion's daughter: B.N., fr. 1623, fol. 89 (" et sa [that is, Clodion's] fille ot ung hoir qui ot nom Meroneus qui puis regna en france moult noblement"). According to another, he was Clodion's nephew. B.N., fr. 10468, fol. 105v ("Meronee nepueu de Clodio regna après son oncle "). On the significance of these last two genealogies, see note 105 below. Six of the twenty-two texts under consideration in this chapter, as well as several other late-medieval histories of France, either contained no mention of the relationship between Clodion and Merovech or described the latter as the former's son. On these texts, see note 106 below. 212 former. He referred to Clovis as "the fifth king of France", and it is difficult to imagine who other than Childeric he imagined to have been the fourth. On the other hand, the glossator revised the orthodox genealogy by accepting the opinion of the unidentified "other historians" who said that Clovis was the son of Clodion. In doing so, he introduced a new and potentially troubling problem into the dynastic history of France. The text that he glossed proclaimed, and he did not contest, that Childeric was the son of Merovech and that Merovech was a relative, but not the son, of Clodion. Consequently, to make Clovis the son of Clodion raised the question of why Merovech, and not Clovis, had succeeded Clodion. Indeed, in the genealogy suggested by the gloss, the son of France's second king will have been passed over not once, but twice, since Merovech and Childeric had acceded to the throne prior to Clovis. To suggest that such had been the case was to aggravate an already controversial discontinuity in French dynastic history. At the time the glossator wrote, the tradition according to which Merovech was not the son of Clodion, because it represented a discontinuity at the very beginning of the royal line,^^^ definitely lO^some late-medieval historians even likened the accession of Merovech to a change of dynasty. For example, in the genealogiccd tree of the French kings that adorns B.N., fr. 4991, a version of "A tous nobles" that dates to the reign of Charles VII, the gap between Clodion and Merovech (fol. 2) is identical to the gaps that separate Childeric 111 from Pepin (fol. 7v) and Louis V from Hugh Capet (fols. lOv-11). The trunk of the tree is cut off after Clodio who, the illustrator noted, "fut second roy de france et morut sans hoirs." It then resumes with Merovech, following a gap in the middle of which one reads "Cy commence la generacion des roys de france qui dure sans faillir jusques au roy pepin." 213 troubled the sensibilities of particularly royalist French historians. Some sought to explain it by making the accession of Merovech the first instance of the application of the SalicL aw . ^ os others simply dispensed with the problem by omitting all mention of the relationship between Clodion and Merovech or by writing that the latter was the former's son. This was the route chosen by six of the unofficial historians whose works 1 studied, including several whose marked royalist concerns have been noted by modern scholars. lOSgeaune, The Birth of an Ideology. 199,243, 254, and especially 257-258, which gives the example of the Great Treatise on the Salic Law, a widely- diffused, anonymous text written between 1450 and 1464, according to which Merovech had acceeded to the throne by virtue of that law. However, if devotees of the Valois could justify the legitimacy of Philip VI and his successors by imagining the accession of Merovech to have been the first application of the Salic Law, their opponents could just as easily assert the legitimacy of the claim of Edward 111 of England and his heirs to the French throne by imagining Merovech to have been related to Clodion through a woman. That some in the fifteenth-century believed such to have been the case is proven by the chronicle of the French kings contained in B.N., fr. 1623, according to which "sa [Clodion's] fille ot ung hoir qui ot nom Meroneus qui puis régna en france" (fol. 89v). Significantly, this text was written in Anglo- Burgundian Paris by an author of detectable pro-English inclinations (see section (F) of Chapter 11, "The Sources"). Likewise, it was probably not an accident that the author of the chronicle of the French kings written for Robert Jolivet, alone among the authors of the late-medieval histories of France with which I am familiar, stated that "Meronee nepueu de Clodio regna après son oncle" (B.N., fr. 10468, fol. lOSv). While he did not specify whether Merovech was the son of a brother or of a sister of Clodion, he surely knew that Edward III of England had been the nephew of Charles IV of France. lOGFive of the works studied in this chapter presented Merovech as Clodion’s son: (1) B.N., fr. 1233, fol. 85vB ("Meronee fdz de Clodio"); (2) fr. 4940, fol. 123v ("Merone son filz"); (3) lat. 5027, fol. 67v ("fdz dudit Clodio"); (4) lat. 5195, fol. 8 ("Meronee son fdz"); (5) lat. 14663, fol. 14v ("Meronnees filz Clodio"). To these one will add (6) B.N., fr. 4209, fol. 1 ("Meronee son fdz") and (7) fr. 1965 ("S'ensuit les noms des roys de france"), fol. 128 ("fdz dudit Clpdio"). (1) is a copy of the royal notary and secretary Noël de Fribois' Abrégé des Chroniques de France, the particularly royalist character of which has been discussed by Kathleen Daly, "Histoire et politique à la fin de la Guerre de Cent Ans: 'l'Abréige des Chroniques' de Noël de Fribois," in La "France Anglaise" au Moven Age (Actes du 111e Congrès National des Sociétés Savantes, Poitiers 1986), Paris 1988,1, 91-101, and "Mixing Business with Leisure: Some French Royal Notaries and Secretaries and their Histories of France, c.1459-1509," in 214 The accession of Merovech to the throne, then, was already a problem in late-medieval French historiography at the time the glossator wrote. That problem would, moreover, only be exacerbated by the genealogy suggested by his gloss. Any reader of the four manuscripts in which it is known to have been copied could have concluded that the son of Clodion (not Merovech, but Clovis) had come to the throne only after another of Clodion's relatives (Merovech) and the latter's son (Childeric). The discontinuity implied by this genealogy was far more grave than Clodion's traditional lack of male heirs, but the glossator was willing to imply it in order to

Christopher AUmand (ed.), Power. Culture, and Religion in France, c.1350- C.1550. Woodbridge 1989, 99-115. The author of (4) used Fribois' work, but was also familiar with the Grandes Chroniques and had his own very strong concern for regularity in the succession, (5) and (6) were based primarily on the works of Bernard Gui, in which Merovech was said to be Clodion's son (B.N., n.a. fr. 6 7 7 6 , translation of Gui's Arbor eenealogie resum Francorum by Jean Golein, fol. lllv: "Le tiers roy ot nom Meronee, et fu filz du devant dit roy clodius"). (7) is a list of the French kings that demonstrates great concern for legitimacy in the succession (see Chapter VI, "Lists of the French Kings, I", and Chapter VII, "Lists of the French Kings, II"). In addition, one of the works under consideration in this chapter did not specify any relationship between Clodion and Merovech: B.N., fr. 1707. This is a copy of the Pit des Rovs. and its author's silence on the matter is to be put in relation to the other examples of his royalist outlook and concern for regularity in the succession adduced by Robert Bossuat, "Le Dit des Rovs. Chronique rimêe du XlVe siècle," in Melanges de Linguistique romane et de Philologie médiévale offerts à M. Maurice Del bouille. Gembloux 1 9 6 4 , 1, 49-58. Finally, the Rosier des Guerres, a text written on the command of Louis XI for the education of the future Charles VUI (see Chapter VI, "Lists of the French Kings, I"), likewise left unspecified the relationship between Clodion and Merovech. On the one hand, its author, Pierre Choisnet, was careful to specify that Pharamond was the son of Marcomir (B.N., fr. 1 9 6 5 , fol. 4 3 ), that Clodion was the son of Pharamond (fol. 43), that Childeric was the son of Merovech (fol. 4 3 ), and that Clovis was the son of Childeric (fol. 4 4 ). On the other, he noted simply tliat "Clodion, king of France, died and Merovech reigned after him" (fol. 4 3 ). Inasmuch as Choisnet used the Grandes Chroniques as his source for early French history and inasmuch as his work as a whole betrays a deep concern to demonstrate continuity in the royal line, there can be little doubt that he deliberately suppressed the traditional knowledge that Merovech was not Clodion's son. 215 assure Clovis a legitimate b ir th That he was willing to revise the traditional genealogy, and to do so in a way that underlined and aggravated an already controversial discontinuity in the history of the French kings, is a final indication of the gravity of the question of Clovis's birth in the fifteenth century. For the glossator, as for the authors of so many late-medieval histories of France, what was essential was that Clovis not be the son of Childeric and Basina, wife of Basinus of Thuringia: that is to say, that he not be a bastard. It remains briefly to explain why.

Louis 111 and Carloman The question of Clovis's birth was such a sensitive issue in late-medieval French historiography because bastardy was such a sensitive issue in late-medieval France.

107while many authors of late-medieval histories of France assured Clovis's legitimacy by omitting or obscuring information about Basina, the glossator did it by denying not only that Basina was Clovis's mother, but also that Childeric was his father. In this he may not have been alone, for uncertainty about Clovis's father or reluctance in any way to associate Clovis with Childeric might explain oddities found in two late-medieval histories of France. First, it is the case that the author of the chronicle of tlie French kings contained in B.N., lat. 5195 and lat. 5696 noted the father of every single French king, with the exception of Clovis. He was familiar with the Grandes Chroniques and with Noël de Fribois' Abreae des Chroniques de France, which stated that Clovis was Childeric's son, and the omission would thus appear to have been deliberate. Second, the accounts of the reign of Childeric contained in B.N., fr. 5734 and fr. 20145, which are two copies of a version of "A tous nobles", are identical in all but one detail. Whereas fr. 5734 noted that Childeric "eut ung filz qui ot nom Clovis" (fol. 97v), this phrase was omitted in fr. 20145 (fol. 3). Absolutely nothing proves that one is not dealing here with the mental lapse of a harried copyist. However, given all that we have seen, it is entirely possible that the omission was deliberate and that it reflects, at the least, uncertainty about Clovis's father and, at the most, positive refusal to admit that it was Childeric. 216 During the High Middle Ages, bastards had shared in the upbringing of their legitimate half-brothers and had been accepted members of French noble families JO® Attitudes toward the illegitimate changed, however, in the late-medieval period. The legal distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children became more pronounced, and a stigma came to be attached to the latter. What held true for the nobility held even truer for the royal family. We have already had occasion to note the fourteenth-century scandals precipitated by the alleged adultery of the wives of the future Louis X, Philip V, and Charles IV and by that of the spouse of the future John II. These cases, while not identical to the adultery of Basina, were nevertheless similar in that the alleged adulteresses were in a position to become the mothers of kings. In short, late-medieval French historians wrote their accounts of the reign of Childeric at a time of heightened awareness, and increasing rejection, of bastardy in general and in the royal family in particular. Indeed, late-medieval accounts of Clovis's birth came not only against the backdrop of a broad social development, but also against that of a concrete fifteenth-century fact, namely, the persistent rumor according to which Charles VII was a bastard. Prior to the appearance of Joan of Arc, Charles himself appears to have doubted that he was his father's son. More importantly, in the minds of many others the "fact" that he was the son of Isabelle of Bavaria but not of Charles VI explained and justified his exclusion from the throne by l*^®Georges Dubv. The Knight, the Lady, and the Priest, trans. Barbara Bray, New York 1983, 262-263. 217 the Treaty of Troyes. Such was the position of the author of the chronicle patronized by Robert Jolivet. That author, after having omitted Charles VII from his list of the children of Charles VI, went on to state: "And in this Charles [VI] ended the line of the Valois with regard to a male heir. And [the crown] returned to the line of Hugh Capet by Henry [V], king of England, descended from Isabelle, daughter of Philip the Fair, wife of Edward [II]. Which Henry engendered in the said Catherine, daughter of the said Charles VI, Henry [VI], king of France and of England, who reigns at present." While the author was aware of the terms of the Treaty of Troyes, it is clear that he believed Henry VI to be king of France not only because of the treaty, but also by blood right: Charles VI did not have a surviving son, but he did have a grandson, and the latter was the legitimate heir to the French throne. The alleged bastardy of Charles VII, knowledge of which was spread by propagandists English genealogies that failed to recognize his very existence, was a widespread and tenacious matter. As late as 1457, a peasant in the

109b.n ., fr. 10468, fol. llOv; "Et en, cestui Charles est faillie la lignee de ceulx de valleys quany a hoir masle, et retourne a lignee hue cappet par henri roy dangleterre descendu de ysabeau fille phellpe le bel femme edouart, le quel henri a engendre en ladicte katherine fille dudit Charles le Vl.e henri roy de france et dangleterre qui regne a present."

1 1423, the English posted a pictoral genealogy of the descendants of Louis DC on the walls of important churches in the territory they occupied in northern France. By excluding Charles VII, it presented Henry VI, grandson of Charles VI and son of Henry V (himself descended from Isabelle, the daughter of Philip IV, grandson of Louis EX) as the legitimate heir of Saint Louis in the direct line. See J.W. McKenna, "Hemy VI of England and the Dual Monarchy: Aspects of Royal Political Propaganda, 1422-1432," loumal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 28 (1965) 151-152, and the reproduction of the genealogy on plate 27. 218 Massif Central ran afoul of the law for having asserted, in his drunkenness, that the king was of illegitimate birth. i ' Many authors of fifteenth-century histories of France were no doubt aware of this rumor, and the contemporary issue of the birth of Charles VII no doubt sensitized them to that of the birth of Clovis. Behind their accounts of the reign of Childeric lurks the notion, held by many throughout the long reign of Charles VII, that the latter, because he was an illegitimate son, was an illegitimate king. As we saw at the outset of this chapter, their accounts were also informed by the "political theology of the royal bloodline". The dominant, royalist interpretation of French dynastic history held that the French royal line had from all eternity been free of bastardy. That such had been the case was asserted by numerous propagandists and enthusiasts of the monarchy during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Indeed, the ideological necessity according to which no French king had been a bastard even led numerous late-medieval historians to exclude from the royal line two bastards who had been French kings. The ultimate significance of the question of Clovis's birth will be revealed by a brief look at how late-medieval historians of France treated Louis II the Stammerer's illegitimate sons, Louis III (879-882) and Carloman (879-884). Only six of the unofficial historians whose accounts of the reign of Childeric we examined in this chapter unambiguously asserted that Louis III and Carloman, who were the sons of Louis II and his

^ ^ ^Beaune, The Birth of an Ideology. 186, citing Marc Bloch, Les rois thaumaturges. Paris 1927,208. 219 concubine, reigned in France after the death of their father.) ^2 t q these, one may add four others whose accounts stated that Louis and Carloman were bastards and had reigned, but whose works contained other elements that revealed uncertainty about their place in the royal line. Three of these works contained genealogical trees of the French kings wherein Louis and Carloman figured either not at all or off to the side of the main trunk, in collateralbranches.) The

) )2b.N., fr. 1623, fol. 92: "Le XXXI.e roy de france ot nom charlemans et regna avec lui loys son frere Et estoient enfans de Charles le chauve fsicl et de sa concubine"; fr. 5696, fol. 23v: " et [Louis II] laissa sa femme grosse dun filz qui Charles le simple fut appelle Et pource regnerent ensemble, loys et charlemant et nestoient pas de mariaige et regnerent cinq ans"; fr. 5709, fol. 76v: "Loys XXVie [roy] et Charles XXVile furent enfans bastars de Loys balbe dessusdit"; fr. 10468, fol. 107v: "Il [Louis 11] laissa deux fils. Lun bastart nomme Charles, et lautre legitime nomme Louys. Le bastart ainsne regna environ deux ans. Et lautre après regna non pas longuement. Aucuns dient quilz furent tous deux bastars"; n.a. fr. 7519, fol. 30: " et [Louis 11] laissa sa femme grosse dun enfant qui Charles le simple fut appelle. Pourceque lenfant nestoit pas ne quant le pere mourit. furent roys ensemble deux freres dudit enfant que son pere avoit eu non pas de sa mere. Mais dune dame que sondit pere avoit maintenue, lesquelx furent appeliez louis et charlement. Iceulx louis et charlement freres fsicl dudit loys le begue. commancerent a regner touz ensemble et regnerent cinq ans"; lat. 14663, fol. 17: "Apres la mort loys le baube, loys et charlemans ses filz de concubine divisèrent entre eulx le royaume, et regnerent .VI. ans."

) )^B.N., fr. 5697, fols. 20v-21, contains a convoluted text that mentions neither the existence of Carloman nor the bastardy of Louis III: " et [Louis II] laissa sa femme grosse dung filz appelle Charles le simple, et dung autre filz qui fut nomme loys. lesquelx regnerent .V. ans semble." However, Louis and Carloman do figure, off to the sides of the main trunk, in the genealogical tree that accompanies the text. They are represented by circles inscribed with "Charles regna avecques loys et regnerent V. ans" and "loys regna avec Charles et nestoient mie de mariage". The text in B.N., fr. 23019, fol. 27a, states "Et [Louis II] laissa sa femme grosse dun filz qui Charles le simple fut appelle. Et pource regnerent ses 11 freres tous ensemble loys et Charles et nestoient pas de mariage. Et regnerent V ans." Louis III and Carloman figure in collateral branches in the accompanying genealogical tree. In B.N., fr. 10139, fol. 8, the text reads: "Et [Louis II] laissa sa femme grosse dun filz qui Charles le simple fut appelle. Et après la mort dudit louys y eult grans discentions en france. Car les deux freres du roy regnerent tout ensemble et nestoient pas de mariage." Louis and Carloman do not, however, appear anywhere in the genealogical tree that accompanies the text. 220 fourth author stated that Louis and Carloman were bastards and that they reigned in France, but he went on to refer to subsequent kings named Louis by numbers one lower than those by which they are traditionally known, which, as we shall see in Chapter VII, was the numbering system employed by historians who considered Louis 111 not to have been king of France because of his illegitimate birth J In contrast, the other twelve unofficial historians under consideration used a variety of devices to obscure the reigns of two bastard kings in France. Six of them stated that Louis 111 and Carloman had been kings, but not that they had been bastards. Two of these six said nothing about their parentage.^ ^5 Three presented them simply as sons of Louis theS t a m m e r e r .’ 16 One reported, rather

’ ’ ^The text in B.N., fr. 9688, fol. 37, states: "Et demeura sa [Louis II's] femme grosse dun filz qui fut appelle Charles le simple. Et pour ce regnerent ces deux freres louys et charlemant ensemble et nestoient pas de mariage. Et regnerent V. ans." The author referred to the last Carolingian king, who was the first Louis to whom he attached a number, as Louis V (fol. 38v). However, he then proceeded to use the untraditional, lower numérotation: "Louys le gros Ve de ce nom" (fol. 40); "Louys Vie de ce nom filz louys le gros" (fol. 40v); "Louys pere saint louys Vile de ce nom" (fol. 41).

fr. 1707, fol. 34v: "Du XXXIIe [roy] souviengne/Loys ot nom chincq ans regna/Les francois onques ne greva/Le XXXIlIe charlon/Vl. ans regna bien le scet on”; n.a. fr. 4811, fol. 5v: "Louis 111 et Carloman ".

” ^B.N., fr. 1233, fol. 96vA: "Charles filz dudit loys le baube regna cinq ans....Loys filz dudit Charles Fsicl fut après qui fut surnomme loys fais nyant "; ; fr. 4948, fol. 96v: "Charles filz dudit loys [II]. cinq ans. Eudes duc de bourg.ne K ans pour loys filz dudit Charles Fsicl "; fir. 10137, fols. 17-17v: " et [Louis n] laissa deux enfans Lesdiz deux enffans avoient nom Loys et Charlemaigne Lesdiz enffans furent hastivement couronnez roys de france Charles fUz loys le baube Apres la mort dudit loys son frere fut roy de france ". 221 disingenuously, only that Charles the Simple (Louis II's legitimate son), Louis111, and Carloman "were not all born of onemarriage".' If one solution was to deny that Louis and Carloman had been bastards, another was to deny that they had been kings. One unofficial historian simply omitted all mention oft h e m . "8 Three others, on the grounds that Charles the Simple, as the legitimate son of Louis the Stammerer, had automatically succeeded to the throne upon the death of his father, presented Louis and Carloman as regents who had merely "held" the throne for their legitimate half- brother. One of these three wrote that "Carloman and Louis, bastard children of king Charles the Bald fsicl held the government of the crown and of the kingdom five years for their brother Louis fsicl the

S im p le ." "9 Another, who used throughout his work the

"^B.N., fr. 5734, fol. 102: "Et [Louis II] laissa sa femme grosse dun filz qui Charles le simple fu appelle. Et pour ce regnerent ces II. freres tous ensemble loys et charlemant et nestoient pas tous ensemble dun mariage." In B.N., fr. 20145, another copy of the same version of "A tous nobles", the text reads " et pour ce regnerent ses deux freres touz ensemble dun mariage" (fol. 7). Significantly, the copy contained in B.N., fr. 20145 also omitted the statement, found in B.N., fr. 5734, that Clovis was the son of Childeric (see note 107 above). While the change in the text on Louis III and Carloman and the omission in the text on Childeric may well represent copying errors, it is striking to note that they were both, from the point of view of the legitimacy of the French kings in question, fortuitous ones.

' ' Sg.N., fr. 24976, which makes no mention of the events that followed the death of Louis II (fol. 21).

' '^B.N., fr. 4991, fol. 9vA: " il [Louis II] laissa sa femme grosse dun filz qui ot nom Charles le simple. Et pource par (ordonnance des barons Charles et loys enfens bastars du roy Charles le chauve Fsicl eurent le gouvernement de la coronne et du royaulme cinq ans pour leur frere loys Fsicl le simple." The notion that Louis III and Carloman had merely "held" the kingdom and were not to be considered in the direct line of kings was given graphic illustration in the genealogical tree of the kings of France that accompanied this text. The genealogical tree in B.N., fr. 4991 contains portraits of every French king, including the two in question. However, whereas all of the other monarchs wear the crown and carry the scepter, Louis III and Carloman (as well as Eudes 222 untraditional, lower numbering of kings named Louis, wrote that Louis and Carloman, whom he described as illegitimate, had "held the government of France for fivey e a r s . " ^20 The third made no mention of Louis III and Carloman, despite his awareness of the fact that Louis II had not been succeeded directly by his legitimate son, Charles the Simple. By pointing out that Charles the Simple was bom in the year that Louis II died, noting that he did not begin to reign until several years later, and writing that during the interval "several of his guardians governed for his minority of age", this author implicitly demoted Louis 111 and Carloman to the status of

"guardians" of the legitimate Charles the Simple.121 Two other unofficial historians presented Louis and Carloman, who in their view could not possibly have been legitimate kings given the existence of Charles the Simple, as usurpers. One wrote

and Raoul) do not. They are pictured (fol. 9v) with a crown in their hands - literally, "holding" the crown - and they do not bear the scepter.

lat. 5027, fols. 71-71v. The author described Louis and Carloman as "fdz du roy loys le begue non légitimez", and the copyist, after having written that "les dis loys et charlemant regnerent et aurent le gouvernement de france par V. ans," crossed out "regnerent et aurent" and wrote instead "tenirent". That the author conceived Louis III and Carloman (as well as Charles the Fat and Eudes) as regents who had governed during the minority of Charles the Simple is further indicated by his use of the untraditional, lower numérotation and by his statement that "Charles le simple filz du roy loys le begue pour la jeunesse duquel le royaume avoit este gouverne par aucuns dessusdiz file.. Louis III, Carloman, Charles the Fat, Eudes], lui estant en laage de XIX ans fut couronne et ordonne en roy de france ". Louis HI and Carloman do not figure in "Ce sont les noms des roys de france anciennement nommes gaule", the list of French kings that accompanies the author's chronicle in the manuscript.

^21b.N., fr. 4954, fol. 12: "Charles dit le simple filz du roy loys le baube fut ne Ian dessusd. VIII.c IIII.xx [the year of the death of Louis II, according to the chronicle]. Et ne commença a regner que Ian VIII.c IIII.xx XIX. durant lequel temps aucuns de ses tuteurs gouvernèrent pour sa minorité daage." 223 that the brothers "had themselves crowned" during the reign of Charles the Simple, which, he noted, had begun before their usurpation and had continued after their d e a t h s . 122 The other, who used the untraditional, lower numerbering for kings named Louis, stated that Charles the Simple had succeeded Louis 11 as king of France, but that "Louis the bastard usurped the lordship of the crown of France and occupied the kingdom until 884, when he died. And after him, his brother Carloman also usurped the crown," and went on to emphasize that they were not to be considered kings of France. 123

122b.N., lat. 5195, fol. 11: "Charles le simple filz dudit loys regna XXVII ans durant le temps de cedit roy icy. pour quil fut couronne roy jeune enfant, charlemaigne et loys faignant filz dudit loys le begue. se firent couronner roys a ferrieres en gastinois, les quelz ne regnerent que environ cinq ans. et moururent long temps devant le roy Charles le simple ".

123b.N., fr. 5704, fols. 32-23v: " lequel Charles [the Simple] fut couronne roy de France par les seigneurs, mais pource quil estoit si jeune loys le bastard dont on parlera cy dessus usurpa la seigneurie de la coronne de france et occupa le royaume jusques a lan huyt cens quatre vings et quatre, quil mourut. Et après son frere calaman usurpa aussi la coronne Et ne sont poinct comptes roys de france. tous les dessusditz qui furent depuis loys de baube jusques au roy Charles le simple. Car ilz usurpèrent la coronne et dndrent par force, sans force fsicl sans droit ne tiltre vaillable durant lenfance dudit Charles qui estoit vray et legitime roy." In addition to six of the authors whose works have been considered in this chapter, one will also number the historians Louis Le Blanc and Pierre Choisnet among those who did not consider Louis III and Carloman to have been kings. M. François, "Les Rois de France et les traditions de l'abbaye de Saint-Denis à la fin du XVe siècle," in Melanges dédiées a la mémoire de Felix Grat. Paris 1946,1,371, noted that the untraditional, lower numérotation of kings named Louis was used by the royal notary and secretary Louis Le Blanc in his account of the devotion of the French kings to Saint Denis, written in 1495 (B.N., fr. 5706, fr. 5868, fr. 5870); in his short history of the kings of France, written in 1498 (B.N., fr. 5869); and in his life of Louis IX, written between 1495 and 1509 (B.N., fr. 5721). As for Pierre Choisnet, his Rosier des Guerres bluntly announced that: "En ces te cronique ne sont point mis en compte loys et karloman filz du roy loys le baube pource quilz estoient de sa concubine comme il appert sur lan VlII.c IIII.xx." (B.N., fr. 1965, fol. 127, marginal note). One reads, under the year 880, that Louis and Carloman were illegitimate and that " Et semble que ceulx qui regnerent entre son pere 224 In sum, only ten of the unofficial historians under consideration told their readers that Louis 111 and Carloman had been both bastards and kings, and four of them did so with marked hesitation. The majority opted not to convey this information, half of them by declining to describe Louis and Carloman as bastards and half by refusing to recognize them as kings. Faced with the choice between admitting that bastards had been kings and either legitimizing or expunging from the royal line kings who had been bastards, most chose one of the latter options. In the majority view, since French kings could not be of illegitimate birth, bastards, even ninth-century bastards, could not have been legitimate French kings. Just as his enemies applied this principle to Charles Vll, most late-medieval historians applied it, retroactively, to Louis 111 and Carloman. It was well-known to those historians and to their readers. Logically, nothing would prevent its application to a certain late fifth-century monarch, were he to have been of illegitimate birth. The illustrious, divinely-favored, saintly son of Childeric 1 potentially faced the same fate as the obscure sons of Louis 11. The bastardy of Clovis, consequently, did much more than belie the much-heralded purity of the French royal line. Ultimately, it raised the possibility that the founder of the Most Christian monarchy had been - in both senses of the word - an illegitimate king.

[Louis II] et luy [Charles the Simple] ne doivent estre comptez du nombre des roys yssus par droicte ligne " (fols. 51-51v). Choisnet, who consistently called Louis XI "Louis X", also opted for the untraditional, lower Ludovican numérotation, explaining that "Le dit noble roy loys [Louis XI] peut estre compte pour Xl.e de ce nom. selon veult mectre en compte loys et karloman freres et enfens du roy loys le baube et de sa concubine" (fol. 2). 225 Conclusion The bastardy of Clovis was a serious issue in late-fourteenth and fifteenth-century French historiography. Behind the unofficial accounts of the reign of Childeric stood a social development that made Clovis's bastardy distasteful, a contemporary controversy that made it current, and a dominant, royalist ideology that made it impossible. The authors of those accounts were people of their times who experienced all of this. They had compelling contemoorarv reasons to choose their words carefully. That so many of them chose words that would obscure or positively fail to indicate the possibility that Clovis was a bastard is testimony to the success of the royalist propaganda theme according to which the French dynastic past had been free of illegitimacy. The "political theology of the royal bloodline" held that no bastard had ever sat on the French throne. In the majority of the late-medieval unofficial histories of France that 1 examined, none had. Only the chronicle written for Robert Jolivet stated that Clovis, Louis111, and Carloman had been kings and bastards, and only nine others identified the two sons of Louis 11 as monarchs of illegitimate birth. The remaining twelve presented a French dynastic past unsullied by illegitimacy. To preserve the legitimacy of the royal line required certain manipulations of the facts. For one thing, one had either to omit the fact that Louis III and Carloman were bastards or to deny that they had been kings. A majority of the unofficial historians under consideration were willing to do so, for twelve of them presented 226 Louis and Carloman as something other than bastard kings. What is more, since one could let stand the traditional tale of Childeric's marriage only at the risk of readers concluding that Clovis was of illegitimate birth, one had to omit the most compromising facts about that event. Even more of the unofficial historians were willing to do so, since eighteen of them did not relate the full tale of Childeric's marriage. What is more, correspondances between how the unofficial historians presented Louis III and Carloman and what they said about the marriage of Childeric suggest that the two matters may not have been unrelated in many of their minds. On the one hand, only five of the fourteen historians who omitted the most sensitive fact about Childeric's marriage to Basina, namely, that the latter was married to another man at the time, stated that Louis and Carloman

were bastard kings. 124 on the other hand, five of the eight historians who noted that Basina was married to Basinus at the time of her

marriage to Childeric did so.^25 in other words, those historians who

^ 24Basina either is not mentioned or is mentioned but not said to have been the wife of Basinus at the time of her marriage to Childeric, and Louis III and Carloman were bastard kings: B.N., fr. 1623, fr. 5696, fr. 5697, fr. 5709, fr. 10139. Basina either is not mentioned or is mentioned but not said to have been the wife of Basinus at the time of her marriage to Childeric, and Louis III and Carloman were something other than bastard kings: B.N., fr. 1233, fr. 1707, fr. 4940, fr. 4954, fr. 4991, fr. 5734, fr. 24976, n.a. fr. 4811, lat. 5159. It is, furthermore, striking to note that, collectively, those who went the furthest in shielding Clovis's birth from the specter of illegitimacy were the least likely to present Louis and Carloman as bastard kings: only two of the ten works in question that made no mention whatever of Basina presented Louis and Carloman as royal bastards (B.N., fr. 5696 and fr. 5709).

'25Basina is said to have been married to Basinus at the time of her marriage to Childeric, and Louis III and Carloman were bastard kings: B.N., fr. 9688, fr. 10468, fr. 23019, n.a. fr. 7519, lat. 14663. Basina is said to have been married to 227 were least willing to compromise Clovis's legitimacy were, collectively, far less prone to admit that two bastards had sat on the French throne than were those who were willing to report that Childeric had wed a married woman. Since the former were in the majority, the ideological necessity according to which France's dynastic past was free of bastardy triumphed in unofficial late- medieval French historiography over the fact of the reigns of Louis 111 and Carloman and over the traditional account of Clovis's birth. However, even as these facts bear testimony to a triumph of the dominant interpretation of French history, they also indicate that that triumph was never complete, not even in a matter so grave as the purity of the royal line. A substantial minority of unofficial late- medieval historians did present Louis 111 and Carloman as illegitimate children who had been legitimate French kings. The implications of Clovis's bastardy were, given the general inflation of that king's reputation in the later Middle Ages, more serious, but a small minority still chose not to obscure the circumstances of his birth. They did not share the sensibilities of those who did, and their readers will have learned what those of the others will have not. What is more, if most historians chose words that did not convey the impression that Clovis was a bastard, their very choices indicate an awareness of the possibility that he was. The author of the gloss was aware of that possibility and, ironically, his rebuttal publicized it. If the chronicle patronized by Robert Jolivet indicates the extreme circumstances under which the conclusion that Clovis was a bastard

Basinus at the time of her marriage to Childeric, and Louis III and Carloman were something other than bastard kings: B.N., fr. 5704, fr. 10137, lat. 5027. 228 could be stated, it also indicates the ease with which it could be reached. It is true that the propaganda theme according to which France's dynastic past had been free of bastardy was a largely successful one. It is true that late-medieval histories of France trum peted forth Clovis the divinely-assisted conqueror, Clovis the Most Christian, Clovis the saint. But it is also true that, quietly, the unofficial histories of late-medieval France allow us to catch a glimpse of Clovis the bastard. CHAPTER IV THE FRENCH KILL THEIR KINGS

Introduction An essential characteristic of the dominant interpretation of French history in the later Middle Ages was a stress on what - supposedly - made the French monarchy distinct, unique, and superior to all other regimes. In the hands of skilled and imaginative propagandists, the highly elaborated historical themes that underlined the singularity of the French monarchy came to serve not only to enhance the prestige of the French crown, but also to denigrate that of all others. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, a time of unremitting conflict between the French and the English, the primary subject of the unflattering historical comparisons to which these themes gave rise was the English monarchy. Thus, to give a first example, official historians, propagandists, and other enthusiasts of the French monarchy contrasted the unbroken dynastic continuity that they held to have characterized the history of the French crown to the dynastic discontinuity that, they asserted, was a hallmark of the history of the English one. On

229 230 the one hand, a string of genealogical fantasies and factual distortions simplified the history of the French monarchy by putting in place a single, legitimate, hereditary royal bloodline which ran uninterruptedly from France's first monarch to its current king.i On the other, many Frenchmen complicated English dynastic history beyond any reasonable historical foundation. The remarkable dynastic continuity that characterized French history stood in sharp contrast to the no less remarkable fact that, as the chancellor of France asserted in 1484, the English had changed dynasty some twenty-six times.^ Likewise, numerous late-medieval authors contrasted the relentless pursuit of religious orthodoxy that they believed to have characterized the history of the French crown to the irreligious

^ For a brief summary of the genealogical and historical distortions by which dynastic continuity was assured, see Colette Beaune, The Birth of an Ideology: Mvths and Symbols of Nation in Late-Medieval France.trans. Susan Ross Huston, ed. Frederic L. Cheyette, Berkeley 1991, 182-83. For detailed discussions of how the most obvious gap in the royal genealogy, that which separated the Capetians from their predecessors, was closed see Bernard Guenee, "Les généalogies entre l'histoire et la politique: la fierté d'être Capétien, en France, au Moyen Age," Annales: Economies Sociétés Civilisations 33 (1978) 450-477, and Gabrielle M. Spiegel, "The Reditus Resni ad Stiroem Karoli Masni: A New Look," French Historical Studies 7 (1971) 145-174.

2p.S. Lewis, "Two Pieces of Fifteenth-Century Political Iconography: (a) Clovis Touches for the King's Evil; (b) The English Kill Their Kings," in his Essavs in Later Medieval French Historv. London 1985, 191, citing Jean Masselin, Journal des Etats généraux de France tenus à Tours en 1484 (ed. A. Bemier) Paris 1835 (Collection de documents inédits sur l'histoire de France) 38. Having referred to Richard Ill's usurpation of the English throne in 1483, the Chancellor told the Estates that "We read, further, that after the times of William 1, who appropriated that region by arms, this is the ninth translation of its monarchy, and from the beginning of the practice of monarchy, the twenty- sixth" ("Legimus siquidem quod post tempera primi Guillelmi, qui regionem illam armis vindicavit, haec ejus regni nona translatio est, et ab exordio instituti regni, vicesima sexta"). 231 behavior in which, they maintained, the kings of England had all too often engaged. On the one hand, a cluster of historical arguments illustrated that the kings of France were indeed Most Christian monarchs.3 On the other, Frenchmen did not lack for historical proofs of the English kings' disregard for orthodoxy and disrespect for the Church. Writing in 1459, the historian Noël de Fribois, refuting the "false and damnable assertion of the English" to the effect that theirs was superior to all other Christian nations, invoked some of the more popular ones. Whereas the kings of France had always shown concern for unity within the Church by laboring to resolve some twenty-three schisms, the English had not even been

represented at the "holy ancient councils of the UniversalC h u rch " .^ Even as French monarchs strove to extirpate religious error from their kingdom, the kings of England governed a realm that had given birth to numerous heresies, not the least of which was "the false, perverse, and venomous doctrine of Pelagius".s Finally, a single and utterly damning incident sufficed to illustrate the disrespect in which

3por examples, see Beaune, The Birth of an Ideology. 172-81.

^B.N,, fr. 1233, fol. 111b. Fribois took offense to the fact that "Ilz [the English] et par especial a ce quilz se sont derr. efforcez de eslever la nacion dangleterre sur toutes autres nacions cresüenne laquelle es saincts anciens consilles de leglise universelle na lieu ne represencion de nacion comme les autres nacions principales ". In contrast stood the fact that " les roys de ce treschrestien royaume ont oste et extirpe vint trois grans scismes" (fol. 84vA).

^B.N., fr. 1233, fol. llvA . Fribois refuted the notion that "la nacion dangleterre est a eslever et recommander sur toutes autres nacions chrestiennes en ferme et invariable observacion de la foy catholique" by stating that "le contraire de la faulce et dempnable assercion desdis anglois est vray Car si comme il est contenu ou décret la faulse perverse et venimeuse doctrine de pelagius monachus britannins est reprovee et dampnee par les droiz." 232 the kings of England held the clergy. Henry 11 of England had been complicit in the murder of Saint Thomas of Canterbury, who had been killed "for [his] defense of the rights and liberties of the Church", and who, Fribois and many other Frenchmen did not neglect to point out, had been warmly received in France during his exile by Henry's contemporary, Louis V1I.6 Just as the kings of France and England had historically taken different stands in religious matters, so had they historically taken up arms for different reasons. In the later Middle Ages, official historians and other propagandists claimed that the French monarchs had historically resorted to war in order to defend their legitimate rights. They contrasted this defense of legitimate rights to the prosecution of unjust and offensive wars which, they asserted, characterized the martial undertakings of the English crown. While the contrast was given its fullest expression in the "war propaganda" of the late-fourteenth and fifteenth centuries,^ the notion that the

^B.N., fr. 1233, fol. 112vA. One historical incident sufficed to disprove the assertion that "les angloys ont eu sur toutes autres nacions leurs prelatz en grant reverence honneur et obéissance comme vray füz de saincte eglise," namely: "Pour respondre a ceste faulse assercion. je me rapporte a ce que en ont escript les anciens historiens approuvez et me suffist de y respondre. perhemptoirement par une seule raison, contenue en droit canon et notoiere en toute crestiente Laquelle raison sensuit. Les angloys occirent cruelement saint thomas de contorbery pour la desfence des droiz et libertez de leglise ". Fribois at this point referred his readers to the account of the murder of Thomas found earlier in his work (fol. lOOvA): " henry regnant lors en angleterre saint thomas tantost quil fut retourne de france oudit pays dangleterre a son eglise et a son peuple En haine de la deffence de la liberté de liglise. pour laquelle il avoit este en exil fut occis en son eglise par quatre satellites dudit henry ".

^For examples, and for detailed discussions of French "war propaganda", see P.S. Lewis, "War Propaganda and Historiography in Fifteenth-Century France and England," in his Essavs in Later Medieval French Historv. London 1985, 193-213; Nicole Grevy-Pons, "Propagande et sentiment national pendant le 233 kings of France resorted to violence only to defend the realm against external attacks, to protect their own legitimate rights, or to safeguard the rights of the Church predated the beginning of the Hundred Years' War.8 it was yet another important respect in which the French crown was unique and superior to all others. Like its supposed dynastic continuity and religious orthodoxy, it could be used to exalt the French monarchy over any foreign enemy or rival. Because the English crown was its chief adversary, it was primarily against it that propagandists directed unfavorable comparisons in the later Middle Ages. It was within this context that late-medieval French propagandists contrasted the regicidal tendencies of the English to the supposed absence of regicide in French history. Noting that "the regicidal proclivities of the English had a considerable fascination for fifteenth-century Frenchmen," P.S. Lewis assembled considerable evidence to demonstrate the popularity of the late-medieval historical propaganda theme according to which the English killed their kings whereas the French did not.9 règne de Charles VI: L'exemple de Jean de Montreuil," Francia 8 (1980) 127- 145, and Nicole Pons, "La propagande de guerre française avant l'apparition de Jeanne d'Arc," Journal des Savants 1982, 191-214. Four examples of French "war propaganda" have been published by Nicole Pons (ed.), "L'honneur de la couronne de France": Quatre libelles contre les Anglais (vers 1418 - vers 1429). Paris (Société de l'Histoire de France) 1990.

80n this theme, which permeates the Grandes Chroniques, see Gabrielle M. Spiegel, "Defense of the Realm': Evolution of a Capetian Propaganda Slogan," Journal of Medieval Historv 3:2 (1977) 115-133,167.

^P.S. Lewis, "Two Pieces of Fifteenth-Century Political Iconography: (a) Clovis Touches for the King's Evil; (b) The English Kill Their Kings," in his Essavs in Later Medieval French Historv. London 1985,189-192. 234 Among those who took note of the fact that the English habitually killed their kings were the anonymous author of "Après la destruction de Troye la grant", a treatise against the English claim to the French throne written in 1419-1420, the ecclesiastic, propagandist, and historian Jean Juvenal des Ursins in 1444, the royal secretary and historian Noël de Fribois in 1459, and the ecclesiastic, royal servant, and historian Thomas Basin in 1483-1484. While Juvenal des Ursins and others noted simply that regicide was a veritable English custom,lo some authors told their readers just how many times the English had slain their monarchs. The author of "Après la destruction de Troye la grant" and Thomas Basin in his Historiarum Ludovici XU 2 gave the number of regicides as twenty- two, but neither listed the royal victims of English perfidy. Those

^Ojuvenal des Ursins, in his Traictie comoendieux de la querelle de France contre les Anglois (1444), wrote that "Ilz ont une maniéré en Angleterre quilz ne tiennent comte de changier leur roy quant bon leur semble, voire de les tuer & faire morir mauvaisement" (cited by Lewis, "Two Pieces of Fifteenth- Century Political Iconography," 191). According to P.S. Lewis, "Jean Juvenal des Ursins and the Common Literary Attitude Towards Tyranny in Fifteenth- Century France," in his Essavs in Later Medieval French Historv. London 1985, 168, note 2, the author of an "aberrant version" of Noël de Fribois' Abreee des Chroniques de France (c.1500) and the author of a verse "Epistre envoyee par feu Henry, roy d’Angleterre, a Henry son fils, huytiesme de ce nom, a present regnant oudict royaulme" (1512) likewise took up the theme of English regicide without noting precisely how many times it had occurred.

^ ^ Lewis, "Two Pieces of Fifteenth-Century Political Iconography," 191. For the French text, see note 19 below. On the treatise, which survives in at least six fifteenth-century manuscripts, see Andre Bossuat, "Les Origines troyennes: Leur rôle dans la littérature historique au XVe siècle," Annales de Normandie 8 (1958) 195-196; P.S. Lewis, "War Propaganda and Historiography in Fifteenth- Century France and England," in his Essavs in Later Mediev^ French Historv. London 1985, 202, note 6; Nicole Pons, "La propagande de guerre frai^aise avant l'apparition de Jeanne d'Arc," Journal des Savants ( 1982) 191-2x4.

1 ^Lewis, "Jean Juvenal des Ursins and the Common Literary Attitude Towards Tyranny," 169, note 1. For Basin's text, see note 17 below. 235 who did list them provided considerably shorter enumerations. Writing sometime between 1422 and 1430, the anonymous author of Fluxo biennali soacio. a dialogue wherein an Englishman and a Frenchmen argue the rightfulness of their respective causes, named six murdered English m o n a r c h s . 13 About thirty years later, Noël de

Fribois did the same in his Abrëgë des Chroniques de F r a n c e .i^ Possessors of certain manuscripts of Fribois’ work could, in addition to reading about how the English killed their kings, also see this theme represented pictorally. Two copies of the second recension ( 1461) of his history contained miniatures depicting six dead English

kings and, for good measure, the dead Saint Thomas of Canterbury, is The fact that the English killed their kings revealed both that the kings of England were poor governors and that the people of England were poor subjects. The former were unable to maintain the loyalty of the latter, and the latter were by nature disloyal and treacherous. Indeed, French authors who evoked regicide in England

l^Lewis, "Two Pieces of Fifleenth-Cenlury Political Iconography," 191, and Pons, "La propagande de guerre française avant l'apparition de Jeanne d'Arc," 194-195, 203. For further information on this treatise, which survives in at least three manuscripts as well as in ancient editions of the works of Jean Gerson, see the second of these articles. The monarchs in question were Oswald, Oswin, Elfwin, Egfrid, Osred, and Cnut.

l^Lewis, "Two Pieces of Fifteenth-Century Political Iconography", 191-92, who gave the full text of Fribois' historical dissertation on English regicide. The six kings in question were Oswald, an unidentifiable "Breuil", Elfwin, Egfrid, Osred, and Cnut. On the royal notary and secretary Noël de Fribois and on his Abrège des Chroniques de France (1459), see section (N) of Chapter II, "The Sources".

l^Lewis, "Two Pieces of Fifteenth-Century Political Iconography," 189 (plates) and 192. The miniatures in question are found in Paris, B.N., fr. 4943, fol. 41v and Geneva, Bibl. Pub. et Univ., fr. 83, fol. 49v. 236 presented it as nothing less than an ingrained, chronic defect in the national character of that nation. Juvenal des Ursins, who noted that "they do not hesitate to change their king when they feel like, indeed to kill them and to make them die wickedly," would seem to have viewed English regicide as the result of inconstancy and even of flippancy. 16 in discussing the events of 1483, Thomas Basin evoked the fact that the English had killed twenty-two kings, his point being that the murder of the English king Edward V and his brother Richard ought to come as no surprise to one familiar with English history: "Indeed, it is not a new or recent thing that the kings of this people have been either killed or dispossessed of the monarchy by seditions stirred up against them, when up to twenty-two are reported to have been killed by such factions and enmities of treacherous men mounted against them."i7 The author of "Après la destruction de Troye la grant" likewise presented the propensity for regicide as an integral part of the violent and treacherous English national character. The English, he explained, were "a sect of cursed people, contrary to all good and to all reason, rapacious wolves, proud, pompous, canting, deceitful and without conscience, tyrants and persecutors of Christians, and who drink and swallow human blood, resembling the character of birds of

^ 6por ihe French text, see noie 10 above.

1 ^Thomas Basin. Histoire de Louis XIVII. 2 (ed. Charles Samaran) Paris 1963- 1972, III, 234-236: "Non enim novum est aut recens iUius popuh reges, concitatis adversum se sedicionibus, vel extinctos vel regno deturbatos fuisse, cum referantur usque ad viginti duos, talibus factionibus et obortis contra se perfidorum simultatibus, fuisse occisos." 237 prey who live by rapine and at the expense of their affable and courteous neighbors." 18 Regicide was only the most spectacular manifestation of their inability civilly to participate in the community of nations. How, he asked, could the English be expected "to do good unto others when they betray and destroy their kings and sovereign lords, as one can know by king Richard [II] and by several other of their kings up to the number of twenty-two, whom they deceived and disloyally betrayed and made to die in the past by their disloyal and wicked treasons"?^ 9 Noël de Fribois also diagnosed regicide as a symptom of a greater illness inherent in the English people. He presented his list of murdered monarchs as the "refutation and contestation" of the assertion that the English were "to be commended above all other nations in true subjection and firm obedience towards kings and princes and temporal lords". Quite to the contrary, history demonstrated that "the English have been deceitful, bad, and disloyal toward their kings". He concluded his historical dissertation on

^ 8"Après la destruction de Troye la grant", cited following B.N., fr. 5059, fol. 49v, by Pons, "La propagande de guerre française avant l'apparition de Jeanne d'Arc," 202, note 47: " d'une secte de gens maudite, contredisans a tout bien et a toute raison, loups ravissans, orgueilleux, pompeux, papelars, decevans et sans conscience, tirans et persécuteurs de chrestiens, et qui boivent et transgloutissent le sang humain, ressemblant a la nature des oyseaulx de proye qui vivent de rapine et aux despens de leurs simples et débonnaires voisins."

^9"Après la destruction de Troye la grant", cited following B.N., fr. 5059, fols. 49v-50, by Lewis, "Two Pieces of Fifteenth-Century Political Iconography," 191: the English "ne pourroient bien faire a autrui quant ilz traisent et destruissent leurs roys et souverains seigneurs, comme on puet savoir par le roy Richart [II] et par plusieurs autres de leurs roys jusques au nombre de xxij quilz ont desappointez et faulsement traiz et fair morir ou temps passe par leurs faulses et mauvaises traisons." 238 English regicide by providing his readers with a veritable bibliography of works wherein one could find additional evidence of the "perverse ways and vicious qualities and detestable superstitions" of the English, characteristics of which their propensity for regicide was but one e x a m p le .20 Regicide was more than a simple historical fact. It was a light that illuminated the whole of English history by bringing into view a fundamental and timeless trait of the English national character. The same held true of the supposed absence of regicide in the history of France. Just as repeated instances of regicide in English history revealed that the English were at once poorly governed and treacherous, the lack of such episodes in French history was proof of the partnership that, since time immemorial, had bound together a loyal population and its just and worthy rulers. P.S. Lewis and Colette Beaune summarized this propaganda theme by noting that, in the dominant late-medieval interpretation of French history, "the loyalty of the French was indisputable "21 and that "the regicide English were contrasted to the French, who never killed or wounded

20b.N., fr. 1233, fols. 112b-112vA: "La seconde chose que les angloys ont fait dogmatiser et semer est que ilz sont a recommander sur toutes autres nacions en vraye subiection et ferme obéissance, envers les roys et princes et seigneurs temporelz dicelle nation dangleterre. Sensuit la confutacion et impugnacion de caste assercion." There follows Fribois' list of six murdered English kings, which is immediately followed by: "Et en oultre [my emphasis] de leurs perverses meurs et condicions viciouses et supersticions détestables peut appercevoir par le décret en la premiere partie appelle les distinctions ou cappitre si gens anglorum et par autres saincts docteurs de leglise sicomme Bede venerable prestre angloys. Guillermus de malmebery angloys Sigibert et Vincent de beauves. tresnotables hystoriens."

21 Lewis, "Jean Juvenal des Ursins and the Common Literary Attitude Towards Tyranny," in his Essavs in Later Medieval French History. 169. 239 members of their holy line. The blood of France had never been spilled except in the name of God For the kings of France were 'blessed with never being killed or slain in war, have never been killed or slain or expelled by their people'."22 Indeed, the notion that the French had never killed their kings even entered into the official discourse of the monarchy when, at the meeting of the Estates-General held at Tours in 1484, it was evoked by the Chancellor of France and by the spokesman for the Estates. Like Thomas Basin, the Chancellor used the events of 1483 as the springboard for a contrast between English perfidy and French loyalty. Having evoked the fate of Edward TV's sons, he went on to explain that "if we retrace the histories of this [English] nation a little further, it will be established that hardly two or at most three kings were left undisturbed, and obtained the royal power without revolution, so much it was readily transferred by the people to another's offspring, leaving behind the true heirs. We read, further, that after the times of William I, who appropriated that region by arms, this is the ninth translation of the monarchy, and from the beginning of the practice of monarchy, the twenty-sixth. Without question, there will be no one who may detect this inconstancy, this mark of wickedness, in the loyal people ofG a u ls." ^3 The spokesman

ZZgeaune, The Birth of an Ideology. 190.

23jean Masselin, Tournai des Etats Généraux de France tenus a Tours en 1484. éd. Adhehn Bemier (Collection de documents inédits sur l'histoire de France) Paris 1835, 38: "Et si paulo altius ejus gentis historias repetamus, constabit vix duos, aut ad summum très reges quietos fuisse, sineque mutatione regnum assecutos, quin a populo facile in alienam sobolem, veris relictis haeredibus, transferretur. Legimus siquidem quod post tempora primi Guillelmi, qui regionem illam armis vindicavit, haec ejus regni nona translatio est, et ab 240 for the Estates was more direct: " in England we see kings again and again massacred by the people, which has never been discovered in the case of the loyal people of theG au ls." 24 The French, according to a widespread and quasi-official historical propaganda theme, had never killed their kings. While the absence of regicide in French history was a popular theme, it did, like so many other components of the dominant late- medieval interpretation of French history, have the significant drawback of being false. Some French kings had in fact been assassinated and, as one shall see presently, others who had not in fact been murdered were sometimes said to have been in late- medieval French historiography. In the previous chapter, we examined how unofficial historians resolved the conflict between the historical reality of bastardy in the history of the French monarchy and the late-medieval ideological necessity according to which their had been none. In this chapter, we shall see how, in the face of a dominant ideology that made regicide in French history impossible, they treated the historical reality of French regicide. Did the French kill their kings, or not? I examined the unofficial histories of France in order to find out.

exordio instituti regni, vicesLma sexta. Non erit profecto qui in fideli Gallorum populo hanc inconstantiam, hanc sceleris notam deprehendat....

24jean Masselin, Tournai des Etats Gen&aux de France tenus a Tours en 1484. ed. Adhelm Bemier (Collection de documents inédits sur l'histoire de France) Paris 1835, 252: " in Anglia cemimus reges a populo saepenumero trucidatos; quod nunquam in fideli Galliarum populo repertum est.... 241 Table 1: Regicide in the Unofficial Histories of France

Column 1: Sigibert I Column 7; Lothar Column 2: Chilperic I Column 8: Louis V Column 3: Childeric II Column 9: Charles of Lorraine Column 4; Charles the Bald Column 10: Others Column 5: Louis II Column 11: Total number of Column 6: Charles the Simple regicides per history

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Fr. 1233 0 Fr. 1623 XX 2 Fr. 1707 Xa 1 Fr. 4948 X Xb 2 Fr. 4954 X X 2 Fr. 4991 XXXX 4 Fr. 5696 XXX 3 Fr. 5697 X X X X 4 Fr. 5704 X X XX 4 Fr. 5709 X 1 Fr. 5734 X XX 3 Fr. 9688 X X XX 4 Fr. 10137 X X X Xc 4 Fr. 10139 XXX X 4 Fr. 10468 XXXX X Xd 6 Fr. 23019 X X X X 4 Fr. 24976 X X X X 4 N.A. Fr. 4209 X XXXXX 6 N.A. Fr.4811 X 1 N.A. fr. 7519 X X XX X Xe 6 Lat. 5195 0 Lat. 14663 X XX 3 TOTAL 11 11 14 10 2 5 3 5 2

The author roporluU that some people affirmed that John I had not died a natural death, although he himself discounted this rumon "Aucunsdient ccriainement/Que sa mort iuy fut avancie/M ais pour vray je ne ied\ mie" (foi. 36v). Chiotar ii. said by the author to have been killed hy Urunechiidis (foi. 9(iv).

'• The author reported that some say that Chiidebert ill and his wife were poisoned: they "trespassèrent ensemble dont aucuns dient quiiz furent empoisonnez" (foi. 6v). Chiotar ii. said by the author to have been killed by Brunechiidis (foi. 106). i heuderic ii. poisoned by Brunechiidis (foi. 2iv). 242 Regicide in the Unofficial Histories The accompanying table depicts my findings, and it indicates that unofficial late-medieval historians of France - and the readers of their works - were well aware that the French had killed their kings. 1 found no instances of regicide in French history in only two of the unofficial histories of France that 1 examined, namely, Noël de Fribois' Abrège des Chroniques de France (B.N. fr. 1233) and the chronicle of the French kings contained in B.N. lat. 5195.25 All of the others contained at least one mention of regicide in French history, and most of them recorded three or more such incidents. Taken together, the unofficial histories that 1 examined indicated that thirteen different monarchs had been murdered. The majority of the reported regicides dated to the Merovingian period, for forty of the sixty-eight accounts of regicide found in the works under consideration dealt with the six Merovingians said by one or more of their authors to have met with death by foul play. Sigibert I had in fact been stabbed to death in 575 by two men acting on the behalf of his sister-in-law, Fredegund. His assassination was noted in the Grandes Chroniques, and was reported by half of the historians whose works 1examined.26 His brother, Chilperic 1, was assassinated nine years later. The Grandes

25du6 to an error, I was unable to include one of the twenty-three unofficial histories of France that I examined, namely, B.N., lat. 5027, in my analysis of regicide in the unofficial histories. That analysis is based on the other twenty-two works presented in Chapter II, "The Sources".

26viard (ed.), GÇF1, 225-226. Ukewise: B.N., fr. 4991, fol. 4a; fr. 5696, fol. lOv; fr. 5697, fol. 12; fr. 5704, fol. 23v; fr. 5734, fol. 98v; fr. 9688, fol. 33; fr. 10139, fol. 5; fr. 10468, fol. 106; fr. 23019, fol. 20a; fr. 24976, fol. 13; n.a. fr. 7519, fol. 20v. 243 Chroniques attributed the murder to a certain Landry, lover of Chilperic's wife, Fredegund, who, they said, inspired him to his dirty deed, and eleven of the historians under consideration included these facts in their w o r k s .27 One historian, following the Grandes Chroniques, reported but did not confirm the possibility that

Childebert II died by poison in 596.28 Another reported that Theuderic II was poisoned in 613 by agents of his grandmother.

27viard (ed.), GÇF I, 310-315. Likewise: B.N., fr. 1623, fol. 90; fr. 4991, fol. 4b; fr. 5697, fol. 12; fr. 5704, fol. 23v; fr. 5709, fol. 74v; fr. 9688, fol. 33; fr. 10137, fol. 6; fr. 10468, fol. 106; fr. 23019, fol. 20a; fr. 24976, fol. 13; n.a. fr. 7519, fol. 20v. While one of these accounts indicated that Landry was the actual perpetrator of the crime (fr. 10468), and two explained the role of Fredegund's adultery in provoking the assassination (fr. 5709: Chilperic "fu occis par la trayson de sa femme au soir venant de la chasse par ung nomme Lauderic duquel la royne estoit amoureuse"; fr. 10137: "Puis [Fredegund] fist occire ledit chilperic ainsi quil venoit de chasser, par landry queux du palais Pour ce quil estoit jalouz delle et dudit landry"), the others simply stated that Fredegund had Chilperic killed, without providing any description of the circumstances. This general lack of description stands in curious contrast to the much greater degree of detail that characterized the eleven accounts of the other regicide for which Fredegund was held responsible, namely, the assassination of Sigibert I: only three of those accounts (fr. 5696; fr. 5734; fr. 10468) were limited to the general statement that Fredegund had Sigibert killed; the other eight indicated that the actual perpetrators were two men who did her bidding, and five of them (fr. 5697; fr. 10139; fr. 23019; fr. 24976; n.a. fr. 7519) explained that they were motivated by greed, having been promised great rewards by Fredegund. The likely explanation for the difference lies, it seems to me, in the different motivations of the perpetrators. We have already seen, in the preceding chapter, that queenly adultery was an extremely sensitive issue in late- medieval French historiography, and tlie difference in the way in which historians presented the assassinations of Sigibert and Chilperic suggests that they were, so to speak, more sensitive to adultery than to regicide: while half of die authors under consideration told their readers that Chilperic had been assassinated, only two opted to explain the motivation of his assassins.

28b.N., fr. 10137, fol. 6v: Childebert and his wife "trespasserent ensemble dont aucuns dient quUz furent empoisonnez," following the Grandes Chroniques. Viard (éd.), II, 36: "il et sa fame morurent tuit ensemble. Si cuiderent aucun que il fussent enpoisone." 244 Brunechiidis, a fact also recorded in the Grandes Chroniaues.^^ Two others erroneously reported that Brunechiidis, who was in fact put to death by Chiotar II, had had that monarch killed.^o Finally, fourteen of the unofficial historians whose works I studied reported the assassination of Childeric II in 675. This regicide, in addition to being the one most widely reported by late-medieval French historians, was also, in many important respects, the most spectacular in French history and the most controversial in French historiography, and I will consider it in detail and at length later in this chapter. Six Carolingians, none of whom were in fact assassinated, were said to have met with death by foul play in one or more of the unofficial histories that I scrutinized for evidence of regicide in French history. Collectively, those histories contained twenty-seven accounts of wrongful deaths sufferred by Pepin's progeny. Nearly half of them reported the untimely demise of Charles the Bald. Charlemagne's grandson was said to have been poisoned by his own doctor in six of them, by a Jew in three of them, and by a Jew who was his doctor in one of them.3i In addition, two other unofficial

29b.N., n.a. fr. 7519, fol. 21v: "Bonne li.e.. Brunechiidis] la royne ayeulle dudit thierry lui courut sus Et après le fist elle mourir par venin ", following the Grandes Chroniques. Viard (éd.), II, 65-67.

30b.N., fr. 4948, fol. 96v: " Brunehault la male royne le fist occire"; B.N., fr. 10468, fol. 106; " Et puis elle [Brunechiidis] fist tuer le roy ".

Charles the Bald was poisoned by his own doctor: B.N., fr. 1623, fol. 92; fr. 5697, fol. 19v; fr. 9688, fol. 36v; ff. 10139, fol. 8; fr. 23019, fol. 26a; fr. 24976, fol. 21. He was poisoned by a Jew: B.N., fr. 5696, fols. 22-22v; fr. 5734, fol. 102; fr. 10137, fol. 16v. He was poisoned by a Jew who was his doctor: B.N., n.a. fr. 7519, fol. 29v. 245 historians of France reported the poisoning of Charles's son and successor, LouisII, although without naming thecu lp rit.3 2 The third Carolingian sometimes said to have been killed with malice aforethought was Charles the Simple, who had in fact spent the last seven years of his life in the citadel at Peronne, where he was imprisoned by Herbert II of Vermandois in 922 and where he died in 929. These facts were reported in the Grandes Chroniques, and only rarely did late-medieval historians of France choose to say nothing about Charles's imprisonment and death. Indeed, only two of the unofficial histories that I examined for evidence of regicide in French history passed over in silence the circumstances of his demise. Their silence is, however, significant when taken in context, for the two works in question are among those that made the least mention of regicide in general. One of them reported only one case of the French having killed their king (Chilperic I). The other made no mention of regicide other than to report that, according to some people, the infant John I, the only Capetian said to have been murdered in any of the works presently under consideration, had died an unnatural d ea th .3 3 That these two authors chose not to

fr. 4954, fol. ll v ("Et deceda par venin sans hoir "), and B.N., n.a. fr. 4209, fol. 5v ("II fut empoisonne et ne régna que deux ans").

the eighth book of the universal chronicle contained in B.N., fr. 5709, the only recorded case of regicide is the murder of Chilperic I, who "fu occis par la trayson de sa femme au soir venant de la chasse par ung nomme Lauderic duquel la royne estoit amoureuse" (fol. 74v). The author of the Dit des Rovs made no mention of regicide other than recording, and dismissing, the rumor according to which John I had been murdered; "Aucuns dient certainement/Qpe sa mort luy fut avancie/Mais pour vray je ne le dy mie" (B.N., fr. 1707, fol. 36v). 246 mention the incarceration and death in prison of Charles the Simple indicates that, although that monarch had not in fact been murdered, his demise could and did trouble the sensibilities of some late- medieval French historians: it was, I think, not by accident that two historians who were extremely reluctant to admit the fact of regicide in French history declined to tell their readers that a French king had died in the prison of one of the greatest nobles of his kingdom. All of the other historians whose works 1 scrutinized did mention Charles's imprisonment, but three of them stopped short of stating that he had died in confinement. One simply noted that Herbert of Vermandois "captured him and put him in prison in the citadel".34 Another reported only that "king Charles the Simple was, the greatest part of his time, prisonner atP e r o n n e " .^5 a third mentioned his imprisonment only in passing, explaining that "during the reign of the said Charles the Simple, while he was in prison at Peronne, Raoul [of Burgundy] reigned for twelve years" .3 6 Like the two works that mentioned neither the imprisonment nor the death of Charles the Simple, the three that mentioned only his imprisonment are among those that made the least mention of regicide in general, for two of them signalled only two instances of regicide in French history and the other noted no such incidents. Once again, then.

^4b.N., fr. 1623, fol. 92v: "Et puis Ie priât et le mist en prison ou chastel."

fr. 4954, fol. 13: " le roy Charles le simple fut la plusgrant partie de son temps prisonnier a peronne."

36b.N., lat. 5195, fol. 11: " durant aussi le regne dudit Charles le simple tant quU estoit en prison a peronne Raul conte de vermendois Fsicl regna XII ans." 247 authors who were reluctant to discuss regicide in French history were reluctant to describe the death of Charles the Simple, and this was, I would once again argue, not accidental. It was not an accident because Charles the Simple's death in prison was in fact assimilated to regicide by a sizeable minority of late-medieval French historians. The remaining seventeen unofficial histories under consideration all stated that Charles had died in prison. While most of them used language that indicated only that he had died there - Charles "died in prison at Peronne where Herbert, the count of Vermandois, put him by treason"; "He was captured and put in prison where he died"; "The king came to Peronne, where the said count captured him and placed him under arrest as a prisoner in the citadel of the said city, and there he ended his days", said typical accounts^^ - some of them used language that indicated, more or less explicitly, that he had been killed there. One author stated that Charles's son, Louis IV, took vengeance on Herbert of Vermandois "because he had made the king, his father, die in his prison",38 and another, likewise, explained that Herbert "made him

37 b.N., fr. 4948, fols. 96v-97: "II morul en prison a peronne ou hebert ie conte de vermendois le mist par traison"; B.N., fr. 5696, fol. 24v: "Et quant le roy fut a peronne 11 fut prins et mis en prison ou il mourut B.N., fr. 5704, fol. 33: " le roy vint a peronne la ou ledit compte le print et le mist en arrest comme prisonnier au chastel de ladite ville, et la il fina ses jours ". Similar accounts are in B.N., fr. 1233, fol. 96vA; fr. 5697, fol. 21v; fr. 5734, fol. 102v; fr. 9688, fol. 37v; fr. 10137, fol. 18v; fr. 10468, fol. 107v; fr. 23019, fol. 27a; fr. 24976, fols. 21- 21v; lat. 14663, fol. 17.

38b.N., fr. 10139, fol. 8v: "Cestuy loys fist prendre le conte herbert de vermandoys pour ce quil avoit fait mourir le roy son pere en sa prison." 248 die in prison".39 Two others implied that deprivation and cruel living conditions had been inflicted upon the king and had contributed to his death. One, who also wrote that Herbert of Vermandois "had made [Charles] die in his prison", explained that no one had provided the jailed monarch with the least comfort.40 The other stated, more explicitly, that Herbert "held him in prison so closely that he died".4i Finally, one unofficial historian of France left his readers with absolutely no doubt that Charles had been murdered: the king, he wrote, "was assassinated in the tower of Peronne, in great treason, by Herbert, count of Vermandois" .42 Three other Carolingians were also said to have been murdered in late-medieval French historiography. Three of the unofficial historians whose works I examined claimed that Charles the Simple's grandson, Lothar, was poisoned by his wife. While two of them provided no explanation for her action, one attributed it to the fact

that she was in love with anotherm a n .4 3 Five unofficial historians

n.a. fr. 4209, fol. 6v: " ie conte de vermandois qui avoit a nom humbert Isicl print par traison ledit Charles le simple et le fist mourir en prison ".

40b.N., n.a. fr. 7519, fols. 3I-31v: " Et quant ledit Charles fut a peronne. II fut prins. et detenu prisonnier, et en celle prison morit. ne ne fut nul qui conseil fsic: the copy of the same work in B.N., fr. 4990 reads "confort" (fol. 14)] y mist [Louis IV] noublia pas la mort du roy Charles le simple que le conte de vermandois avoit fait mourir en sa prison."

41b.N., fr. 4991, fol 10: "Cestui roy aprez ceste paix fut recontrez et pris par hebert conte de vermendois Et le tint en prison si estroictement quü mourut ".

42b.N., n.a. fr. 4811, fol. 6: "Et feust assassine es tour de Peronne en grante trahison par Herbert Comte de Vermandois."

43b.N., fr. 10468, fol. 108: "Le roy mouru lan IXc. llllxx VI. empoisonne par femme"; B.N., n.a. fr. 4209, fol. 7: " sa femme le fit empoisonner"; B.N., lat. 249 reported that Lothar's son, Louis V, had been murdered. While three of them stated that Louis was poisoned, one by his wife and two by unnamed assassins,^4 two placed the blame for his untimely demise on his successor, Hugh Capet. "Hugh Capet, count of Paris persecuted him and made him die," said one. "Hugh Capet rebelled against Louis and pursued him to his death," wrote the o th e r .4 5 The first Capetian, who, as one shall see presently, was considered to have been a usurper by most late-medieval French historians, was thus also considered to have been a regicide by some of them. The death of Louis V was not the only unnatural demise of a king for which some late-medieval French historians held Hugh Capet responsible. Charles of Lorraine, the uncle of Louis V, who was delivered to Capet by the treachery of Adalbero of Laon and who died in prison at Orleans, was generally considered to have been the legitimate successor to his nephew and sometimes considered to have been king of France in late-medieval French historiography. Only six of the unofficial histories under consideration made no

14663, fol. 17v: "II mourut de venin que sa femme qui amoit autre que lui lui donna."

fr. 4948, fol. 97: "Et fu empoisonne par sa femme B.N., fr. 4954, fol. 14: " deceda sans hoir par venin le premier an de son regne"; B.N., n.a. fr. 4209, fol. 7: " et le fist on mourir par poisons."

45b.N., fr. 10468, fol. 108: " hue cappet comte de paris fils de la seur othe lempereur qui descendi de charlemaine le persequta et fist mourir"; B.N., lat. 14663, fol. 17v: " hue chappet retenant en son cuer la hayne que ses devanciers avoient eu aux roys qui devant avoient regne se révéla encontre loys et le poursuy jusques a la mort." 250 mention ofC h a r l e s / 6 The other sixteen did mention him and, without exception and in various ways, they indicated that he had been the legitimate successor to Louis V.47 in addition, four of the works that mentioned Charles indicated that he had been king of France, one by describing him as the thirty-fourth French king, one by referring to him as "king" no less than seven times, one by twice

46Namely, B.N., fr. 1623; fr. 1707; fr. 4948; fr. 4954; fr. 5734; n.a. fr. 4811. While not to mention Charles of Lorraine was to downplay the rupture in dynastic continuity represented by the accession of Hugh Capet, it remains that only two of these six works provided no indication of dynastic discontinuity and irregularity in the succession, since one noted that Capet was the son of a bourgeois of Orleans (B.N., fr. 1623, fol. 93: " et fut fîlz dun bourgois dorliens "), one that he conquered the kingdom by his prowess (B.N., fr. 1707, fol. 35: "Dix ans ou royaume regna/Par proesse la conquesta"), and two that he was made king through the use of force (B.N., fr. 5734, fol. 103: " fu fait roy par force hue cappet conte de paris et duc de france "; B.N., n.a. fr. 4811, fol. 7v: " fu roy par force hue cappet conte de paris Cestuy roy par sa grant puissance tollit aux hoirs de pépin le royaume").

47 b.N., fr. 1233, fol. 98b: "Charles frere dudit roy lothaire regna après luy fsicl pource quil estoit trespasse sans hoir de son corps"; B.N., fr. 4991, fol. lia: "devoit succéder a la coronne Charles frere lothaire son oncle"; B.N., fr. 5696, fol. 27v: "auquel chartes le royaulme de droit appartenoit"; B.N., fr. 5697, fols. 22v-23: "fut fait roy par force hue cappet combien que le frere du roy lothaire nomme Charles fust encorres vivant"; B.N., fr. 5704, fol. 34v: "le royaulme appartint audit Charles duc de lorraine"; B.N., fr. 5709, fol. 77; "Charles XJÔCIIIIe roy de france"; B.N., fr. 9688, fol. 39: "Charles estoit encor vivant Et lui appartenoit le reaume de droit heritage"; B.N., fr. 10137, fol. 20: "Charles frere Lothaire tint le royaume après loys Contre luy hue le grant fi.e.. Capet] se rebella"; B.N., fr. 10139, fol. 9: "Car Charles estoit encore vivant et luy apartenoit le royaume de droit"; B.N., fr. 10468, fol. 108: "Charles cuida résister a hue cappet [Capet] nest pas mis en droicte ligne pource quil usurpa le droit dautruy"; B.N., fr. 23019, fol. 28a: "Car Charles estoit encore vivant et luy appartenoit le royaume de droit heritage"; B.N., fr. 24976, fol. 22v: "et establit le royaume a Charles son oncle frere de son pere mais il perdit car hue cappel le luy tollit"; B.N., n.a. fr. 4209, fol. 7: "les francois luy fi.e.. to Charles] voulsissent transporter le royaume, auquel de droit il devoit escheoir"; B.N., n.a. fr. 7519, fols. 32v-33: "Car Charles estoit encores vif et lui apartenoit de droit leritage"; B.N., lat. 5195, fol. llv : "Apres la mort duquel [Louis V] Charles gouverna le royaume IX ans"; B.N., lat. 14663, fol. 17v: "chartes duc de lorraine a qui le royaume estoit deu par droicte succession." 251 designating him as "king Charles", and one by calling him Charles 1V .48

Given the general consensus on his legitimacy, his death, which was similar to that of Charles the Simple, could be conceived as a regicide. While eight of the unofficial histories under consideration

said nothing about his d e m is e ,4 9 and while six of them noted only

that he was ultimately "defeated" by Hugh C a p e t,so the other eight indicated that he had been imprisoned. On the one hand, Noël de Fribois, who deliberately omitted all mention of French regicide from his work and who made a point of noting that Charles had not been king, said nothing about his death but did state that "the said Charles was imprisoned by his wife", and proceded to launch into a diatribe against disloyal women.si On the other hand, the remaining seven

48charles listed as the thirty-fourth king of France: B.N., fr. 5709, fol. 77; referred to as "roy" seven times: B.N., fr. 10137, fols. 20-20v; twice described as "le roy Charles": B.N., fr. 24976, fol. 25; called "Charles due de lohraine le quart ainsi nomme": B.N., n.a. fr. 4209, fol. 7.

4^as indicated in note 46 above, six did not mention him at all. In addition, the author of B.N., fr. 5709 simply indicated that he was the thity-fourth king of France, and the author of B.N., lat. 5195 made no comment on his death, noting only that he was never coronated and that "thus ended the line of king Pepin and Charles the Great" (fol. llv: " mais ne fut point couronne roy pour lempeschement que lui fist hue cappet et ainsy faillit la lignie du roy pépin et Charles le grant ").

50b.N., fr. 4991, fol. lia : "Et lui appartenoit le royaulme en droit heritaige et pource mena guerre longtemps a lencontre de hue cappet. Mais en la fin Charles fut desconfis. Et demora le royaulme paisiblement a hue capet et a ses hoirs ". Similarly: B.N., fr. 5697, fol. 23; fr. 9688, fol. 39; fr. 10139, fol. 9; fr. 23019, fol. 28a; n.a. fr. 7519, fol. 33.

Slfi.N., fr. 1233, fol. 98b: "Et fut ledit Charles emprisonne par sa femme et le persequta fort hue capeth et nest pas nomme roy pource que par la puissance dud. hue capeth ledit Charles ne peut estre couronne et ainsi fut par neuf ans. O mauvaise et desloyale indigne davoir nom de femme O faulse pariure devant dieu et les hommes et en face de saincte eglise qui dévoyés a ton seigneur et mary loyaulte honneur obéissance service et consolation ". 252 historians, all of whom identified Charles of Lorraine as the legitimate successor to Louis V and three of whom identified him as the king of France, noted that he had been imprisoned by Hugh Capet. One noted only that Charles and his wife were held prisonner for a long time,s2 but six stated that he had died while in confinement,^^ and two of these six hinted that his death had not been a natural one. "Some say that he escaped but that his wife poisoned him, from which he died", wrote one historian.54 "The said Hugh Capet made the said Charles and his two children die in prison in the said place of Orleans", explained the other, for whom Charles of Lorraine had been Charles IV of France.ss

52b.N., fr. 10137, fol. 20: " et [Hugh Capet] print le roy [that is, Charles] et sa femme prisonniers. Les tint longuement a Orleans....

53Namely, B.N., fr. 5696, fol. 27v; fr. 5704, fol. 34v; fr. 10468, fol. 108; fr. 24976, fol. 24v; n.a. fr. 4209, fol. 7; lat. 14663, fol. 18.

34b.N., fr. 5704, fol. 34v: " et [Hugh Capet] y mist en prison ledit Charles en la grosse tour dorleans ou il mourut, aucungs dient quil eschappa mais que sa femme lempoisonna dont il mourut ".

35b.N., n.a. fr. 4209, fol. 7: "Charles duc de lohraine le quart ainsi nomme filz de loys le quart et frere de lothaire oncle de loys le quint volt succéder au royaume après la mort de sondit nepueu lequel estoit son plus prouchain Ledit hue capet fist mourir ledit Charles et ses deux enfans en prison audit lieu dorleans." While the author of this chronicle based his work largely one of Bernard Gui's works on the history of the French monarchy (see section (O) of Chapter II, "The Sources"), and while Gui himself had càled Charles of Lorraine "Charles IV" (B.N., n.a. fr, 6776, translation of Gui's Arbor genealogie regum Francorum by Jean Golein, fol. XrVv), it is clear that the author of B.N., n.a. fr. 4209 used his own judgment in qualifying Charles as such. The other historian under consideration who used one of Gui's works as the basis for his own (B.N., lat. 14663) did not call Charles "the fourth", and the author of B.N., n.a. fr. 4209 was free to do the same had he disagreed with his source. What is more, the phrase "hue capet fist mourir ledit Charles en prison" is not Bernard Gui's: it was the author of n.a. fr. 4209, and not his source, that assimilated the death of Charles of Lorraine to regicide. 253 In sum, then, knowledge of regicide in French history was fairly widespread in late-medieval French historiography. On the one hand, the individual authors of histories of France and those who read their works were of course not aware of the full range of regicides collectively reported in fourteenth and fifteenth-century histories of France. The Grandes Chroniques did not have Louis 11, Charles the Simple, Lothar, Louis V, or Charles of Lorraine dying at the hands of regicides, and only by reading other sources or the few unofficial histories that, relying on other sources, reported them to have been murdered, could historians and their readers have learned of their supposed assassinations. Even several regicides that were reported in the Grandes Chroniques, such as the possible poisoning of Childebert 11 and the death by poison of Theuderic 11, were not known to most readers of late-medieval unofficial histories, since so few of those works even took note of these two monarchs. On the other hand, the assassinations of Sigibert 1, Chilperic 1, Childeric 11, and Charles the Bald were well-known, being reported both by the Grandes Chroniques and by quite a few unofficial historians, and it remains that only two of the unofficial histories presently under consideration contained no mention of murder in the history of the French kings.

Noël de Fribois There can be little doubt that the absence of regicide in Noël de Fribois' work was deliberate. Having insisted that the English killed their kings and having treated their regicidal tendencies as a peculiar 254 trait of their inferior national character, Noël de Fribois could hardly go on to describe how the French had killed theirs, and, indeed, he did not. While it is entirely possible that he had no knowledge of the regicides less frequently mentioned in late-medieval historiography, one finds it hard to believe that he had never read of the assassinations of some French kings, especially those of Sigibert 1, Chilperic 1, and Childeric 11, which were reported in the original sources upon which the Grandes Chroniques were based, in the Grandes Chroniques themselves, and in so many other histories of France. What is more, in a number of very instructive passages Fribois went out of his way to condemn treason in general and regicide in particular, but was very careful to do so without indicating that the French had ever killed one of their kings. To begin with, he stopped his narrative in order to warn "great princes" to choose their mates with care, but he did so at a rather curious point in his work, namely, after reporting that Charles of Lorraine had been imprisoned by his wife. On the one hand, such a warning would perhaps have been more to the point in commenting upon the death of Chilperic 1, but Fribois neither reported nor commented upon the circumstances of that monarch’s demise, despite his probable knowledge of its nature. On the other hand, Fribois emphasized that the last Carolingian had not been king.56 Consequently, even as reports of French kings having been

fr. 1233, fol. 98b. Fribois concluded the diatribe against unloyal wives that followed his account of Charles of Lorraine (see note 51 above) with the advice that great princes take care in choosing mates for themselves and for their children: "Et pour ce pregnent garde grans princes quant ils marieront eulx et leurs enfans ". 255 killed by their wives were fairly common in late-medieval French historiography, Fribois managed to warn against queenly malevolence without indicating that a French king had ever been done in by the treachery of his wife. Fribois issued a different type of warning when, after having described Chiotar Il's execution of Brunechiidis, he explained that she was killed in a savage manner "so that her cruel death would be an example to the bad and disloyal [not] to perpetrate and commit such evils." However, whereas the Grandes Chroniques and some unofficial histories clearly stated that the evil in question was regicide, Fribois judiciously wrote that Brunechiidis "had in her time made to be spilled the greater part of the royal blood and the blood of the nobles of France and of other countries." Inasmuch as others besides kings were of royal blood and inasmuch as he named no victims of Brunechildis's "malevolence and disloyalty", Fribois provided an historical example of the fate that awaited those who threatened the life of French kings while avoiding a direct statement to the effect that a French king had been m u r d e r e d . 5 7 He again condemned treachery in his discussion of the reign of Louis the Pious. After having noted that "Bernard, Idng of Italy, son of Pepin and nephew of Louis the Pious, was accused and convicted of having conspired against his uncle and, as guilty of lèse-majestC

57 b.N., fr. 1233, fol. 90a: "Ciotaire fist punir par mort Bruneheult laquelle par sa grant mauvaistie et desleaulte avoit a son temps fait espandre la plus part du sang royal et des nobles de france et daultres pais. Et la fist attacher par les braz et par les piez a quatre chevaulx sauvages qui tantost la desmembrerent et derompirent Afin que sa cruelle mort fust exemple aux mauvaiz et desloyaulx de perpetre et commettre semblables maulx," 256 was condemned first to be deprived of his lordship and to have his eyes gouged out and to receive death, and thus was done," Fribois added that the execution of Bernard must stand as an example to "lords of the royal blood and especially those of the most noble house ofPrance".58 This passage echoes the one on the execution of Brunechiidis in that, in both, Fribois provided his readers with historical examples of the fate that awaited those who plotted against the king of France. French history, as Fribois wrote it, taught not only that the French had not killed their kings, but also that those kings had ultimately foiled and severely punished various seditions against them. This complement to Fribois' striking of regicide from the historical record suggests that his eradication of regicide from the past was part of a broader program to discourage it in the future. Indeed, Fribois did believe that the study of past sedition could teach how successfully to combat it in times to come: "He who will be charged to make and compose the history or chronicle of the time of king Charles VII should write about the matter of treason and how one can recognize a traitor," he wrote immediately after having noted that Herbert of Vermandois had, by treason, imprisoned Charles the Simple.59

fr. 1233, fol. 94vB: "Bernard roy ditalie filz de pepin et neveu de loys le débonnaire fut accuse et convencu davoir fait conspiracion contre son oncle et comme crimineux de leze mageste fut condenne premièrement a estre prive de sa seignourie et a avoir les yeulx crevez et a recevoir mort et ainsi fut fait Cy doyvent prendre exemple les seigneurs du sang des roys et par especial ceulx de la tresnoble maison de france qui ot pour chief roy singulièrement honnore de ce tresnoble mot treschrestien."

S^This passage having been omitted in B.N., fr. 1233,1 am citing it from another copy of Fribois' Abrese des Chroniques de France. B.N., fr. 10141, fol. 17: "De la matiere de traison. et comment on peut congnoistre ung traître 257 Perhaps Fribois, who thought that French history could help to combat treason in the future, felt that he had advanced that goal by highlighting the punishment of traitors in the past while obscuring their most heinous successes.

B.N.. lat. 5195 Noël de Fribois was not the only late-medieval historian of France deliberately to strike regicide from the record: a good case can be made that the author of the unofficial history of France contained in B.N., lat. 5195 did the same. This chronicle, which was in all probability composed by a canon of the cathedral chapter of Rouen and which was written sometime between 1479 and 1483, contains no instances of regicide in French history.^o On the one hand, it is true that its author drew a great deal of his material from Fribois' Abrégé des Chroniques de France, wherein the French past was free of regicide.^i On the other hand, it is also devroit escrire celui qui aura la charge de faire et composer listoire ou cronique du temps du roy Charles Vll.e de ce nom que dieu absoille."

the unofficial history of France contained in B.N., lat. 5195, see section (S) of Chapter II, "The Sources".

^^To give only a fevv examples of textual similarities between B.N., lat. 5195 and Noël de Fribois' Abrégé des Chroniques de France, compare B.N., fr. 1233, fol. 92 ("Chilperic [Childeric 11] son frere regna dix neuf ans pource que theodoric fut débouté et regna ou lieu du dit theodoric. Clovis filz de chilperic regna après luy trois ans et au temps dicellui clovis pepin pere de Charles martel gouverna le royaume") and B.N., lat. 5195, fol. 9 ("Chilperic [Childeric 11] son frere regna après lui XIX ans, en heu de theodoric qui avoit este débouté du royaume et après lui son filz. Clovis tiers de ce nom regna trois ans En temps duquel pepin pere de Charles martel gouverna le royaume"; the similarity here is particularly telling because Clovis IV, who was in fact the son of Theuderic III, was only with extreme rarity identified as the son of Childeric II in late-medieval French historiography (such is the case in only one other work with which I am familiar, B.N., fr, 4948, fol. 96v), and because I am aware 258 true that he used other sources, one of which was the Grandes Chroniques, and that he was, therefore, familiar with accounts that differed from those ofFribois.62 He could have supplemented the of no other works that gave the length of Childeric Il’s reign as nineteen years); B.N,, fr. 1233, fols. 96b-96vA ("Loys le baube fut filz de Charles le chauve et fut de mauvais gouvernement et ne regna que deux ans la dissolucion et trupitude Isicl de sa vie le fist hair a ses subgez”) and B.N., lat. 5195, fol. 11 ("Loys le baube filz dudit Charles regna après lui et ne regna que deux ans La turpitude et dissol ucion de sa vie le fist hair a ses subgectz"); B.N., fr. 1233, fol. 98vA ("Briefve declaraction des causes de la fin et période de la generacion descendue desd. pepin et Charles le grant. Plusieurs causes sont de ce assignees par les anciennes histoires et entre autre causes lune pource que aucuns roys descenduz desdiz pepin et Charles le grant destroisoient et ostoient par force et autrement illicitement les dotacions donacions et libertez faictes aux gens deglise par espicial ou royaiune de france et prenoient et consumoient leur substance comme plusaplain le recite Vincent de beauves en sondit euvre hystorial") and B.N., lat. 5195, fol. llv ("La cause de la fin et période de la generacion descendue desd. pepin et Charles le grant ainsi que le recite Vincent de bauves et autres historiens. Est pour que aucuns roys descendus deulx. destruisoient et ostoient par force ou autrement illicitement les donacions dotacions et libertés faictes aux gens deglise en prenant et consumant leur substance"). In addition to drawing phrases directly from Fribois' work, the author of "Apres la subversion et totale destruction" also abbreviated much of Fribois" material in a manner that it would be too long to demonstrate here but that, for the insight it would yield into what this late- fifteenth-century Norman canon considered to be most important in French history, deserves a separate study.

GZwhereas Fribois noted that "Charles Martel fut tresvaUlant prince ala contre les sarrazins lesquelz entrèrent en puissance ou royaume en entencion de y habiter et demeurer Et audevant deulx ala led. Charles martel et a laide de dieu les desconfisy en bataille ou il en mouru III.c LXXV.m avecques leur roy abduna. Sigibertus historicus famosissimus" (B.N., fr. 1233, fol. 92b), the author of "Apres la subversion et totale destruction" abbreviated this passage - "Cestui Charles martel alla contre les sarrasins qui estoient descendus ou royaulme de france, et a laide de dieu les combat! Et y en mourut Illc LXXV.m avec leur loy admira, hec narrat Sigibertus histo.cq famosissimus" (B.N., lat. 5195, fols. 9-9v) - and went on to provide further information not contained in Fribois’ work: "Ceste dite bataille fut pres de tours car lesd. sarrasins avoient jure destruire leglise mons.r saint martin ainsv a nil est contenu aux croniaues de france " (fol. 9v). The "croniques de france" in question are the Grandes Chroniques, which did indeed report that after having passed through Poitiers, the Sarrazins "murent pour aler a la cite de Tors, pour destruire I’eglise Saint Martin" (Viard (ed.), GCFII, 224). Furthermore, the author of the history of France contained in B.N., lat. 5195, who also wrote the chronicle of the dukes of Normandy which followed his history of France in the manuscript, also referred to the Grandes Chroniques 259 information he derived from Fribois' history with details of regicide from the Grandes Chroniques, but he obviously chose not to do so. What is more, he abridged several passages from Fribois' work in a way that reveals extreme sensitivity to the question of regicide in French history. For one thing, whereas Fribois had written that Brunechiidis had "made to be spilled the greater part of the royal blood and the blood of the nobles of France", the author of the chronicle in question abbreviated this phrase to "made to be spilled the greater part of the blood ofF r a n c e " .63 Furthermore, whereas Fribois had written that "Charles the Simple died at Peronne where the count of Vermandois put him by treason" and that "Raoul was king for twelve years because Charles the Simple was in prison that long", the author of the chronicle retained the latter phrase but omitted the former and noted instead that "Charles the Simple reigned twenty-seven years and died in 922 [Sid".64

in his Norman chronicle: "En icellui an Jehan due de bourgongne fat tue a montereau comme plus a plain est contenu aux grandes croniques" (B.N., lat. 5195, fol. 23v).

63compare B.N., fr. 1233, fol. 90a ("Ciotaire fist punir par mort Bruneheult laquelle par sa grant mauvaistie et desleaulte avoit a son temps fait espandre la plus part du sang royal et des nobles de france et daultres pais. Et la fist attacher par les braz et par les piez a quatre chevaulx sauvages qui tantost la desmembrerent et derompirent Afin que sa cruelle mort fust exemple aux mauvaiz et desloyaulx de perpetre et commettre semblables maulx") to B.N., lat. 5195, fol. 9 ("Cestuy ciotaire fist desmembrer la royne bruneheult a quatre chevaulx qui tirèrent les membres en opposite pour ce que mauvaisement avoit fait espandre la pluspart du sang de france").

64compare B.N., fr. 1233, fol. 96vA ("Charles le simple filz dudit loys regna XXVIl. ans et mouru a peronne ou le conte de vermendois le mist par traison") and fol. 98a ("Raoul fut roy douze ans car tant fut Charles le simple en prison ") to B.N., lat. 5195, fol. 11 (" durant aussi le regne dudit Charles le 260 Finally, whereas his source noted that "Charles [of Lorraine].... reigned and the said Charles was imprisoned by his wife and Hugh Capet persecuted him greatly, and he is not called king because by the power of the said Hugh Capet, the said Charles could not be coronated and it was thus for nine years," he altered and abbreviated this phrase to "Charles governed the kingdom for nine years, but was not at all coronated king because Hugh Capet prevented him".65 Viewed individually and out of context, no one of these abridgments is of particular importance. The chronicle in question is much shorter than Fribois' history and its author, like all abbreviators, omitted or shortened a great deal of the material contained in his source. However, viewed together and within the context of a work whose author was aware of regicide in French history but who chose never to mention it, they take on significance. All three deal with touchy matters related to regicide, and in all three the author of the chronicle altered Fribois' text in such a way as to provide even less evidence of foul play than did his source. The "blood of France" usually signiHed the blood of the French royal family, but it was perhaps not by accident that he omitted the word "royal" from his description of Brunechildis's misdeeds. He declined simple tant quil estoit en prison a peronne Raul regna Xll ans ledit Charles le simple regna XXVIl ans. et mourut lan IX.c XXII").

65compare B.N., fr. 1233, fol. 98b ("Charles frere dudit lothaire regna après luy Fsicl pource quil estoit trespasse sans hoir de son corps. Et fut ledit Charles emprisonne par sa femme et le persequta fort hue capeth et gist a sainct comille de compengne et nest pas nomme roy pource que par la puissance dud. hue capeth, ledit Charles ne peut estre couronne et ainsi fut par neuf ans") to B.N., lat. 5195, fol. llv ("Apres la mort duquel Charles frere dudit lothaire. gouverna le royaume IX ans. mais ne fut point couronne roy pour lempeschement que lui fist hue cappet"). 261 to inform his readers that Charles the Simple had died in prison which, given that his source contained this information and that Charles's death was sometimes assimilated to regicide in the late- medieval period, was to avoid any suggestion of foul play. The same applies to his treatment of Charles of Lorraine, whose demise was also occasionally likened to regicide. Whereas his source indicated that Charles was victimized but was not king, he retained Charles's unroyal status but omitted his imprisonment by his wife and his "persecution" at the hands of Hugh Capet. In sum, the absence of regicide in his work appears to be deliberate. Aware of the Grandes Chroniques, he could have used them to supplement Fribois' work by describing the assassinations of certain monarchs. Instead, he abridged Fribois' work in such a way as to provide even fewer hints of regicide than did his source. The comprehensiveness with which Noel de Fribois and the author of B.N. lat. 5195 cleansed the French past of regicide is elegant testimony to the success of the historical propaganda theme according to which the French did not kill their kings. It is, however, also evidence of the very limited extent of that success in unofficial late-medieval French historiography. None of the other unofficial historians whose works I studied completely eradicated regicide from the French past. What is more, unofficial histories of France that reported only one or two instances of regicide were relatively rare. Only three of those that 1 studied reported a single case of regicide and only another three reported two such incidents. The majority of the texts that 1 examined 262 indicated, rather, that the French had killed their kings on at least three occasions. Three of them reported three episodes of regicide. Eight of them reported four. Another three recorded six, which, taken in context, is a very high number. As we shall see in Chapter VI, in the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries it was generally accepted that the French had had somewhere between forty-five and sixty kings. Consequently, histories according to which a tenth or more of France's monarchs had met with death by unnatural and criminal means circulated in late-medieval France. The English were not the only ones who had killed their kings.

The Assassination of Childeric 11 The French, too, had killed some of theirs, but, at least in the cases that we have thus far examined, the assassinations were the acts of isolated individuals against innocent monarchs. Malevolent women were responsible for the deaths of Sigibert 1, Chilperic 1, Theuderic 11, Chiotar 11 in those accounts in which he was mistakenly said to have been murdered, Lothar, and Louis V and Charles of Lorraine in some accounts. Charles the Bald had been done in by, depending on which account one read, his doctor, a Jew, or his Jewish doctor. Herbert of Vermandois was the lone individual sometimes blamed for the death of Charles the Simple. That a king of France had himself committed regicide was an assertion very unflattering for Hugh Capet in particular and for the Capetian monarchy in general, but those who held Capet responsible for the death of Louis V or for that of Charles of Lorraine blamed only him. Nothing in 263 late-medieval accounts of these regicides indicated that the bond between the French people and their monarch had been profoundly ruptured by violence, either by the French collectively rising up to slay their king or by their king provoking them to pursue his death. The same, however, cannot be said of a final instance of regicide in French history, namely, the assassination of Childeric II in 675. It was at once the most controversial and, in the works that I examined, the most widely-reported regicide in late-medieval French historiography. To analyze it in detail will provide much insight into how the unofficial historians of France reacted to the problem of regicide in French history. The Grandes Chroniques, following the Liber Historiae Francorum. reported the assassination of Childeric 11 in terms worth citing at length. "This king Childeric," wrote Primat, "was very light hearted; he did his deeds foolishly and without counsel. On account of this, the French began to hate him very harshly, and this was not strange, for he did them too many wrongs, without cause. One time he had one of the most important and most noble of them, whose name was Bodilo, taken, stretched out, and tied to a stake; and he had him beaten very severely, without law and without judgment. When the others saw that he did such cruel things without cause, they held him in very great anger and very great spite; together they conspired and allied against him. The leaders of this conspiracy were Ingobert and Amaubert, and several others among the most noble in the kingdom. This Bodilo, whom he had had tied and beaten at the stake, caught sight of him one day hunting in the woods, together 264 with his companions; they found him alone, attacked him and killed him, and his wife, queen Blitilda also, who was pregnant."66 This account differed fundamentally from the other accounts of regicide contained both in the Grandes Chroniques and in other late- medieval histories of France. On the one hand, it implicated more than one individual in the assassination of the king. It was not a wicked wife, a treacherous nobleman, or a power-hungry usurper who had done in Childeric, but "the French" as a whole who had hated him, who had conspired against him, and who were implicated in his assassination at the hands of a group of noblemen. On the other hand, the king himself had behaved reprehensively. It "was not strange" that the French had come to despise Childeric, for he had behaved foolishly and irresponsibly and, worse yet, had injustly inflicted severe, arbitrary, and undeserved punishments upon the innocent. As enshrined in the Grandes Chroniques, the life and death of Childeric II stood as a clear historical example of precisely what

^^Viard (ed.), GCF II, 202-203: "Cil rois Childeris estoit moult legiers de corage; ses faiz fesoit folement et sanz conseil. Pour ce, le comencierent li Francois a hair trop durement, si n'estoit pas de merveille, car il lor fesoit trop de gries sanz raison. Une foiz en fist-il un prendre, des plus granz et des plus nobles, qui Bodiles avoit non, estendre et loier le fist a une estache; si le fist batre moult cruement sanz loy et sanz jugement. Quant li autre virent que il fesoit tiex cruautez sanz raison, s'en orent trop grant ire et trop grant desdaing; ensemble firent conspiration et s'alierent contre lui. De cele conspiration furent principal Ingoberz et Amauberz, et pluseurs autres des plus nobles du roiaume. Cil Bodiles, que il ot fait loier et batre a l'estache, l’espia un jor que il chacoit en bois entre lui et ses compagnons; seul le troverent, sus lui corurent et l'occistrent, et sa fame la roine Blitilde ausi, qui estoit grosse d’enfant." On the assassination of Childeric II, see Patrick Geary, Before France and Germanv. The Creation and Transformation of the Merovingian World. New York 1988,189-190; Edward James, The Origins of France. From Clovis to the Caoefians. 500-1000. London 1982, 147; Henri Stein, "La mort de Childeric II," Le Moven Age. 2nd series, 12 ( 1908) 297-309; J.M. Wallace-Hadrill, The Long- Haired Kings and Other Studies in Frankish Historv. New York 1962, 235-237. 265 was, according to an important body of late-medieval royal propagandists, supposed to have characterized English history and what was not supposed to have happened in French history, namely, real alienation between the governor and the governed. The former had been unjust, the latter had been disloyal, and the French had killed their king. These facts were spectacular, and some of the texts that 1 examined indicate that late-medieval Frenchmen viewed them as such. One unofficial historian began his account of Childeric's assassination by stating that "It is true that he had a Frenchman punished without law [that is, proper legal procedure] and tied up to a stake and beaten." His insistence on the veracity of his account would seem to indicate either that he himself had been surprised to read of the injustice sufferred by Bodilo, had researched the matter, and had decided that the incident had indeed really taken place, or that, anticipating the shocked disbelief of his readers, he felt it necessary to emphasize the truth of his narrative.67 The copyist of a manuscript of another of the unofficial histories that I examined drew the attention of its future readers to the assassination of Childeric 11 by drawing in the margin a hand the index finger of which pointed to the account of the king's murder in the text. He would appear to have considered it to have been one of

n.a. fr, 7519, fol. 24; "U est vray quil fist ung francois pugnir sans loy. et lier et batre tout nu a une atache The phrase "11 est vray que" would, perhaps, be less significant were it found in the accounts of the assassination of Childeric contained in other versions of the history of France known by the incinit "A tous nobles", but it is not: it is an addition particular to this manuscript. 266 the more noteworthy events in French history, certainly as noteworthy as Charlemagne's having re-established Leo III on his papal seat after he had been deposed by the Romans, that same monarch having (supposedly) transferred the seat of learning from Rome to Paris, Louis the Pious having chastized the rebellious Bretons, the foundation of the Cistercian order, and the meeting of the three Estates in 1355, which were the only other matters that he signalled in this manner.^s In the context of a rather summary treatment of the Merovingian kings, the author of another unofficial history of France devoted a good deal of attention to the assassination of Childeric 11. In a short and overwhelmingly chronological and genealogical treatment of France's first royal dynasty, he provided supplementary historical information about the reigns of only five kings from Pharamond to Childeric 111. The assassination of Childeric 11 was one

fr. 20145, which contains (fols. 2-13v) a copy, made in 1516, of the version of the history of France known by the incinit "A tous nobles" found in B.N., fr. 5734. In addition to the hand designating the passage on the assassination of Childeric II (fol. 5), the copyist signalled five other passages in the same manner. Alongside the chapter on Charlemagne, one hand (fol. 6) points to the passage that reads "Cestui restably en son siege pape lyon qui les rommains avoient destruit. Et pugny par leur loy ceulx qui lennuy lui avoient fait," and another (fol. 6v) to the one that states "Et fist venir 1 université des clercs de romme a paris". Alongside the chapter on Louis the Pious, a third hand designates (fol. 6v) the phrase "Cestui gasta le pays de bretaigne qui se rebelloit contre lui. Et en exilla pluseurs grans seigneurs". A fourth hand and the inscription "L'ordre de citeaux" are in the margin (fol. 8v) next to the passage, in the chapter on Philip I, that notes the foundation of the order. Finally, alongside the chapter on John II, a hand (fol. llv ) draws the reader's attention to the statement that "Et en cel an ordonnèrent les gens des HI. estas, quilz feroient chascun an au roy XXX.m hommes darmes." The copyist, in addition to drawing these six pointing hands, also made twenty marginal notes, which, together with the hands, are worthy of a separate study for the insight that this marginalia would yield into the historical culture of a Frenchman interested in national history at the very end of the period under consideration. 267 of the five matters that he chose to highlight, and one can only assume that he placed it on the same plane of significance as the origins of the Burgundians under Merovech, the reign of king Arthur (a supposed contemporary of Chlotar I), the confiscation of Aquitaine by Dagobert I, and the victories of Charles Martel, which were the other four.69 Finally, the assassination of Childeric II was the subject of a remarkable late-medieval pictorial representation. In addition to numerous other illustrations, one of the unofficial histories of France that 1 examined contained a painted genealogical tree of the French kings that ran horizontally along the text that it accompanied. The tree featured portraits of sixty French monarchs from Pharamond to Charles VII, and two of the portraits depicted important moments in the reigns of two French kings. The portrait of Philip VI showed him receiving the hommage of Edward III of England, and the portrait of Childeric II showed him being murdered. The illustrator depicted Childeric and his wife on horseback, being attacked by an assassin while hunting. The moment that he chose to capture was a dramatic

69 b.N., n.a. fr. 4209. The author was much more interested in Merovingian chronology and genealogy than in the events of early French history and dealt rather summarily with the Merovingians, treating the eighteen with which he dealt in 154 lines of text (on average, 8.6 per king), as opposed to 193 lines for 14 Carolingians (on average, 13.8) and 565 lines for 20 Capetians (on average, 28.3; inasmuch as the text in the manuscript cuts off during the account of the reign of Charles VI, these last numbers are artificially low). He departed from his chronological and genealogical presentation of the Merovingians only in the five cases cited above: origins of the Burgundians (fols. 1-lv); reign of Arthur (fol. 2); victories of Martel (fol. 2v); assassination of Childeric II (fol. 3); confiscation of Aquitaine by Dagobert (fols. 3-3v). 268 one: Bodilo, having already severed Childeric’s head, stands poised to strike at his pregnant queenJO This illustration is notable not only as a graphic representation of regicide in French history, but also as an example of the importance attached to Childeric's murder in late-medieval French historiography. For one thing, the illustrator, or the person from whom he recieved his instructions, evidently considered it to be significant enough to warrant depiction. It was, one can only assume, as noteworthy as the other historical events depicted within the tree and in the numerous additional illustrations that adorned the text, namely, the foundations of some thirty-two churches and eight religious orders, the conquest of England by William of Normandy, Godefroi de Bouillon at the head of an army during the First Crusade, Philip II accepting the surrender of Acre during the Third Crusade, the battle of Courtrai, Philip IV defeating the Flemings at Saint-Omer, Philip rv receiving the hommage of Edward III for the latter's lands in France, the same French monarch in battle at Creicy, Edward Ill's campaign in France in 1346, John the Good leading his army into battle at Poitiers, and Bertrand Du Guesclin chasing the English out of France. 71 In addition, the inclusion of a pictoral representation of Childeric's assassination within the genealogical tree further indicates

70 b.N., fr. 4991, fol. 6v. For information on the manuscript in question and the history of France that it contains, see section (L) of Chapter II, "The Sources".

71 b.N., fr. 4991. The illustrator also depicted several cities and notable buildings as well as an interesting "map" of France, and the iconographie content of his work merits further study. 269 its importance in the eyes of the executors of the manuscript. Although his portraits were rather stereotyped, the illustrator did take pains to convey specific information about certain French monarchs within the tree itself. For one thing, he portrayed all of the sixty kings wearing a crown and carrying a scepter, with the exceptions of Louis III, Carloman, Eudes, and Raoul. The reigns of these four monarchs were controversial matters in late-medieval French historiography, and the author of the history of France that he illustrated was among those who held the opinion that, having held the throne during the lifetimes of legitimate heirs, they could not be considered kings of France. Because the author insisted that the four men in question had merely held the places of their legitimate contemporaries, Charles the Simple and Louis IV, the illustrator gave graphic representation to the text by portraying them without theregalia. ^2

22b.N., fr. 4991. The illustrator portrayed Louis 111 and Carloman holding the crown in their hands and not carrying the scepter (fol. 9v), which was pictorally to represent the text’s contention that they had merely "held the government of the crown and of the kingdom five years for their brother Charles the Simple" (fol. 9vA: " par lordonnance des barons Charles et loys enfens bastars du roy Charles le chauve fsicl eurent le gouvernement de la coronne et du royaulme cinq ans pour leur frere loys fsicl le simple".). He portrayed Eudes in the same way (fol. 10), in order to illustrate the text's insistence that, Charles the Simple being "the true heir", Eudes had simply exercised the "government of the kingdom of France" and that he had "governed" rather than "reigned" (fol. 10a: " pource que Charles le simple estoit le vray héritier de la coronne de france. ung nomme Eudes fut commis au gouvemment du royaulme de france. lequel il gouverna paisiblement lespace de. IX. ans."). The case of Raoul was more difficult, for the text itself was ambivalent. On the one hand, it made clear that Louis IV was the rightful heir to Charles the Simple (fol. 10b: "Pource que loys filz Charles le simple estoit josne enfent, ung chascun des deux [that it, the counts of Vermandois and Chartres] vouloit estre roy et en débouter et priver lenfant et héritier"). On the other, it stated that Raoul had been "king" and that he had "reigned" (fol. 10b: "Cestui roy raoul regna paisiblement ou royaume deux ans 270 For another, he strove to indicate the relative martial accomplishments and valor of the French kings, for he depicted five of them carrying a sword, four of them carrying a sword and wearing partial armor, and three of them carrying a sword and wearing full armorJ3 Finally, his tree depicted Philip of Valois receiving the hommage of Edward 111 and Childeric II being murdered. In sum, Childeric's assassination was included in a genealogical tree whose only other apparent concerns were three great themes in French history, namely, legitimacy in the succession, the military prowess of the kings of France, and the good right of those monarchs in their territorial disputes with the kings of England. The executors of the manuscript in question definitely took special note of the assassination of Childeric II, and, thanks to their efforts, those who viewed their work had their attention drawn to it as well. The assassination of Childeric II was, then, viewed as a significant event. It was also, in late-medieval French historiography, a controversial one. Indeed, that it was the most controversial of the regicides said to have occurred in the French past - and why this was so - is indicated by two remarkable late- medieval revisions of the traditional account of Childeric's murder.

seulement "). The solution of the illustrator was to paint Raoul (fol. 10) without a crown, but with a scepter.

fr. 4991. Carrying a sword: Clodion, Clovis, Chlotar II, Dagobert 1. Carrying a sword and wearing partial armor: Hugh Capet, Louis VI, Louis VIII, Philip 111. Carrying a sword and wearing full armor: Charlemagne, Philip II, Charles VII. In addition, he depicted Philip VI wearing full armor, but not carrying a sword. 271 The first dates to the reign of Charles Vll. It is contained in B.N. fr. 4991, a version of the history of France known by the incioit "A tous nobles", where the account of Childeric's reign reads as follows: "After the death of king Chlotar III, reigned in France Childeric, son of Clovis II, brother of the said Chlotar, who held his kingdom in peace and kept justice and upheld what he permitted. And it came about that a valet of his court committed an infraction in his hotel. The king heard news of this, and the complaint about it. And he did not want to have him put to death for the misdeed, but he had him taken and tied to a stake, and then he had him beaten with rods, naked. And then he gave him leave. One time later on, king Childeric went hunting in the woods, and he took his wife along with him. And they separated from their people. And they entered the woods along a narrow way in order better to hear the dogs hunt. And the bad valet that the king had had beaten at the stake was in this road. And he attacked them with a treacherous will, and killed both of them, which was a pity, because they had no children.74 The second dates to the reign of Louis XI. It is found in Pierre Choisnet's Rosier des Guerres, a manual of the mirror-of-princes

^4b.N., fr. 4991, fol. 6vA: "Aprez la mort du roy clotaire IlI.e regna en france childerich filz clovis second frere dudit clotaire lequel tint en paix son royaulme et gardoit justice et tenoit ce quil permettoit. Si advint que ung garson de sa court avoit forfait en son hostel, le roy en oyt la nouvelle et la complainte. Si ne le voult pas faire morir pour le meffait Mais il le fist prendre et loyer a une estaiche. puis le Gst batre de verges tout nu. Et puis lui donna congie. Une fois aprez le roy childerich sen ala chassier au bois, et menoit sa femme avecques lui. Si se départirent de leurs gens. Et sen entrèrent aux boys au long dune estroite voye pour mieulx oyr les chiens chassier. Et le mauvaix garson que le roy avoit fait batre en lestaiche estoit en icellui chemin. Si les vint envahir de felon coraige et les occist tous deux dont ce fut dommaige. Car ilz navoient nulz enfens." On the version of "A tous nobles" in question, see section (L) of Chapter II, "The Sources". 272 genre written, on the order of Louis XI, for the instruction of the future Charles VIII. Describing the events that followed the death of Chlotar III in 673, Choisnet wrote that "In the year 666 Fsicl the said king Chlotar died. And his brother Theuderic reigned after him, who was later deposed and made a monk. And in his place, they made king of France Childeric, his younger brother, who reigned in Austrasia, who later was killed while hunting, in treason, by one whom he had ordered to be killed if he was found. And the French retook as king his said brother Theuderic whom they had made a monk.75 The first of these accounts, which is found neither in any other version of "A tous nobles" nor in any other late-medieval history of France with which I am familiar, is astonishing. On the one hand, its author retained the essential facts of the traditional tale of Childeric's assassination: the king and his wife had been killed, while hunting, by an individual that Childeric had had tied up to a stake and beaten. On the other, he added a number of details that completely altered the tenor of the traditional account and that reveal precisely what it was about that account that troubled him. To begin with, he transformed the "light-hearted", foolish, and unthinking Childeric of the Grandes Chroniques into an exemplary monarch under whose guidance France enjoyed both peace and the

fr. 1965, fol. 47: "Lan Vic LXVI trespassa ledit roy clotaire Et regna après lui son frere theodoric lequel après on déposa Et le fist on moyne Et ou lieu de lui firent roy de france childeric son puisne frere lequel regnoit en austrasie lequel depuis fut occis en la chasse en trayson par ung quil avoit command[e] estre occis sil estoit trouve Et les francois reprindrent a roy sondit frere theodoric quilz avolent fait moyne." On the date and authorship of the Rosier des Guerres, see Chapter VI, "Lists of the French Kings, I". 273 firm administration of justice. What is more, the king tinged his justice with mercy. The beating of Bodilo, far from being an arbitrary punishment inflicted "without law and without judgment", was a sort of commutation of the death penalty warranted by his criminal misdeed. It manifested not Childeric's cruelty, but his leniency. In addition to rendering Childeric innocent, the author of this account also rendered Bodilo guilty. Childeric's assassin was not a great noble who suffered a humiliating ordeal at the hands of a capricious king but rather, his social status having been diminished considerably, a lowly valet who was punished in a manner not inconsistent with his status and who had in fact deserved worse. What is more, Bodilo had acted alone. The assassination of Childeric was not the result of a conspiracy founded in the hatred and contempt in which the French held their king. It was, rather, the act of a deranged individual who held an unwarranted grudge against him. Bodilo was a criminal; he was a traitor; he was, in a word, "bad". In sum, what troubled the author of B.N. fr. 4991 was not the fact of Childeric's assassination, but the circumstances that were traditionally said to have surrounded it. A French king could have been killed, but he could not have been unjust, he could not have been hated by his subjects, he could not in any way have deserved to die. He could have been assassinated, but his assassin could have been none other than a malevolent individual acting alone. In essence, the historian in question reported Childeric's assassination only after having rewritten the traditional account so as to make his 274 death conform to the pattern of the other regicides in French history. Indeed, in his work, Sigibert I was killed by two "bad" men acting on behalf of Fredegund, Chilperic 1 was assassinated on the order of his "bad" wife, Childeric 11 was murdered by a "bad" valet of his household, and Charles the Simple was "held in prison so closely that he died" by the sinister Herbert of Vermandois.^6 The same outlook informed the revised account of Childeric's assassination contained in the Rosier des Guerres. Pierre Choisnet, who had before him a copy of the GrandesChroniques.^? retained only one element of the traditional account, namely, that Childeric was killed while hunting. Whereas the author of B.N. fr. 4991 did away with Childeric's vicious character and his misgovernment by transforming him into a virtuous king and by making his treatment of Bodilo an example of his vigorous yet merciful pursuit of justice, Choisnet rehabilitated the king only by omission: he simply wrote nothing about Childeric's character or the nature of his government. However, if he did not actively invent details to show that Childeric was good, he did, like the author of B.N. fr. 4991, use his imagination to make it clear that his assassin was bad. In the Rosier des Guerres, as in B.N. fr. 4991, Bodilo was a criminal. Choisnet did not elaborate

fr. 4991, fol. 4a (Fredegund had Sigibert killed by two "mauvais garsons"); fol. 4b ("Et puis sa [Chilperic I's] mauvaise femme fredegonde. le fist mauvaisement occirre"); fol. 6vA (Childeric II’s assassin described as "le mauvaix garson"); fol. lOa-b (Charles the Simple "fur rencontrez et pris par hebert le conte de vermendois Et le tint en prison si estroictement quil morut").

^^Jean Kaulek, "Louis XI est-il l'auteur du Rosier des Guerres." Revue historique 21 ( 1883) 313, noted that, until the end of the reign of Charles V, Choisnet drew the great bulk of his material from the Grandes Chroniques. 275 upon his supposed crime, but he did present Childeric's assassin as a sort of fugitive from justice. The king had ordered him to be killed and, all mention of Childeric's capricious injustice having been stricken from the record, nothing indicated that his condemnation had been unjust. An outlaw who was to be put to death "if he was found", Bodilo emerged from hiding to commit an act that Choisnet explicitly identified as treason. Like the author of B.N. fr. 4991, Choisnet would admit regicide in French history, but only if the act had been neither collective nor in any way justifiable. What is more, his sensitivity to the issue of Childeric's assassination is indicated not only by what he omitted from, and altered in, the traditional account of that event, but also by what he did choose to include in his account of the years 673-675. According to the Grandes Chroniques, the two years following the death of Chlotar 111 had been eventful ones. The French had deposed and tonsured one king, Theuderic 111, had taken as king his younger brother, Childeric 11, had killed him, and had recalled Theuderic to the throne.78 From the point of view of the dynastic continuity and the legitimate succession that were supposed to have characterized the history of the French monarchy, these events were extremely troublesome, and there is every indication that they did indeed trouble some late-medieval French historians. Quite a few of them passed over the first reign of Theuderic in silence, thereby

78See Viard (ed.), GCF II, 200-203, and Chapter VII, "Lists of the French Kings, II". 276 avoiding the fact of his deposition.^*’ Others did note his first reign, but took the liberty of transforming his deposition into a voluntary surrender of the throne toChilderic.so Some even struck the reign of Childeric from the historical record on the grounds that, as the third son of Clovis II, he could not have been the legitimate king of France during the lifetime of his already-crowned older brother.si

79por example, nine of the unofficial histories that I studied made no mention of the first reign of Theuderic III. Some of them simply reported that Theuderic, about the status of whom they said nothing, succeeded Childeric: B.N., fr. 1623, fol. 90v; fr. 1707, fol. 33; fr. 5696, fol. 15; fr. 10139, fol. 5v; fr. 23019, fol. 22a. Others reported that Theuderic, who had been a monk, succeeded Childeric, but said nothing about his first reign or the circumstances under which he had entered the monastery: B.N., fr. 4991, fol. 6vA; fr. 5697, fol. 15; fr. 5734, fol. 99v; fr. 24976, fol. 15v. That the deposition of Theuderic was a controversial subject in late-medieval French historiography, and that some historians were more sensitive than others to the irregularity in the succession that it represented, is further indicated by significant variations in the different versions of the history of France known by the incioit "A tous nobles". Compare B.N., fr. 5696, fol. 15 ("Childerich fut faict roy de france après clotaire Ft après ce [Childeric's assassination] les francois prindrent thierry et le firent roy ), B.N., fr. 5697, fol. 15 ("Childerich fut roy de france après son frere clotoire [after the death of Childeric] Thierri qui estoit moyne de saint denis fut fait roy "), B.N., fr, 5734, fol. 99v ("Childeric fu roy de france après clotaire Et après [his assassination] les francois prindrent thiery qui avoit este fait moisne a saint denis et le firent roy "), and B.N., n.a. fr. 7519, fols. 23v-24 ("Apres sa [Chlotar Ill's] mort regna. Thierry son frere ung an. puis fut deppose et fait moyne si fut mande son frere childeric Et commanca a regner en france Apres que le roy childeric fut ainsi occis, estably fut de rechieff le roy thierry en son royaume, et commanca a regner la seconde foiz ").

80B.N., fr. 5704, fol. 25v: "Childeric deuxiesme de ce nom II fut venu dastrasie thierry son frere luy quicta son royaume "; B.N., fr. 9688, fol. 34: "Childeric Ille fsicl de ce nom roy dastrasie et frere clotaire fut roy quant il fut venu et lui quita tyerry son frere le reaume Et commença a regner lan Vie LXVII. Et se fist tyerry moigne."

81 Such, I shall argue in Chapter VII, "Lists of the French Kings, II", was the line of reasoning employed by the author of the list of the French kings entitled "Les noms des roys de france" contained in B.N., fr. 1965 and by the author of the chronicle contained in B.N., fr. 4954. 277 Placed in this context, the significance of Choisnet's refusal to transmit the traditional account of the assassination of Childeric 11 comes clearly into focus. On the one hand, the succession in the years 673-675 was a controversial matter in late-medieval French historiography, and Choisnet was a royally-sponsored historian very much concerned to demonstrate legitimacy and continuity in the succession.82 On the other hand, the only facts that he revised for the period under consideration were those that surrounded the murder of Childeric. Confronted with the account of the years 673- 675 contained in the Grandes Chroniques. Choisnet, who obviously had no objection to altering the material contained in his source, kept in place the first reign of Theuderic III, his deposition, and his replacement by his younger brother. He altered only the circumstances of Childeric's assassination, which suggests that he was more sensitive to those circumstances than to the facts of how Childeric had acceeded to the throne in the first place. A controversial irregularity in the succession could stand, but the

82That such a concern characterizes the Rosier des Guerres was noted by Andre Stegmann, "Le Rosier des Guerres: Testament poUtique de Louis XI," in Bernard Chevalier and PhiUppe Contamine (eds.), La France de la fin du XVe siècle: Renouveau et Aoogée. Paris 1985, 315. While this is not the place fully to demonstrate it, one will note that the Rosier contains all of the following hallmarks of a work whose author was particularly concerned to show legitimacy and continuity in the succession: suppression of the fact that Merovech was not the son of Clodion (B.N., fr. 1965, fol. 43); assertion that Pepin descended from the Merovingians (fol. 44v); assertions that those who reigned between Louis 11 and Charles the Simple were not kings in the direct Une (fol. 51v) and that Louis 111 and Carloman "are not counted" because they were bastards (fol. 127); assertion that Hugh Capet descended from the Carolingians (fol. 53); Reditus Reeni ad stirpem Karoli Maeni in the person of Louis Vlll (fols. 53-53v); invocation of the Salic Law in describing the accession of Philip VI (fol. 74). 278 murder of an unjust and despised monarch by a subject that he had wronged could not. It did not stand in B.N. fr. 4991 or in the Rosier des Guerres. thanks to their authors' revisions of the traditional account. It also did not stand in a number of other late-medieval histories of France, but through another means: eight of the unofficial histories that I examined for evidence of regicide in French history made no mention of the assassination of Childeric II. In addition to Noël de Fribois and the author of the chronicle contained in B.N. lat. 5195, both of whom omitted it as part of a general program to eradicate regicide from the history of France, six other unofficial historians passed over Childeric's assassination in silence. Their works differed from those of Fribois and the author of B.N. lat. 5195 in that each of them contained at least one mention of regicide in French history. One of the six historians in question noted the assassination of Chilperic 1 and the poisoning of Charles the

B ald,83 one reported the rumor that John I had died an unnatural d e a th ,8 4 one stated that Louis V was poisoned by his wife and that

Chlotar II was killed by Brunechildis,85 one mentioned the poisonings of Louis 11 and Louis V,86 one related the murder of Chilperic 1,8? and one claimed that Charles the Simple was assassinated in prison.^»

«^Namely, B.N., fr. 1623.

S^Namely, B.N., fr. 1707.

SSNamely, B.N., fr. 4948.

S^Namely, B.N., fr. 4954.

«^Namely, B.N., fr. 5709. 279 These six historians were not, then, individuals for whom regicide in French history was an ideological impossibility. They were, however, among the historians most reluctant to discuss it. Indeed, it is extremely striking to note that all of the unofficial histories under consideration that did not describe the assassination of Childeric II contained two or fewer incidents of regicide whereas all of those that did describe it contained three or more. The group of historians who made the least mention of regicide in general and the group of historians who said nothing about the assassination of Childeric were one and the same. This coincidence is too complete to be purely accidental. For one thing, at least three of the six historians who failed to mention the assassination of Childeric II used sources that familiarized them with the traditional account of that event.89 For another, one understands why historians who were relatively unwilling to describe other cases of regicide would be particularly inclined not to describe this one. The murder of Childeric 11, an unjust monarch who had provoked the French to pursue his death, put the lie to the harmony that was supposed to have characterized relations between the French and their kings. It differed from the other regicides said

S^Nameiy, B.N., n.a. fr. 4811.

®^GuilIaume de Nangis reported the assassination of Childeric II in his Chronique abreeee. and the author of the Pit des Rovs (B.N., fr. 1707), who used the Chronique, will therefore have been aware of it. The author of the chronicle of the French kings contained in B.N., fr. 4954 was familiar with the Grandes Chroniques. The author of the universal chronicle contained in B.N., fr. 5709 used Robert Gaguin's Compendium de origine et eestis Francorum. itself a reworking of the Grandes Chroniques. 280 to have occurred in the French past, and that is precisely why some late-medieval historians revised the purport of the traditional account of Childeric's assassination beyond all recognition. That is also, I would suggest, why those historians who made the least mention of regicide in general did not discuss it. To state that Charles the Bald was poisoned by his doctor or that Louis V was done in by his wife was one thing. To describe how a cruel French king had been killed by a victim of his own injustice was quite another, and these six historians, all of whom admitted only that innocent French kings had been killed by malevolent individuals and all of whom admitted it less frequently than the majority of their colleagues, were unwilling to do it. While some late-medieval historians omitted Childeric's assassination along with all other such incidents in an attempt to expunge regicide from French history, these historians, like the author of B.N. fr. 4991 and like Pierre Choisnet, were less sensitive to regicide in general than to the murder of Childeric in particular. What we have seen thus far is noteworthy. Some late- medieval historians were so sensitive to regicide in general that they attempted to erase it from French history. Others were so sensitive to the assassination of Childeric II in particular that they refused to relay the traditional account of that event and either revised it or omitted it entirely. Nevertheless, the remarkable cases of ideologically-driven omissions and revisions that we have thus far examined must not be allowed to obscure the less spectacular but more important fact that the majority of the unofficial historians 281 under consideration shared neither sensibility. For one thing, the vast majority reported at least one regicide in French history, and most reported three or more. For another, all of those who reported three or more incidents of regicide noted the murder of Childeric II. In addition to the author of B.N. fr. 4991, thirteen of the unofficial historians whose works I scrutinized for evidence of regicide in French history included Childeric's assassination.^o However, whereas the author of B.N. fr. 4991 used his imagination to transform the king into the innocent victim of a malevolent criminal, the others left intact the general purport, if not always the particular details, of the traditional account. The details that they generally left aside were the social status of Childeric's assassin and the fact that the king was the victim of a conspiracy. None of the thirteen historians in question identified Bodilo as a great noble or, for that matter, as a member of any particular social class. What is more, since eleven of their accounts identified Bodilo as Childeric's sole murderer, only two of them did not foreclose the possibility of a conspiracy. One historian noted simply that "Childeric and his pregnant wife were killed while hunting in a woods," without stating by whom.9% The other wrote

90Namely, B.N., fr. 5696, fol. 15; fr. 5697, fol. 14; fr. 5704, fol. 25v; fr. 5734, fol. 99v; fr. 9688, fol. 34; fr. 10137, fols. 8-8v; fr. 10139, fol. 5v; fr. 10468, fol. 106v; fr. 23019, fol. 22a; fr. 24976, fols. 15-15v; n.a. fr. 4209, fol. 3; n.a. fr. 7519, fols. 23v- 24; lat. 14663, fol. 16.

fr. 10468, wherein the account of Childeric's reign reads as follows (fol. 106v): "Childerich He et frere Clotaire regna 111 ans ou lieu de thierri son frere qui estoit debouctez et fait moine. Ledit childerich et sa femme grosse denfant furent tuez en ung boys en chasse." 282 that "on account of his light-heartedness and foolishness [Childeric] was hated and killed, while hunting in a woods." By relating the king's murder to the hatred in which he was held, this author more clearly left open the possibility that it was a collective act, but still did not explicitly state that it was.92 Although they described him neither as a noble nor as the leader of a conspiracy, the majority of the thirteen historians under consideration did identify Bodilo in one important way. One of them did not state by whom Childeric was assassinated and two simply called Bodilo by his name, but the others all identified him as "a

Frenchman".93 While readers of various accounts of the assassination of Childeric probably assumed that his murderer was French, these explicit national identifications of Childeric's assassin are nevertheless significant. The Grandes Chroniques did indicate that Bodilo was French, but the two late-medieval historians who took

fr. 10137, wherein the account of Childeric's reign reads as follows (fols. 8-8v): "Childeric fut fait roy daustrasie. et estoit pepin maistre de son palais. Apres la mort clotaire son frere. pour ce quil estoit loing les francoys ne le firent pas roy. mais theodoric son frere mainsne. Ung tandis boutèrent hors theodoric. et fut roy ledit childeric. Mais pour sa legierete et folie fut hay et tue. en chassant en ung boys, et sa femme aussi qui estoit grosse denfant." The author did, however, identify Bodilo as Childeric's assassin in the "Geneologie des roys de france" that followed his history of France in the manuscript (fols. 61-64v). The entry on Childeric II in the "Genealogie", which was written by the same author as the history of France, states (fol. 61v): "Childeric filz de Clovis commanca a regner lan Vic LXXVIII. Et regna XII ans. Et fut tue comme il chassoit par ung nomme baudille quil avoit fait batre a lestache sans cause."

9^No identification of Childeric's assassin; B.N., fr. 10468, fol. 106v. "Bodile": B.N., lat. 14663, fol. 16. "Ung nomme baudille"; B.N., fr. 10137, fol. 61v. "Ung francois"; B.N., fr. 5696, fol. 15; fr. 5697, fol. 14; fr. 5704, fol. 25v; fr. 9688, fol. 34; fr. 10139, fol. 5v; fr. 23019, fol. 22a; fr. 24976, fols. 15-15v; n.a. fr. 4209, fol. 3; n.a. fr. 7519, fol. 24. "VodUle le franc qui estoit francois"; B.N., fr. 5734, fol. 99v. 283 such pains fundamentally to revise the account contained therein both neglected to say so. The author of the chronicle contained in B.N., fr. 4991 identified Childeric's assassin simply as "a valet of his court". Pierre Choisnet likewise declined to identify his nationality and described him only as "one whom he [that is, Childeric] had ordered to be killed if he was found". The willingness of so many of the historians who provided their readers with abbreviated versions of the traditional account of Childeric's assassination explicitly to state that his murderer was French stands in sharp contrast to the omission of Bodilo's nationality by those who refused to relay that account In addition to telling their readers that Bodilo was French, the thirteen unofficial historians who relayed the traditional account of Childeric's murder also told them that he was a victim of that king's injustice. All but one of them explained that Bodilo had been tied up to a stake and beaten, and ten of them made matters worse by including the statement, not found in the Grandes Chroniques, that

Bodilo had been stripped naked during his o r d e a l.9 4 On the one hand, relatively few of the unofficial historians who described Bodilo's beating presented it as a particular manifestation of a general tendency toward unjust and unreasonable behavior on the part of the king. One historian did so by explaining that Childeric was "hated for his light-heartedness and foolishness" quite

^'^Only the author of B.N., fr. 10468 did not describe Bodilo's ordeal (see note 91 above). Bodilo was 'tout nu " during his beating: B.N., fr. 5696, fol. 15; fr. 5697, fol. 14; fr. 5704, fol. 25v; fr. 5734, fol. 99v; fr. 9688, fol. 34; fr. 10139, fol. 5v; fr. 23019, fol. 22a; fr. 24976, fols. 15-15v; n.a. fr. 4209, fol. 3; and n.a. fr. 7519, fol. 24, as well as B.N., fr. 4991, fol. 6vA. 284 independently of any one royal act.^s Another stated that Childeric "did not behave honorably, for which reason he drew upon himself the hatred of the French," and went on to provide two examples of the king's unvirtuous behavior, namely, his imprisonment of the bishop of Autun, Leodegar (Saint Leger), and the beating of B o d ilo .9 6 On the other hand, all of them did indicate that the king had treated Bodilo unjustly. Most reiterated the words of the Grandes Chroniques, explaining that Bodilo was tied up and beaten "without judgment", or that he was "punished without law", or that Childeric inflicted his ordeal upon him "without c a u s e " .97 Some, however, went further. One unofficial historian, after having presented the beating of Bodilo as an example of Childeric's indecent behavior, underlined both the king's arbitrariness and his victim's innocence by describing the latter's ordeal not as a punishment but as an "insult" that Bodilo, having not forgotten, subsequentlyavenged.98 Furthermore, whereas all the other versions of the history of France

95b.N., fr. 10137, fol. 8v. For the text, see note 92 above.

96 b.N., lat. 14663, wherein the account of Childeric's reign reads as follows (fol. 16): "Apres les francois prindrent theodery et le firent moyne, et childeri son frere firent venir daustrie pour regner sur eulx, et regna childery. XII. ans. Toutesvoies childeri ne se porta pas honnestement pour laquelle chose il encourut en hayne des francoys. Il mist saint llgier evesque dostun a prison a luxone, et bodile fist lier et batre, mais après bodile qui neust oublie ceste iniure trouva childeri qui chassoit si le tua et sa femme qui estoit grosse denfant."

97" lequel il avoit fait lier et batre sans jugement B.N., fr. 5696, fol. 15; fr. 5697, fol. 14; fr. 5704, fol. 25v; fr. 5734, fol. 99v; fr. 9688, fol. 34; fr. 23019, fol. 22a; fr. 24976, fols. 15-15v; n.a. fr. 4209, fol. 3. " il fist ung francois pugnir sans loy ": B.N., n.a. fr. 7519, fol. 24. " quil avoit fait batre a lestache sans cause": B.N., fr. 10137, fol. 61v.

98b.N., lat. 14663, fol. 16. For the text, see note 96 above. 285 known by the incinit "A tous nobles" that included the traditional account of Childeric's assassination stated either that Bodilo had been bound and beaten "without judgment" or "without law", the author of one version of that history wrote that Bodilo had been punished

"wrongly and without ju d g m e n t" .99 The phrase "à tort" was his own and, inasmuch as one could possibly be punished without a proper judgment having been rendered but still be guilty of having in fact committed a misdeed, he would appear to have added it in order to leave absolutely no doubt as to Bodilo's innocence. The majority of the authors of the unofficial histories of France thus reported that Childeric was murdered by a victim of his own injustice. What is more, some of them may positively have approved of the king's assassination. On the one hand, those who revised the traditional account of his murder went out of their way to express sympathy for Childeric and/or to condemn Bodilo's person or his act. The author of the history of France contained in B.N. fr. 4991 called Bodilo "bad", stated that he attacked Childeric and his wife with a "treacherous will", and judged the murder of the royal couple to be a "pity", and Pierre Choisnet qualified Bodilo's act as treason. On the other hand, none of the unofficial historians who reported the gist of the traditional account did so. While this lack of sympathy is suggestive, in and of itself it proves nothing. It does, however, take on significance given the fact that all but two of the historians who

99B.N., fr. 10139, fol. 5v: " et fut tue en ung bois ou il chassoit par ung francois quil avoit fait lier et batre a tort et sans jugement tout nu a lestache..... 286 let stand the traditional account of Childeric's assassination denounced at least one of the other regicides that they reported. Collectively, the nine unofficial historians who did not include the traditional account of Childeric's assassination reported thirteen instances of regicide in French history. By condemning either the assassin or his act, they implicitly condemned the murder of a monarch in 6 (46%) of those cases. lOO Significantly, the thirteen historians who did relate the traditional account of Childeric's demise were less given to condemning regicide. Nevertheless, it remains that, collectively, they implicitly denounced eighteen (33%) of the fifty-five instances of regicide in French history that they reported. Eight of them, six of whom held Fredegund responsible for the assassinations of Sigibert 1 and Chilperic I, one of whom blamed her only for the death of her brother-in-law, and one of whom assigned her guilt only for the death of her husband, denounced her as an evil woman and seven of them described the two men who had actually carried out the murder of Sigibert as "evil-doers".loi lOOxhe author of B.N., fr. 4948, who reported that Chlotar II was killed by Brunechildis, qualified the latter as "la male royne" (foi. 96v). The author of B.N., fr. 4991 reported that Fredegund had Sigibert I killed by two "mauvais garsons" (fol. 4a), qualified both Fredegund and her act as wicked in describing the murder of Chilperic I (fol. 4b: "Et depuis sa mauvaise femme fredegonde. le fist mauvaisement occirre"), and, as we have seen, condemned both Bodilo and his act in his revised account of the assassination of Childeric II. The author of B.N., fr. 5709 identified the murder of Chilperic I as an act of treason (fol. 74: " fu occis par la trayson de sa femme au soir venant de la chasse par ung nomme Lauderic ). The author of B.N., n.a. fr. 4811 stated that Herbert of Vermandois' "assassination" of Charles the Simple was an act of treason (fol. 6; "Et feust assassine es tour de Peronne en grante trahison par Herbert Comte de Vermandois"). lOlFredegund was responsible for the assassinations of Sigibert and Chilperic, she "savoit plus de mal que nulle autre femme", and the two men who stabbed Sigibert were "malfaicteurs": B.N., ff. 5704, fol. 23v; fr. 5697, fois, llv-12; fr. 287 One historian underlined the wrongdoing of Herbert of Vermandois, whom he held responsible for the death of Charles the Simple, by pointing out that the count had captured the king in a treasonousm anner J 02 The same historian, for whom the death of last Carolingian was a regicide because Charles IV of France had been made to die in prison by Hugh Capet, left no doubt as to the unsavory character of Capet and the despicable nature of his act by associating it with usurpation and tr e a s o n .

9688, fois. 32V-33; fr. 23019, fol. 20a; fr. 24976, fol. 13; n.a. fr. 7519, fols. 20-20v. Fredegund was responsible for the assassination of Sigibert, she "savoit plus de mal que nulle autre femme", and the two men who stabbed Sigibert were "malfaicteurs": B.N., fr. 10139, fol. 5, Fredegund was responsible for the assassination of Chilperic and she "tresmauvaise estoit": B.N., fr. 10137, fol. 5v. The author of this last work also described Brunechildis, who, he reported without providing any details, "made kings die", as "evil”: " fut male femme et fist mourir roys et grans seigneurs" (fol. 5). The fact that the phrase "Fredegonde qui savoit plus de mal que nulle autre femme" and the description of Sigibert's murderers as "malfaicteurs" appear in most versions of the history of France known by the incioit "A tous nobles" does not, it seems to me, indicate simple recopying rather than lack of conviction on the part of their authors. They had only to omit the phrase and the description had they desired not to include them, and the authors of two different versions of "A tous nobles" did just that. The authors of B.N., fr. 5696 and fr. 5734 reported only that Fredegonde had Sigibert killed: the former said nothing about the character of either Fredegund or the men in her employ, and the latter actually described her as "une merveilleuse femme" (fol. 98v). These two authors were, in addition, the only two of the thirteen who reported the traditional account of the murder of Childeric II not implicitly to condemn at least one other regicide in French history.

n.a. fr. 4209, fol. 6v: " le conte de vermandois print par traison ledit Charles le simple et le fist mourir en prison ". The author of B.N., n.a. fr. 4811 did the same: "Ft feust assassine es tour de Peronne en grante trahison par Herbert Comte de Vermandois" (fol. 6). Other authors underlined the treachery of Herbert and/or expressed sympathy for Charles, but did not assimilate his death to regicide: B.N., fr. 1233, fol. 96vA (".....et mouru a peronne ou le conte de vermendois le mist par traison"); fr. 4948, fols. 96v-97 ("Il mourut en prison a peronne ou hebert le conte de vermendois le mist par traison"); fr. 10468, fol. 107v (" print par traison le bon innocent Charles le simple et le mist en prison a peronne ou il mouru ").

n.a. fr. 4209, fol. 7: " hue capet conte de paris usurpa sa seigneurie et le fist prendre en traison et mectre en prison a Orleans Ledit hue capet 288 Finally, two other historians also expressed disapproval of Hugh Capet, but in connection with a different regicide. One expressed sympathy for Louis V, whom he reported to have been made to die by Capet, by stating that he was "persecuted" by

H u g h . 1 0 4 The other, according to whom Capet pursued Louis to his death, signalled the baseness both of Capet's motive and of his act by identifying the former as hatred of the Carolingian dynasty and by

associating the latter with rebellion against the k i n g . i os In sum, while the late-medieval historians who revised the traditional account of the assassination of Childeric II took pains to denounce both the act and its perpetrator, none of the thirteen unofficial historians who relayed the traditional account of that event did so. What is more, eleven of those thirteen did voice some form of disapproval of at least one of the other regicides they reported. While this evidence of their attitude toward the assassination of

fist mourir ledit Charles et ses deux enfans en prison audit lieu dorleans." The author's statement that Hugh "had him taken in treason" is a significant indictment of Capet given that most late-medieval historians who reported the capture of Charles of Lorraine, while not disassociating Capet from the treason of Adalbero of Laon, nevertheless placed the accusation of treason primarily on Adalbero. To state that "Hue capet le fist prendre en traison" was to place the guilt more directly on Capet than was to write that "par trahison que feist levesque de laon dedict Charles fut prins par ledict hue cappet" (B.N., fr. 5696, fol. 27v); that "feist tant hue que levesque par trayson le bouta en la cite, et print le roy [that is, Charles] et sa femme prisonniers" (B.N., 10137, fol. 20); that "par la trayson de levesque de laon ledit Charles assiégé par ledit cappet fu prins dedens laon" (B.N., fr. 10468, fol. 108);or that "par la mallice de levesque de laon le roy hu print le roy Charles" (B.N., fr. 24976, fol. 25).

^O^B.N., fr. 10468, fol. 108: " hue cappet comte de paris le persequta et fist mourir."

lat. 14663, fol. 17v: " hue chappet retenant en son cuer la hayne que ses devanciers avoient eu aux roys qui devant avoient regne se révéla encontre loys et le poursuy jusques a la mort." 289 Childeric is negative in nature, it is not without significance. They could have condemned his murder, as did some other historians, but they did not. They could have noted the malevolence of the assassin or of his act, as they themselves did in other cases of regicide, but they did not. To be sure, the evidence does not positively demonstrate that they approved of Childeric's assassination. It does, however, reveal that they did absolutely nothing to disapprove of it, and their lack of disapproval is at once ironic and indicative of the diverse ways in which late-medieval historians perceived the problem of regicide in French history. While some considered the death of Childeric at the hands of a victim of his own injustice to be the most unacceptable regicide in French history, others considered it to be, if not necessarily the most justified, then, at a minimum, the least lamentable.

Conclusion The notion that the English killed their kings whereas the French did not was a popular theme in the dominant late-medieval interpretation of French history, and this study of regicide in late- medieval unofficial histories of France has revealed some of its spectacular successes. Noël de Fribois and the author of the chronicle contained in B.N. lat. 5195 deliberately cleansed the French past of regicide. The author of the version of "A tous nobles" contained in B.N. fr. 4991 and Pierre Choisnet, the author of the Rosier des Guerres, revised the traditional account of the most controversial French regicide because they refused to transmit the fact that a 290 French king had been killed by a victim of his own injustice. Probably for the same reason, six unofficial historians, all of whom reported only one or two regicides and who, as a group, were more inclined to condemn regicide than were those historians who reported three or more such incidents, omitted all mention of the assassination of Childeric II from their works. Some unofficial historians would not admit that the French had killed their kings. Others would admit that they had done so only in a certain way. Most, however, shied away neither from the fact of regicide in French history nor from the unpleasant circumstances of the assassination of Childeric II. Twenty of the unofficial historians reported at least one regicide. The majority reported three or more. Several reported six, a very high figure equal to the number of regicides attributed to the English by Noël de Fribois and equivalent to at least a tenth of all of the kings of France. Thirteen retained the traditional account of the assassination of Childeric II, making it clear that he had been killed by a victim of his own injustice and expressing neither condemnation of Bodilo nor sympathy for Childeric. These facts testify to the diverse ways in which unofficial historians approached the problem of regicide in French history. They also indicate that most of them simply did not adhere to the dominant historical propaganda theme according to which the French had never killed their kings. In the previous chapter, we saw that a majority of unofficial historians resolved the conflict between the historical fact of illegitimacy in the royal line and the ideological 291 necessity according to which France’s dynastic past had been free of bastardy in favor of the latter. To eradicate bastardy necessitated the suppression of certain facts and the revision of others, and most but not all unofficial historians did not hesitate to engage in the requisite manipulations. Regicide was like bastardy in that its eradication from the French past required suppressions and revisions. It differed in that while some unofficial historians engaged in them, most did not. In unofficial history, the struggle between the historical fact of regicide and the dominant ideology that obscured those facts was won by history. CHAPTER V THE RANSOM OF SAINT LOUIS

Introduction The two previous chapters focused on how the authors of unofficial histories of France addressed the historical manifestations of two ideologically-charged issues, those of bastardy and regicide. In contrast, this chapter will examine a late-medieval controversy that centered on a specific historical event, the payment of the ransom of Saint Louis. Louis IX (1226-1270), the dynastic saint of the French royal house since his canonization in 1297, led two crusades against the Muslims in northern Africa. His first expedition, which historians refer to as the seventh crusade (1248-1250), started rather promisingly. Louis landed in Egypt in June 1249, and his army quickly captured the city of Damietta. However, as they marched in the direction of Cairo, the French were defeated at Mansurah (January 1250), and were compelled to retreat toward Damietta. It was during this withdrawal that Louis IX and the remnant of his army, which had suffered heavy losses at Mansurah and even heavier ones during its retreat, were captured and taken prisoner by the Muslims. Louis agreed to pay a ransom of one million gold

292 293 bezants, but was freed after having delivered 400,000 gold bezants, a sum equivalent to 200,000 livres tournois (and to the annual royal revenue of the king of France) to his captors. He spent the next four years in Palestine, and finally returned to France in 1254. Sixteen years later, Louis once again took up the cross. The expedition known as the eighth crusade (1270) was no more successful than had been his earlier attempt to rewin the Holy Land for the Christians. Louis and his army landed near Tunis and took the city of Carthage, but the crusading force was struck by an outbreak of disease to which the king himself fell victim, and it disbanded shortly after his death. 1 Because late-medieval Frenchmen supposed miracles to have occurred during the seventh crusade and because Louis had died for the faith during the eighth crusade, the two crusades of Louis IX contributed to the positive aura attached to his memory in late- medieval France.2 In her study of late-medieval views of Saint Louis, Colette Beaune found that fourteenth and fifteenth-century Frenchmen generally held Louis IX in very high esteem. Clergymen, especially members of the mendicant orders, held him up as a spiritual model to be emulated. Official historians and royal iQn the two crusades of Louis IX, see Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades. Cambridge 1954, III, 255-92, and Joseph R. Strayer, "The Crusades of Louis IX," in Kenneth M. Setton (ed.), A History of the Crusades. Madison 1969, II, 487-518. For the best contemporary account of Louis' first crusade, see Jean, Sire de Joinville, Histoire de Saint Louis, ed. Natalis de Wailly, Paris (Société de l'Histoire de France) 1868.

^Colette Beaune, The Birth of an Ideology. 97-99, detailed the "fantastic and extraordinary stories ' that "encircled the image of Louis with the miraculous aura of the crusades". 294 ordonnances sang the praises of the Capetian saint. Noblemen cultivated an image of his reign as a time of strong currency, fiscal freedom, and efficient justice, and criticized his successors for deviating from the ideal that they took it to represent. Many confraternities chose him as their patron and protector. In short, while late-medieval Frenchmen remembered Louis IX in different ways and made different uses of his memory, his posthumous reputations were overwhelmingly positive ones.3 However, even as it contributed to his spritual prestige, the seventh crusade also gave rise to a negative perception of the generally exalted French monarch. By the beginning of the fifteenth century, some Frenchmen had come to believe that the payment of Saint Louis' ransom had had extremely negative consequences for his kingdom. Colette Beaune took note of two fifteenth-century texts which asserted that the payment of the ransom had left Louis' kingdom so impoverished that he had been obliged to issue leather money for use by his subjects. She uncovered a fifteenth-century text and an early sixteenth-century text which asserted that Louis had imposed new taxes upon his subjects in order to pay his ransom. She also commented briefly on an early sixteenth-century text written to defend the memory of Saint Louis against these charges. Noting that

^Ibid.. Chapter 3, "Saint Louis," 90-125. As for negative images of Louis IX, Beaune noted that some late-medieval Frenchmen held him in low esteem for having supposedly impoverished the kingdom by the payment of his ransom (see the next note), that some criticized his crusades as dangerous and ill- managed operations (see note 101 below), and that some condemned his friendly relations with, and his policy of entente toward, the English. 295 the allegations against Saint Louis originated among the humbler ranks of Parisian society, she concluded that whereas the clergy, royal propagandists, and late-medieval noblemen exalted the memory of Saint Louis, "in the popular strata of Paris, people harbored a considerable ambivalence toward Louis IX"/ While Beaune’s brief discussion of the issue of Louis IX's ransom in late-medieval France was important, it was by no means complete. In looking into the matter, 1 found one additional text which asserted that the payment of his ransom had profoundly harmed Louis’ kingdom,^ two additional texts written to defend the memory of Saint Louis against allegations surrounding the seventh crusade,^ and five other texts which bear implicit marks of the

"^Ibid.. 108-110. Beaune cited Les aventures depuis deux cents ans and B.N., fr. 9688 as evidence of the belief that Louis IX had issued leather money in the wake of the payment of his ransom. She cited B.N., fr. 9688 and Josse Clichthove's De laudibus sancti Ludovici as evidence of the belief that he had imposed new taxes in order to pay his ransom. The defense of Louis IX against these allegations cited by Beaune was Etienne Le Blanc's "Probacion que monseigneur sainct loys ne destruisit point le royaume Pour le sainct voyaige quil feist oultremer". 1 have studied three of these four texts. On Les aventures depuis deux cents ans. B.N., fr. 9688, and the work of Etienne Le Blanc, see the corresponding sections of this chapter. Beaune alluded only briefly to the text that 1 have not examined, indicating (page 108, note 103) that in his De laudibus sancti Ludovici (1516), the university scholar Josse Clichtove at once acknowledged that Louis had imposed new taxes in order to pay his ransom and defended him for having done so: "He established new taxes to pay that ransom, which was very high. These taxes continued afterwards, but that was the fault of his successors and not his. Besides, it is normal that the people pay the ransom of its king."

^The history of France found in B.N., fr. 5704, on which see the corresponding section of this chapter.

^Louis Le Blanc's Chronique abreaee de monseigneur saint lovs rov de France, et dautres rovs de France ses predecesseurs and his La saincte vie et haultz faictz. dignes de mémoire, de monseigneur sainct lovs. rov de France, on which see the corresponding sections of this chapter. 296 controversy over Louis IX's ransom J In examining these texts, as well as those signalled by Beaune, I found additional information about the charges against Saint Louis mentioned above, as well as evidence of additional late-medieval charges against Louis IX that had escaped Beaune's notice. I also found evidence which reflected the extent and the intensity of the late-medieval controversy over Saint Louis' ransom, and which indicated that the controversy was more extensive and more intense than Beaune thought. The purpose of this chapter is to set forth these findings. I shall first present and analyze each of the texts which bears on the late-medieval controversy over the ransom of Louis IX. I shall then draw together the evidence yielded by each of them so as to provide an overview of the controversy based on all of them. Finally, 1 shall comment on what the controversy over the ransom of Saint Louis reveals about unofficial historians of France in particular and about late-medieval French historical culture in general.

Les aventures depuis deux cents ans The earliest text to report that the payment of the ransom of Louis IX had a negative impact upon his kingdom was the short

^Noel de Fribois' Abrégé des Chroniques de France, the history of France found in B.N., fr. 10468, and the liistoiy of France found in B.N., fr. 24976, on all three of which see the corresponding section of this chapter; the history of France found in B.N., lat. 5195, on which see the corresponding section of this chapter; and the copies of the history of France known by the incipit "A tous nobles " found in B.N., fr. 4990 and B.N., n.a. fr. 7519, on which see the corresponding section of this chapter. 297 chronicle in verse known as Les aventures depuis deux cents ans, a history of France from 1214 to 1409 written in Paris in 1409. Les aventures, which was studied and edited by Claude Gauvard and Gillette Labory,^ seems to have been written within the merchant milieu of Paris, by an individual who shared the outlook and concerns of many early fifteenth-century Parisian bourgeois. It is known to survive in three manuscripts. The earliest known copy, Paris, B.N., fr. 14416, was executed at Paris in the first half of the fifteenth century and belonged to the dukes of Burgundy. The copy found in Rouen, Bibl. mun., 1233 (fols. 157-162v) was made in the middle of the fifteenth century by a Parisian copyist who may have had a clerical background. Finally, the copyist of Brussels, Bibl. roy., 7254-7263 (fols. 50-57v), who continued the chronicle to 1454, wrote in the north of France, around Lille, in the second half of the fifteenth century. This manuscript belonged, at a date not specified by Gauvard and Labory, to one J.B. Verdussen, an echevin of Antwerp. The author of Les aventures devoted only two quatrains to the reign of Saint Louis. In the first, he stated that "In the year 1248 / Damietta was taken / Saint Louis, who led the French, was captured there / He issued leather money to pay his ransom." In the second, he stated that "In the year 1270 / Saint Louis was in Tunisia

^Claude Gauvard and Gillette Labory, "Une chronique riméie parisienne écrite en 1409: 'Les aventures depuis deux cents ans'," in Bernard Guenée (éd.). Le métier d'historien au Moven Age. PcU'is 1977, 183-231, upon which this paragraph is based. 298 against the cursed Sarrasins / But he died while returning / God d id miracles for him; he is a saint in Paradise. "9 Colette Beaune cited Les aventures as evidence of the late- medieval belief that the payment of Louis IX's ransom had left his kingdom so destitute that he had been constrained to issue leather money. On the one hand, it is indeed evidence of that charge. "He issued leather money to pay his ransom" meant not that Louis had paid the ransom in leather currency, but that the payment of his ransom had left France so devoid of gold and silver currency that the king had been obliged to issue leather money for use by his subjects. ' 1 On the other hand, the two quatrains relative to Louis IX in Les aventures provide evidence of more than the simple fact that some late-medieval Frenchmen believed Saint Louis to have issued

^Ibid.. 198-9, citing Paris, B.N., fr. 14416, fol. Iv: "En l'an mil. ll.c avec XLVlll / Fut prinse Damiecte, mais qu’il ne vous anuit, / La fut prinse saint Loys qui les Francoys conduit; / Pour sa raenson payer monoye de cuir courit. / En l'an mil. II.c LX et puis dix / Fut saint Loys en Thunez sur Sarrasins maudis; / Mais a son retourner trespassa, ce m'est vis. / Dieu fit pour luy miracles, sains est en paradis."

1 OBeaune, The Birth of an Ideology. 108.

1 'The notion that Louis IX issued leather money is the most intriguing of the late-medieval charges leveled against him. Beaune, The Birth of an Ideology. 109, offerred a number of explanations for its origin: (1) Some Frenchmen believed that after the payment of his ransom Louis had reverted from minting to livestock exchange, which, according to Aristotle, was the method of exchange which preceded metal coinage; (2) Unable to conceive of exchanges without money and convinced that the payment of Louis' ransom had drained the kingdom of metal, some Frenchmen believed that Louis IX's post-crusade money had to have been made of some other material; (3) "Confusion might also have stemmed from the limited understanding listeners must have had of the Latin liturgical sequences dedicated to Saint Louis. They may have transformed moneta cudi (to mint coins) into moneta cutis (leather coins), or moneta hove (chain coins) into moneta bovis (leather coins)"; (4) Some Frenchmen mistook cheap metal tokens used by the Parisian administration in the time of Louis IX for real money. 299 leather money. They also provide valuable insight into the nature of that belief. The modern scholars who studied Les Aventures were unable to discover any written sources that its author might have had before him while composing it. They posited that he intended his rhymed chronicle to be heard by a popular, urban audience unfamiliar with scholarly historical literature, and they concluded that he based his work primarily on memory, that is, on what he himself had heard about the two previous centuries of French history. Indeed, they cited his reference to the leather money of Saint Louis as a prime example of how memory and legend determined the contents of his chronicle. 12 These facts are significant because they indicate that the allegation that Louis IX had issued leather money was in essence a rumor that circulated by word of mouth within the humbler ranks of Parisian society. They also indicate that, within those ranks, the notion that the payment of Louis' ransom had impoverished the kingdom was the central fact about his reign retained by the popular memory. The author of Les aventures appears to have known nothing about, and he certainly said nothing about, such facts as Louis' acquisition of prestigious relics, his foundation of numerous churches and monasteries, his concern for justice, or his victories over rebellious barons supported by Henry III of England, deeds which

^^Gauvard and Labory, "Une chronique rimée parisienne écrite en 1409," 183- 4,186. 300 cast Louis IX in a positive light and which were usually mentioned by late-medieval historians of France. Beyond the fact that Louis was a saint for whom God had performed miracles, the author related to his audience only that Louis had undertaken two crusades and that the payment of the ransom that stemmed from his capture during the first of them had resulted in the circulation of leather money in France. To remember Louis IX as a king who had impoverished his kingdom was hardly to hold him in high esteem. Indeed, Gauvard and Labory considered the two quatrains in question to represent a devaluation of the image of SaintL o u is.1 3 That is why Les aventures provides the first of the many indications of the weight and seriousness of the allegations surrounding Louis IX's ransom in late- medieval France that we will come upon in this chapter. In the mind of its author, and in the historical culture of the segment of Parisian society reflected in his work, the payment of Louis' ransom was the central fact of his reign. It effaced all of his other deeds, and left him with a tarnished image and an unflattering reputation. Furthermore, one of the manuscripts of Les aventures provides the first of the many indications of sensitivity to the issue of Louis IX's ransom in late-medieval France that we will come across in this chapter. The copyist of the Rouen manuscript of Les aventures deliberately omitted the two quatrains on the crusades of Saint Louis.

188; 198, note 73; 199, note 75. 301 This omission would be less noteworthy were it true that he had opted to exclude a sizeable amount of the text of Les aventures. Such, however, was not the case. Like many late-medieval copyists, the copyist of the Rouen manuscript of Les aventures did alter the text that he copied. He reworked many of the old quatrains, and he added quite a few new ones. However, he omitted only two sections of the text, one of which was the quatrains on the crusades of Saint

L o u is. Under these circumstances, that omission takes on significance. It implies that the omitted material was controversial and that the copyist had a strong opinion about it. It is hard to know exactly what motivated him to omit it. On the one hand, the other quatrains that he omitted recounted the disastrous crusade of Nicopolis (1396),is and so both omissions might stem from the same cause, an unwillingness to report the failure of

1 ^Gauvard and Labory based their edition of Les aventures on the Paris manuscript, which is the oldest one and which they believed to be closest to the original text, and signalled variations in the Rouen and Brussels manuscripts in the notes. The above analysis of the Rouen manuscript results from my comparison of the tlie text of the Paris manuscript to the notes on the Rouen manuscript. On the other omission, see the following note.

' SThe other omission entailed the following three quatrains: "Mil. lll.c llll.xx et XVI, saiches qu'an celle annee / Fut le fille du roy, Ysabel fut nommee, / A Richart d'Angleterre octroyee et donnée. / En celle anne fut crestiente grevee: / Dessus les Sarrasins furent pris notre gent; / La fut le conte d'Eu, connestable regent, / Le conte de Nevers qui est duc maintenant, / Et Coussy et la Marche et maint seigneur puissant. / Le seigneur de Coussy, depuis ne retourna, / Non fist le conte d'Eu, ou pays trespassa; / Mais plusieurs par rensson revindrent par deca; / En cel an le dauphin fut ne, n'en doubtes ja" (Paris, B.N., fr. 14416, fols. 9v-10, in Gauvard and Labory, "Une chronique rimee parisienne écrite en 1409," 220). The intent of the omission was not to exclude the marriage of Isabelle of France to Richard 11 of England or the birth of the dauphin Louis, but to exclude the crusade of Nicopolis. Since the account of that debacle began in the first of the three omitted quatrains and ended in the third, it was the need to exclude all three quatrains that caused the omission of the other two matters. 302 crusades. On the other hand, inasmuch as Gauvard and Labory noted that the copyist of the Rouen manuscript's political leanings were pronouncedly Burgundian,! 6 he may have omitted the crusade of Nicopolis in order to defend the memory of its leader, duke John the Fearless of Burgundy. If that is so, then it stands to reason that he omitted the seventh and eighth crusades in order to defend the memory of its leader. Saint Louis. Indeed, since the fact that Louis IX went to Egypt in 1248 and took the city of Damietta, the fact that he went to fight the Sarrasins in Tunisia in 1270, the fact that he died during the course of his second crusade, and the fact that he was a saint were not disputed in late-medieval historiography, it stands to reason that it was the fact of Louis' capture and the "fact" that the payment of the resulting ransom had led to the circulation of leather money that bothered the copyist and that motivated his omission. In sum, the copyist of the Rouen manuscript of Les aventures may have refused to believe, and he definitely refused to report, a fact that cast a pall over the memory of Saint Louis. His omission of the two quatrains on Louis IX, a significant one given that it represented one of only two omissions in the entirety of his copy of Les aventures, suggests that the payment of Saint Louis' ransom was a controversial matter in late-medieval France. That impression will only be confirmed by additional texts that bear upon it.

•^Gauvard and Labory, "Une chronique rimée parisienne écrite en 1409," 187- 88. 303 B.N.. fr. 9688 A second fifteenth-century historian who believed that the payment of Louis IX's ransom had dire consequences for his kingdom was the author of the "Chronologie universelle jusqu'à la mort de Charles VI" found in B.N., fr. 9688.17 While the "Chronologie" was a universal chronicle that related in 269 chapters the history of the world from Adam to the death of Charles its author did in effect write a history of France. He grouped together his fifty-six chapters on French history, with the result that fols. 29v-48 of the manuscript constituted an uninterrupted account of French history, by royal reign, from the Trojan origins to 1422. The "Chronologie" was written around 1423 at Paris or at Soissons, and the manuscript in which it survives was executed sometime between 1423 and 1463. Like the author of Les aventures, its author issued from an urban, mercantile environment, and his work evinced a certain sympathy for the masses. His chapter on the reign of Louis IX reads as follows: "Saint Louis was coronated the first Sunday of Advent in the year 1227, having not yet attained his fourteenth year. When he had come from his coronation to Paris, he released Count Ferrand of Flanders, who had been there for twelve years, and paid his ransom. And then he defeated King Henry of England before Saintes in Poitou. And in the year 1248, the king left his country of France in order to go overseas against the Sarrasins. And upon his return he brought

17on this universal chronicle and on B.N., fr. 9688, which is the only manuscript in which it is known to survive, see section (H) of Chapter II, "The Sources", of which this paragraph is a summary. 304 the holy crown of thorns with which our lord Jesus Christ was crowned, and he put it in the chapel of the palace, which he had recently founded. And later he returned [overseas] and went to Tunisia. And he took the tower of Damietta. And later he was taken prisoner of the sultan there. And he put himself to ransom. And in order to pay this [ransom] he brought about the tiers et dangier on wood. And he circulated leather money. And as soon as he had returned [to France], he died. And he died in the year 1270. Amd he rests at Saint-Denis in France. And he had reigned forty-four years. And he had been a prisoner for seven years. [The author went on to name Louis' wife, his five sons, and his four daughters, and to list eleven of his ecclesiastical foundations]." ' 8 On the one hand, the author's description of the crusades of Louis IX reveals a certain amount of factual confusion and error. He

^ 8b.N., fr. 9688, fols. 41v-42: "Saint louys fut sacre le premier dimenche de lavent Ian mil ll.c XXVII. Ian de son aage Xllll ans non acomplis Cestui quant il fut venu de son sacre a paris il délivra le conte ferrant de flandres de prison qui Xll ans y avoit este. Et poia sa ranson Et puis desconfist le roy henry dengleterre devant sainctes en poitou. Et en lan M. ll.c XLVlll le roy partit de son pais de france pour aler oultre mer sus les sarrasins Et a son retour il aporta la saincte couronne despines dont nostre seigneur ihesucrist fut couronne Et la mist en la chapelle du palois quil avoit fondée nouvellement Et depuis retorna et ala en tunes Et print la tour de damiete Et depuis y fut prins prisonnier du soudent Et se mist a rançon Et pour ycelle paier fist venir le tiers et danglers sus les bois Et fist courre monnoie de cuer Et tantost quil fut retorne il mourut Et trespassa lan mil Ile LXX. Et gist a saint dénis en france. Et avoit regne XLllll ans. Et avoit este prisonnier VII. ans Cestui out a femme marguerite fille au conte de prouvence dont il out V. filz et quatre filles. Phelippe qui fut roy après son pere Robert conte de cleremont dont yssit laques de charroloys et louys de bourbon louys qui mourut jenne Jehan conte de neuvers et pierres conte dalencon. Et meirguerite duchesse de breban. agnes duchesse de bourgogne, blanche femme au filz du roy de castelle Et ysabel royne de navarre. Cestui saint louys fonda lostel dieu de paris les XV.xx dudit lieu lostel dieu de provins lostel dieu de senlis lostel dieu de pontoise. lostel dieu de vemon. labaie de reaumont. labaie de reaulieu. maubison labaie de troie en champaigne saincte katherine du val des escollers a paris." 305 correctly noted that Saint Louis undertook two expeditions against the Muslims, but he confused them in writing that the king had been captured during the second of his crusades, and he erred in placing Damietta in Tunisia and in stating that Louis had been held prisoner for seven years. On the other hand, what he believed about the king's ransom is clear. Its payment had necessitated new taxation, namely, the tiers et dangier on wood. It had also caused Louis IX to issue leather money, presumably because of the bankruptcy of the kingdom. Colette Beaune recognized as much. She cited B.N., fr. 9688 as an example of those two allegations, and as a manifestation of "considerable ambivalence toward Louis IX" in the "popular strata of Paris". 19 It is possible, however, to go further in assessing its author's opinion of Saint Louis. While what he included in his account of the reign of Louis IX is important, something that he excluded is no less so. Namely, the author of B.N., fr. 9688 offerred no editorial comments on the person of Louis IX, on his reign in general, or on the seventh crusade in particular. To be sure, he did not explicitly condemn the king, or his reign, or the first of his crusades. But he also did not praise them, which, viewed in context, is a fact of great significance. Late-medieval historians of France typically commented explicitly and favorably on the virtues of Louis IX. Indeed, sixteen of the twenty-three unofficial historians whose works 1 studied

1 ^Beaune, The Birth of an Ideology. 108-110. 306 offerred some sort of positive editorial comment on his person or on hisreign.20 "He did much good during his life," wrote one .21 "He was very chivalrous and was champion of the holy church," said another.22 A third described him as "the holy king Louis" and as "the good king Saint Louis".23 "The good king Saint Louis" did "many good things during his life," wrote a fourth.24 still another told his readers that Louis "did many good things".2S Two others referred to the

"holy" and "good" memory of Louis1X.26 One unofficial historian described him as "the noble king Saint Louis", "the holy king", and "the very holy king", alluded to his scrupulousness and his prudence, and lauded his death-bed instructions to the future Philip 111.22

20rhe seven that did not were B.N., fr. 4948, fr. 5697, fr. 9688, fr. 23019, n.a. fr. 4209, n.a. fr. 4811, and lat. 14663.

21b.N., fr. 5734, fol. 105v: "Et [Louis K] fist moult de bien en sa vie."

22b.N., fr. 10468, fol. 109: "Il fut treschevalereux et champion de saincte eglise."

23b.N., n.a. fr. 7519: " et la clouit son derrenier jour le saint roy louys" (fol. 45v); " le bon roy saint louis" (fol. 46).

24b.N., ;’r. 5696: " et [Louis K] fist moult de biens en sa vie" (fol. 38); " mais le bon roy sainct loys feist la paix dilligement desdictes clercs et bourgeois " (fols. 38V-39).

25b.N., fr. 10139, fol. 11: "Et sy [Louis IXj fist moult de biens es églises ". In another copy of the same work, the phrase reads "Et si fist moult de biens, et deglises " (B.N., fr. 5059, fol. 17v).

26 b.N., fr. 1623, fol. 94: " loys de sainte mémoire B.N., fr. 1707, fol. 36: " loys le roy Qpi en dieu ot bonne mémoire."

27 b.N., fr. 10137: " delsquelle 11 ot le noble roy saint loys" (fol. 31v); "le saint roy" (fols. 32, 35v, 36); "le roy tressainct" (fol. 32v); " de grant conscience estoit " (fol. 35v); "Mais le saint roy par sa prudence le tourna en fuyte....." (fol. 36); " En sa maladie bailla a phelippe son filz aisne moult de belles instructions pour justement se gouverner, et son royaume " (fol. 36). 307 Another held up Louis IX as a model of good kingship by stating that all kings and princes ought to remember those same instructions.28 Others drew attention to his upright behavior,29 to his mercifulness,30 to the holiness of his life,3i and to the holiness of his death.32 One described him as compassionate and glorious.33 Another stated that he reigned gloriously, loved justice, and acted justly.34 "Saint Louis was a great lover of justice, valiant, and pious," opined yet another.35 Viewed in context, the silence of the author of B.N., fr. 9688 on the virtues of Louis IX stands in sharp contrast to the general late- medieval chorus of praise for that monarch. It would be less remarkable had the author of B.N., fr. 9688 been an historian who refrained from judging the monarchs whose reigns he chronicled, but

28b.N., fr. 5709, fol. 78: "Loys XLIIIe roy de france fut sainct. duquel a la fin de ceste cronique plusieurs enseignemens dignes de commander a mémoire a tous princes et roys sont redigez par escript."

29b.N., fr. 24976, fol. 32: "11 fut moult preudome ".

30b.N., fr. 4954, fol. 18: "Ledit sainct loys acomplist en son temps toutes les euvres de miséricorde ".

31b.N., lat. 5027, fol. 80v: " et lui [Louis IX] rtoume mena sainte vie ".

32b.N., fr. 4991, fol. 15v: " puis trespassa saintement ou moys daoust lan mil deux cens soixante et unze ".

33b.N., fr. 1233: "Saint loys roy trespiteux .... " (fol. 103b); "Bien se doivent reiouir de liesce espirituelle les successeurs de glorieux roy de france " (fol. 107a).

34b.N., lat. 5195: "Saint loys. filz dudit loys [Vlll] commença glorieusement a regner " (fol. 13); "Il fut tresgrant justicier et droit" (fol. 13v).

33b.N., fr. 5704, fol. 39: " ledit sainct loys fut grant justicier vaillant et dévot"; also, " et [Louis IX] vesquit sainctement toute sa vie" (fol. 39v). 308 he was not. Indeed, he explicitly described the virtues or the vices of nineteen other French kings. The author of B.N., fr. 9688 informed his readers that Pharamond "governed his kingdom very well, and did many good things,"36 that Childeric 1 was "lascivious",37 and that Chlotar 11 was "very liberal and courtly".38 He described Chlotar 111, Childeric 11, and Theuderic 111 as "lazy",39 and Childeric 111 as "useless".

"Pepin," he wrote, "was a very good knight and b o ld ." 4 i He described the latter's son as generous, liberal, and just, and added that

Charlemagne "loved the church very m u c h " .42 He commented on

Charles the Bald's w isd o m 4 3 and on Charles the Fat's lack of v a lo r .4 4

36 b.N., fr. 9688, fol. 30v: "Cestui [Pharamond] gouverna moult bien son reaume. Et fist moult de biens."

32b.N., fr. 9688, fol. 31: "Cestui [Childeric I] fut si luxurieux quil faisoit moult de violence et villanie aux femmes et filles de ses barons ".

38b.N., fr. 9688, fol. 33: "Cestui roy [Chlotar II) fut en son temps moult large et courtois ".

39b.N., fr. 9688, fol. 34: "Cestui roy [Theuderic III] et ses freres devant dis [Chlotar III and Childeric II] furent peresseurs faintis et non puissans de leur reaulme gouverner."

40b.N., fr. 9688, fol. 35: "Cestui [Childeric III] ne fut de nul profit Et pour ce fut il depose de la couronne ".

41b.N., fr. 9688, fol. 35: "Cestui pépin fut moult bon chevalier et hardi"; also, " Et orderierent que pépin maire du palois seroit roy par la bonté et proesce qui estoit en luy " (fol. 35).

42b.N., fr. 9688, fol. 27v: "Cestui Charles fut large et liberal iuste et beau parleur Et tresbel homme Et moult ama leglise ".

43b.N., fr. 9688, fol. 27v: "Cestui [Charles the Bald] fut instruit en armes Et fut bel homme et saige."

44b.N., fr. 9688, fol. 37: "Cestui [Charles the Fat] fut desposse de lempiere par les princes de Romme pour ce quil navoit en luy proesce. ne hardement." 309 He described Eudes as "wise",45 termed Hugh Capet "a good, upright man",46 and stated that Robert the Pious "loved the church very much".47 He wrote that Louis VI "was very valiant and fearless against his enemies,"^» that Louis VII "was upright and compassionate",49 and that Philip VI "was strong and powerful".so He stated that John II was "cruel and arrogant".si Finally, he told his readers that Charles V "was upright and wise, and governed his kingdom well".s2 Most late-medieval historians of France commented favorably on Louis IX, but the author of B.N., fr. 9688 did not. The author of B.N., fr. 9688 frequently commented on the virtues and vices of French monarchs, but he said nothing about those of Saint Louis. That is why, placed in context, his silence is significant. To prove that he refrained from praising Saint Louis because he believed him

45b,N., fr. 9688, fol. 37: "Cestui [Eudes] fut moult saige Et régna IX. ans moult sagement."

46 b.N., fr. 9688, fol. 39: "Et [Hugh Capet] fut bon prodomme tant comme il vesquit."

47 b,N., fr. 9688, fol. 39: "Cestui [Robert the Pious] ama moult leglise."

48b.N., fr. 9688, fol. 40v: "Cestui [Louis VTj fut moult preux et hardi contre ses ennemis ".

49b.N., fr. 9688, fol. 40v: "Et [Louis VII] fut preudomme et piteux au peuple et aulx églises et y donnoit du sien largement."

50b.N., fr. 9688, fol. 43: "Cestui [Philip VI] fut fort et puissant ".

51b.N., fr. 9688, fol. 43: "Cestui [John II] fut fel et orguilleux."

52b.N., fr. 9688, fol. 45: " et [Charles V] fut proudomme et saige. Et bien gouverna son reaulme tant comme il vesquit." 310 to have impoverished the kingdom by the payment of his ransom and to have imposed new taxes on his subjects is simply impossible. To suggest it is, however, reasonable. In sum, if the author of B.N., fr. 9688 did indeed strip Louis IX of the praise typically accorded to him and the virtues typically attributed to him in late-medieval historiography because he believed him to have imposed new taxes and to have issued leather money, then he harbored more than "ambivalence" towards Saint Louis. What he harbored was antipathy.

B.N.. fr. 5704 A third text which asserted that the payment of Saint Louis' ransom had a negative effect on his kingdom was the history of France found in B.N., fr. 5704.53 Writing sometime between 1488 and 1498, its author said the following about the crusades of Saint Louis: "He made two voyages overseas, where he inflicted great damages upon the infidels On the first voyage that he made on the sea he inflicted great damage upon those of Tunis, and took it [Le., Tunis] by assault, and made his brother Charles king of Sicily. And after he had returned to France the Tartars retook the said city from the Christians, for which reason the said Saint Louis again returned overseas, and he was captured before Tunis, and for a hostage he handed over his said brother Charles, and he intended to return to

53on B.N., fr. 5704 and the history of France it contains, see section (U) of Chapter II, "The Sources". 311 France to make his ransom, but they say that in the said country he was stricken by the plague, of which he died. And in order to have [back] the said Charles, it was necessary to pay great worth Ffïnancel. to the degree that the whole kingdom of France felt it hard [sen sentit fo r t].'* 54 Like the author of B.N., fr. 9688, the author of B.N., fr. 5704 confused certain facts. He mistakenly identified Tunisia as the site of Saint Louis' first crusade, and he erred in stating that the expedition resulted in the establishment of Charles of Anjou on the Sicilian throne. He erred in noting that Louis IX was taken prisoner while on his second crusade, and he mistakenly stated that Louis' ransom was paid after the king's death, in order to redeem his brother Charles, who had stood hostage for him. Nevertheless, what he believed about that ransom is clear. While he did not spell out the means by which he believed it to have been raised, he strongly implied that the payment of the ransom had severely taxed the financial resources, and thus the well-being, of all of Louis' subjects. The ransom was sufficiently heavy to have burdened "the whole kingdom of France", which had "felt it hard". It was a national event that had a negative effect on the nation.

54b.N., fr. 5704, fols. 38v-39; "11 alia oulire mer deux voiaiges la ou il fit de grans dommalges aux infidèles au premier voyaige quil fit sur la mer 11 fit de grans dommaiges a ceulx de thunes et la print dassaut et fist son frere Charles roy de cecile. Et après qui fut retourner en france les tartares reprindrent ladite cite de thunes sur les crestiens. par quoy de rechief retourna ledit sainct loys oultre mer et devant thunes fut prins et bailla pour ostaige sondit frere Charles et cuida retourner en france pour faire sa rançon mais audit pais on dit que la peste luy print dont il mourut. Et pour avoir ledit Charles faillut paier grant finance, tellement que tout le royaume de france sen sentit fort." 312 Viewed in isolation, the account of Louis IX’s crusades in B.N., fr. 5704 thus stands as a third late-medieval affirmation of the negative consequences of the seventh crusade on the French people. What is more, to place that account in context is to reveal just how negative its author believed those consequences to have been. The important point is that his remarks on the ransom of Louis IX did not represent the only occasion on which the author of B.N., fr. 5704 informed his readers that the French people had suffered under the weight of a financial burden imposed by one of their kings. Indeed, he did so twice more in the course of his work. The second instance occurred in his account of the reign of Philip VI. The author of B.N., fr. 5704 noted that the gabelle was first levied during the reign of that king, and remarked that its imposition "was a very great dommaige [that is, pity, or injury] for the people of France."S5 The third instance occurred in his account of the reign of John II. He began by noting that John was captured by the English at the battle of Poitiers (1356) and was subsequently brought to England as a prisoner. After having noted that a number of lords stood hostage for John in England while the king returned to France to make his ransom, he then went on to state that "There were several overtures made by the English for the liberation of the said king, to which neither the lords of France nor the people wanted to listen because it fi.e.. paying the ransom] was the destruction of the kingdom. For this

55b.N., fr. 5704, fol. 43v: "Du temps aussi dudit philippe de valois si mist sus premièrement la gabelle en france qui fut tresgrant dommaige pour le peuple de france." 313 reason, the king prepared to return to England, because he preferred to remain there than that the kingdom be destroyed for him."56 Narrating John's return to England in 1364, he went on to write that "the king returned to England to fulfill his obligation and he preferred to die a prisoner than that his kingdom be destroyed by him and [after John's death, which the author of B.N., fr. 5704 mistakenly said to have had taken place at Calais, while the king was en route to England] four hundred thousand gold ecus were paid to have [back] the hostages, which the kingdom felt hard [sen sentist fort] "57 Finally, the author of B.N., fr. 5704 concluded his chapter on the reign of John by stating that "He was taken [captive] before Poitiers in the year 1358 [sic], the nineteenth day of September, and died five years later, about which it was said that it was a great pity, for he was very worthy; but it was a great profit for the kingdom, for by this means his ransom was not entirely paid to the English."58

56 b.N., fr. 5704, fol. 44: "II y eul plusieurs ouvertures faictes par lesdilz angloys pour la délivrance dudit roy. ausquelles les seigneurs de France ne le peuple ne voulurent entendre car cestoit du tout la destruction du royaulme. Pour la quelle chose le roy se disposa de retourner en angleterre car il amoit mieulx y demoure que le royaulme fust destruict pour luy."

57 b.N., fr. 5704, fols. 44-44v: "Et après le roy pour acquiter sa foy sen retourna en angleterre et aymoit mieux mourir prisonnier que par luy son royaulme fust destruit et pour avoir les ostaiges fut paye quatre cens mille escuz dor. de quoy le royaulme sen sentist fort."

58b.N., fr. 5704, fol. 44v: "Avant le trespas dudit roy Jehan la ville et la cite darras fut mise en son obéissance et fut pris devant poictiers. lan mil trois cens Iviii le XKe jour de septembre et mourut cinq ans après de quoy len disoit que cestoit grant dommaige pour sa personne car il vailloit beaucoup: mais cestoit grant proffit pour le royaulme car par ce moyen ne fust entièrement paie aux anglois sa rencon." 314 Viewed individually, his passages on the ransom of Louis IX, the imposition of the eabelle by Philip VI, and the ransom of John II reveal only what the author of B.N., fr. 5704 thought about each matter. Viewed together, they reveal much more about that historian and about the significance that he attached to the ransom of Saint Louis. Indeed, placed in the context of fifteenth-century historiography, the presence of the three passages in the same history of France is remarkable and sets B.N., fr. 5704 apart. On the one hand, most of the late-medieval historians of France whose works I studied did not even mention the ransom of Louis IX, The author of B.N., fr. 5704, on the other hand, mentioned it and described its effect upon the French people.59 Furthermore, most late-medieval historians of France did not mention the imposition of the gabelle by Philip of Valois. In examining the accounts of the reign of Philip VI in the twenty-three unofficial histories of France that I studied, I found that the authors of only three of them explicitly mentioned the levying of the gabelle^o and that only three others alluded to the other

S^See the section on "B.N., fr. 10468, B.N., fr. 1233, and B.N., fr. 24976" below.

^(^The authors of B.N., fr. 1707 (reign of Philip of Valois, fol. 36), fr. 1623 (fols. 95-95V), fr. 4948 (fol. 97v), fr. 4954 (fols. 20v-21), fr. 5696 (fols. 44v-46), fr. 5697 (fols. 30v, 31v), fr. 5709 (fol. 79), fr. 5734 (fols. 107v-108), fr. 4991 (fol. 17v), fr. 23019 (fol. 33), fr. 24976 (fols. 40v-43v), n.a. fr. 4209 (fols. 13-14), n.a. fr. 4811 (fol. 8v), n.a. fr. 7519 (fols. 66-67), lat. 5027 (fols. 88v-90v), lat. 5195 (fol. 15) and lat. 14663 (fol. 30) did not mention the imposition of the gabelle or take note of any of the fiscal policies of Philip VI. In addition to the author of B.N., fr. 5704, two others noted the imposition of the gabelle. (1) Noël de Fribois stated that "La gabelle commença en cel an [1342, sic] philippe de valoys lors regnant en france" (B.N., fr. 1233, fol. 113vB). (2) The author of B.N., fr. 10137 wrote that "En ceste an [i.e.. 1343] le roy mist sus la gabelle, et affoiblit la monnoye, et valloit le sextier de ble soixante seize solz p. Si en fut hay du peuple et des grans aussi" (fol. 46). 315 controversial fiscal expedients of his reign.^i Furthermore, of those six historians, only two other than the author of B.N., fr. 5704 commented on the effect of the imposition of the gabelle in particular, or on the effect of Philip's fiscal policies in general, upon the kingdom.62 Finally, most late-medieval historians of France did not mention the ransom of John 11. In examining the accounts of the reign of John 11 contained in the twenty-three unofficial histories of France that I studied, 1 found that the authors of seven of them took note neither of John's capture at the battle of Poitiers nor of his r a n so m .6 3 Ten of them mentioned John's capture, but not his

^l(l) The author of B.N., fr. 9688 may or may not have thought of the gabelle in noting "Et en lan M. III.c XLK. le XVII.e jour de février furent acordees les aides et impositions au roy phelipe" (fol. 43v). (2) The author of B.N., fr. 10139 noted the revaluation of the currency in 1343: "Et en lan mil CCC XLIII fist phelippe de valois XV deniers venir a troys de quoy vint moult de mal et de rebellions Car les rentes vouloient estre paiees a forte monnoye Et les louagiers ne le vouloient faire y eult moult de discencions" (fol. 12). (3) The author of B.N., fr. 10468 took note of Philip's manipulations of the currency, and may have believed the imposition of the gabelle to be one of the violations of the liberties and franchises of the kingdom that he alleged Philip VI to have committed: "Et jura ledit phelipe quil tendroit le royaume en ses libertés et franchises et quil ne mueroit point les monnoyes desquelles choses il ne fist riens, et pource il luy en mescheut" (fol. 110).

^^In addition to the author of B.N., fr. 5704, the authors of B.N., fr. 10137 and B.N., fr. 10139 commented on the effects of the fiscal policies of Philip VI upon the kingdom. The former noted that the imposition of the gabelle and the devaluation of the currency made both the "peuple" and the "grans" hate the king (see note 60 above). The latter noted that the revaluation of the currency brought about "moult de mal et de rebellions" (see note 61 above)^ On Philip VI's monetary policy, see Raymond Gazelles, "Quelques réflexions à propos des mutations de la monnaie royale française (1295-1360)," Le Moven Age 72 (1966) 83-105,251-78.

1) The author of B.N., fr. 1623 noted only that "Le LVI.e roy de france ot nom jehan et régna XIIII. ans et ot a femme ma dame bonne de Behangne" (fol. 316 r a n so m .6 4 Only six noted that John’s capture had resulted in the

95v). (2) The author of B.N., fr. 1707 wrote "Apres régna son fllz Jehans/Qui le royaume tint XIIII ans/En angleterre fut finis/Raporte fut a saint denis/Et puis regna Charles " (fol. 36v). He probably knew that John had been captured by the English, since he noted that the king had died in England, but said nothing explicit about Poitiers or its aftermath. The same held true of the author of (3) B.N., fr. 4948 and of the continuator of (4) B.N., lat. 14663. The former noted the length of John's reign, the names of his wife and children, and that "11 morut en angleterre dont le corps fu rapporte a saint denis en france" (B.N., fr. 4948, fol. 97v). The latter wrote that "Le XXXVIII.e roy fu Jehan filz du dit phelippe lequel roy Jehan fu couronne a rains lan mil CCC. L. XXVI.e die septembre, et trespassa en engleterre le Ville jour davril après pasquez. M. CCC. LXIH" (B.N., lat. 14663, fol. 30). (5) The author of B.N. fr. 4954 wrote that "Ledit roy jehan fut hardy et couraigeux et plusieurs foiz se offrit a combatre corps a corps le roy dangleterre eddouart de widesore son ennemy. ce que jamais ne voult accorder II reprint la ville de saint jehan dangely sur les anglois qui lavoient tenue cinq ans puis il remeist en son obéissance la cite darras qui sestoit rebelle par aucuns mutins, dont il feist faire grant execucion et depuis furent bons et loyaulx" (fol. 21). (6) The author of B.N., fr. 5709 noted only that "Jehan second de ce nom" was the fifty-first king of France (fol. 79). (7) The author of B.N., n.a fr. 4811 simply noted "Jean le Bon" in his list of the French kings (fol. 8v). He went on, in his chapter on Charles V, to state that Charles "toust remist en bon estât bien que son pere le roy Jean le Bon eust tout bien mal ordonne, bien que poinct ne fut meschant homme, mais tant sist (sic: fist] que tout gasta" (fols. 9-9v), but did not specify what he meant.

64(1) Noël de Fribois wrote that "Le roy jehan fut prins en bataille pres poictiers le neufime jour de septembre lan mil trois cens cinquante et six" and that "le roy iehan retourna en angleterre" in 1363 and that he died there in 1364 (B.N., fr. 1233, fol. 114vA-B), but said nothing about his r^som . He did, however, take note of it in the second recension of his Abrégé des Chroniques de France, on which see note 66 below. (2) The author of B.N., fr. 4991 wrote that " le roy de france et les francois furent desconfis prez de poitiers Et fut le roy pris et fut le roy et les autres prisonniers menez en angleterre et y morut le roy" (fol. 18a-b). (3) The author of B.N., fr. 5696 noted that " fut le roy jehan prins et desconfit devant poictiers" (fol. 47) and " fut la paix faicte et criee entre les roys de france. angleterre. et navarre Et vint le roy jehan a paris sur sa foy et par bons hostaiges quil laissa et puis sen retourna en angleterre pour acquicter sa foy ou il mourut" (fol. 48v), but said nothing explicit about the ransom. (4) The author of B.N., fr. 5697 stated that " il fut pris devant poictiers et mene en angleterre. ou il morut" (fol. 31v). (5) The author of B.N., fr. 9688 wrote that "Et fut desconfit le roy jehan et mene prisonnier en engleterre Et la fut une paix faicte entre les deux roys de france et dengleterre qui fut criee a paris Et puis le roy Jehan sen vint en france par kalois et de kalois a paris. Et en lan M. IIIc LXII. ala le roy jehan en avignon. Et en cel an retorna le roy Jehan en angleterre. Et la print maladie dont il mourut. Et y avoit este par VII. ans et demi" (fols. 44-44v). (6) The author of B.N., fr. 10139 stated that " fut le roy jehan desconfit et prins devant poitiers au champ alixandre par edouart prince de galles qui le mena en angleterre ou il mourit et y fut VIII ans ou [enjviron" (fol. 13v). (7) 317 payment of a ransom to hiscaptors.^s what is more, the author of B.N., fr. 5704 was the only one of those six who said anything about

According to the author of B.N., fr. 10468, " U fu prins des anglois a la bataille de poytiers et mene en angleterre ou il mouru" (fol. 110). (8) The author of B.N., fr. 23019 stated that " le roy Jehan fut desconfît et pris devant poitiers par edouart prince de galles qui le mena en engleterre ou il fut vins ans ou environ prisonnier et y mourut" (fol. 33v). (9) The author of B.N., n.a. fr. 4209 wrote that " fut la bataille de poictiers ou ledit roy Jehan fut prins En lannee ensuivant entra prisonnier a londres le roy de france Le roy de france fut délivré a plain de prison le XXVe jour doctobre mil troys cens et soixante" (fols. 15-15v). (10) The author of B.N., lat. 5027 noted that " le roy jehan fut desconfit [et] prins près de poictiers" (fol. 92), provided a list of those who stood hostage for John in England (fol. 96v), and noted that John returned to England "traitier de la délivrance" of the hostages (fol. 98), but made no explicit mention of the ransom.

addition to the author of B.N., fr. 5704, five others mentioned John's ransom. (1) The author of B.N., fr. 5734 wrote that " fu le roy prins devant poitiers Et en cel an fu fait certain accord a bourdeaux entre le roy de france et le prince de galles, que le roy sen devoit revenir, mais on lenvoya en angleterre Et en cest an fu la paix faicte et sollempnelement criee entre le roy de france et le roy dangleterre. Et furent fais sermens et lettres passeez dun coste et daultre. Et fu le roy de france mis a certaine rencon Et vint le roy de france a paris, et laissa bons hostaiges qui tindrent prisons pour lui Et [in 1362,sic] retourna le roy Jehan en engleterre de sa propre voulente. et illec lui print une maladie dont il moru” (fols. 108-110). (2) The author of B.N., fr. 10137 stated that "Et fut la besongne [i.e.. the battle of Poitiers] si mal menee. que il y mourut environ VIIl.c francois. et XVIl.c furent prins. et le roy aussi Le XV.e jour doctobre le roy Jehan qui avoit este amene a calais fut délivré de la prison des anglois. pour ce quil jura ladicte paix, et bailla ostaiges tresgrans pour la finance Lan III.c LXIII le roy Jehan passa de boulongne en angleterre de sa voulente. pour traicter de la délivrance de son frere le duc dorleans de son filz Jehan duc de berry et dauvergne et de ses autres hostaiges et y demoura atraicter de ses besongnes [until his death in 1364]” (fols. 48v-54v). (3) The author of B.N., fr. 24976 noted that John was captured, taken to England, and " fut renconne a trante et six mille frans Et pour les payer et retourner en france 11 bailla [certain hostages] Et quant il eut este certain temps en france II sen retourna en engleterre ou il mourut" (fols. 52- 54). (4) The author of B.N., n.a. fr. 7519 stated that " fut ledit roy de france jehan desconfit et prins devant poitiers il fut mene en angleterre Oudit an fut après faicte paiz. et sollennelement crie entre le roy de france et celui dangleterre. Et furent faiz sermens et lectres passées dun coste et dautre Et fut le roy de france mis a certaine ranczon. Lors sen vint ledit roy de france a calais Et sen vint ledit roy de france a paris. Et demourerent a hostaiges pour lui. pluseurs de touz estaz Oudit an [1362,siç] le roy de france retourna en angleterre de sa propre volunte. et le receurent les anglois honnourablement Apres print une maladie, de laquelle il morut" (fols. 68-73). (5) The author of B.N., lat. 5195 stated that "Cestui fut prins en bataille par edouart dangleterre avec XVII.c chevaliers. Il paia troys millions dor pour sa recon son filz 318 the impact of the payment of the ransom upon the French people.^^ In sum, the author of B.N., fr. 5704 did not hesitate to delve into controversial matters in the history of French royal fiscality. Most late-medieval historians of France did not take note of the ransom of Louis IX, but he mentioned it and described its effect upon the French people. Most did not mention the imposition of the gabelle by Philip of Valois, but he both noted the event and commented on its effect upon the kingdom. Most did not mention phelippe fut avecquez lui et mourut le jour de pasques en engleterre lan mil IIIc LXllir (fol. 15).

G^As one saw in the previous note, none of the other five historians who mentioned John's ransom said anything about its effect on the kingdom. Noël de Fribois, who said nothing about the ransom in the first recension of his Abrégé des Chroniques de France, did, however, both mention it and comment on its effect upon the kingdom in the second recension of his work: " le roy de france tira droit vers tours pour aler pres de poitiers combatre ledit prince de galles et ses gens dessusdits, mais il perdist comme dit est la bataille et fut pris dont il paya troys millions dor de sa raencon Apres laquelle prise le duc de normandie son filz assembla les trois estas pour luy aider a lever une taille telle et si grande comme il convenoit pour payer ladicte raencon de trois millions dor, dont le peuple fut de rechief plus greve que devant" (B.N., fr. 4943, fol. 43v). In studying fourteenth-century royal taxation, John Bell Henneman, Roval Taxation in Fourteenth-Centurv France: The Development of War Financing 1322-1356. Princeton 1971, 302, concluded that John's ransom did in fact usher in a new error in the fiscal liistory of France. While it is not my intention here fully to study its treatment in late-medieval French historiography, my research has brought to light a number of elements that indicate that, like the ransom of Louis K, it was a controversial matter: (1) As we shall see later in this chapter, Louis Le Blanc emphasized both that Saint Louis' ransom was not comparable to John's and that John's ransom did not bring financial ruin upon the kingdom; (2) The author of B.N., fr. 5704 and Noël de Fribois, in the second recension of his work, stated that the payment of John's ransom had a nefarious impact upon the French people; (3) The fact that the majority of the authors of late-medieval histories of France did not mention John's ransom, and in particular the fact that many of them mentioned his capture but not his ransom, themselves indicate that the matter was a sensitive one and raise the possibility of deliberate omissions. A study of John's ransom in late-medieval historiography would provide a useful supplement to Elisabeth Carpentier, "L'historiographie de la bataille de Poitiers au quatorzième siècle," Revue Historique 263 (1980) 21-58, which did not address the matter. 319 the ransom of John II, but he wrote at length of its effect upon the people of France. Viewed collectively and in the context of late-medieval historiography, his remarks on the three matters at hand reveal a definite pattern. They indicate that the author of B.N., fr. 5704 was very much concerned about the financial well-being of the French people. Unlike most late-medieval historians of France, he described the fiscal demands placed upon Frenchmen by their kings. He clearly believed that some of those demands had harmed the French people, and he did not hesitate explicitly to say so. Given his sensitivity to the impact of royal fiscality upon the people of France, the fact that the payment of the ransom of Louis IX represented one of those demands indicates just how "hard" he believed the kingdom to have "felt" its impact. In effect, he likened its effect on the kingdom to the impact of the gabelle and to that of the payment of John's ransom, the only other royal fiscal impositions whose negative impact he noted. Indeed, he even used comparable language in discussing the institution of the gabelle and John’s ransom, and the very same language in discussing John's ransom and the ransom of Saint Louis. The institution of the gabelle was a "pity" for the French people; John's death was a "pity" for him, but a "profit" for the French people, who "felt hard" the burden of his ransom; the whole kingdom of France "felt" the burden of Louis DC's ransom "hard". In short, he associated the three matters, which he viewed as comparable in their negative effects upon the people of France. 320 Louis Le Blanc. I The extent of the late-medieval controversy over the ransom of Louis IX is revealed not only by texts that leveled allegations against Saint Louis, but also by the existence of texts written in his defense. 1 found three such texts, the earliest of which was Louis Le Blanc's Chronique abresee de monseigneur saint lovs rov de france. et dautres rovs de france ses nredecesseurs. Louis Le Blanc, a royal notary and secretary who held the post of greffier en chef in the Chambre des Comptes from 1467 to 1509,*^^ was an active historian of the French monarchy. Michel François identified him as the author of three historical works, namely, an account of the devotion of the French kings to Saint Denis written for

Charles Vlll in 1 4 9 5 ,^ 8 a short history of the French kings written for Louis Xll in 1498,89 and a life of Saint Louis, composed sometime

87on the little that is known of the life and career of Louis Le Blanc, see H. Coustant d'Yanville, Chambre des Comptes de Paris. Essais historiques et chronologiques. Privilèges et attributions nobiliaires et armorial. Paris 1866- 1875,11, 927; Mchel François, "Les Rois de France et les traditions de l'abbaye de Saint-Denis à la fin du XVe siècle," in Mélanges dédiés à la mémoire de Félix Grat. Paris 1946,1, 380-382; A. Lapeyre and R. Scheurer, Les Notaires et Secrétaires du roi sous les règnes de Louis XI. Charles VIll et Louis XII. Paris 1978, notice 379; Kathleen Daly, "Mixing Business with Leisure: Some French Royal Notaries and Secretaries and their Histories of France, c.1459-1509," in Christopher Allmand (ed.). Power. Culture, and Religion in France c.1350- Ç1550, Woodbridge 1989,101.

88on this work, see François, "Les Rois de France," 367-376, and Daly, "Mixing Business with Leisure," passim. It is known to survive in three manuscripts: Paris, B.N., fr. 5706, fr. 5868, and fr. 5870, for descriptions of which consult, respectively, the Catalogue des manuscrits français de la Bibliothèque Nationale. V. 71,144,144-145.

89on this work, see François, "Les Rois de France," 376-377, and Daly, "Mixing Business with Leisure," passim. For a description of Paris, B.N., fr. 5869, the unique manuscript in which it is known to survive, see the Catalogue des manuscrits français de la Bibliothèque Nationale. V, 144. 321 between 1495 and 15097° Kathleen Daly later identified Le Blanc as the author of "Pour vraye congnoissance avoir", an historical treatise written in 1471 against the English claim to the French crown/^ Finally, to the four known historical works of Louis Le Blanc, one can now add a fifth, hitherto ignored by modern scholars. B.N., fr. 25012 is the original, autograph copy of a short historical work entitled Chronique abresee de monseigneur saint lovs rov de france. et d'autres rovs de france ses predecesseurs. It concludes thus; "I, Louis Le Blanc, notary and secretary of the king, and greffier in his Chambre des Comptes, testify the above-said things to be true, and to have been extracted from the registers and ancient books of the said Trésor and Chambre des Comptes by me, the 15th of May, 1498, signed Le B la n c .

7°0n this work, entitled "La sainte vie et les haultz faictz, dignes de mémoire, de monseigneur saint Loys," see the next section of this chapter.

^^Daly, "Mixing Business with Leisure," 101. The treatise survives in two manuscripts: Paris, B.N., fr. 15490 and fr. 25159, for descriptions of which see, respectively, the Catalogue des manuscrits français de la Bibliothèque Nationale DC, 23-24, and XIII, 524-5. Daly (p. 101, note 11) also signalled Le Blanc's unfulfilled promise to compose a treatise on the French kings from Philip VI to Louis XI, and (p. 103) described his activities as an archivist at the Chambre des Comptes: he created a personal collection of copies of historical documents and, in 1482, was commissioned to compile an inventory of the dociunents in the Trésor des Chartes.

^^B.N., fr. 25012, fol. 9v: "Et je Loys le blanc notaire et secretaire du roy. et greffier en sa chambre des comptes, tesmoigne les choses dessusdictes estre vrayes. et avoir este par moy este extraictes des registres et livres antiques dudict trésor et chambre des comptes, le XV.e de may. mil llll.c IlIIxx XVIll. signe Le blanc." That those interested in Louis Le Blanc have not imcovered the work in question is surprising given that the Catalogue des manuscrits français de la Bibliothèque Nationale XIII, 498, to which one will refer for a description of the manuscript, identified it as Le Blanc's. 322 The work in question is distinct from the short history of the French kings that Le Blanc wrote for Louis XII at approximately the same timeJ^ The Chronique abregee de monseigneur saint lovs is an independent historical treatise dedicated to defending the memory of Louis IX. To summarize it will provide additional insight into the charges leveled against Saint Louis in late-medieval France. Le Blanc began the prologue to his work by outlining those charges. Addressing Louis XII, he stated that "in order to respond to those who have wanted to say that in his time the Most Christian king of France, Saint Louis, your ancestor, impoverished his kingdom, as much on account of the two armies that he led against the unbelievers and infidels for the protection and defense of the Holy Land and the exaltation of the faith as on account of his ransom that he paid to the sultan; and that in order to meet the expenses of his wars he imposed the tailles, aides, and gabelles and had leather money made on account of the great poverty and scarcity of silver that was in this kingdom: I say that these are words said and

^^According to François, "Les Roys de France," 3 77, the contents of the short history of the French kings that Le Blanc wrote for Louis XII (B.N., fr. 5869) are as follows: fols. 7-13v, "services faiz par les très chrestiens roys de France a I'Eglise"; fols. 14-18, "roys de France qui ont extirpe les heresies du royaume"; fols. 18v-27, "voyaiges faiz oultremer par les très chrestiens roys de france"; fols. 27V-37, genealogy of the dukes of Orleans; fols. 3 9 -4 7 , merits of the kings named Louis; fols. 52v-59v, text of the Enseignements of Saint Louis. With the exception of a short section on the "Roys de france qui ont este en la terre saincte" (fol. 3v), the contents of B.N., fr. 2 5 0 1 2 , which will be discussed at length in this chapter, are completely different. Inasmuch as François dated the composition of the history contained in B.N., fr. 5 8 6 9 to immediately after the coronation of Louis Xll (27 May 1498), the Chronique abresee de monseigneur saint lovs is, by several weeks, the earlier work. It is adressed to the king (see the following note), but nothing indicates that Louis XII, or anyone else, ever received a copy of it. 323 recounted by hearsay, and that those who so thoughtlessly want to give assurance of such an important matter would not know how to give any other proof of it, unless they prefer to form an opinion of it the way blind men do of colors."^^ Having stated the accusations against Louis IX, Le Blanc used the remainder of his prologue briefly to indicate some of the arguments that he would develop against them during the course of his treatise. Le Blanc noted that it was not Saint Louis, but his sixth successor, Philip of Valois, who had imposed the aforementioned taxes.75 Likewise, he wrote, it was not Saint Louis, but his contemporary, emperor Frederick II, who had issued leather money.76 He advanced Saint Louis' foundation of numerous ecclesiastical establishments, the fact that "long after his death, his successors promised to make money as good as it had been during

fr. 25012, fol. 1: "Sire pour respondre a ceulx. qui ont voulu dire que le treschrestien roy de france saint loys vostre progeniteur en son temps appauvrist son royaume. Tant pour les deux armees quil mena contre les mescreans et infîdelles pour la tuition et deffence de la terre sainte et exaltacion de la foy. Que aussi pour sa rançon quil paya au souldan. Et que pour subvenir aux fraiz de ses guerres. Il mist sus. tailles, aydes et gabelles et feist faire de la monnoye de cuyr pour la grande pauvreté et pénurie dargent qui estoit en ce royaume. Je diz, soubz la reverance honneur et protection de vostre royalle mageste sire, que ce sont paroUes dictes et refferees par cuyr dire. Et autre certitude n'en scauroient donner ceulx. qui si ligierement de si grand faict. veulent donner asseurance. sinon quilz en voulsissent juger comme les aveugles font des couleurs."

fr. 25102, fol. 1: "Car au contraire les dessudites aydes furent mis sus long temps après son deces par le six.me roy son successeur Fi.e.. Philip of Valois]. Et pour bonne et juste cause advisee et conclute par son bon conseil bien assemble."

fr. 251012, fols. 1-lv: "Et pareillement ne se trouvera quil ayt faict faire ladite monnoye de cuyr. Ains lempereur federic deux.me de ce nom. Lequel regnoit de son temps." 324 the lifetime of Saint Louis," and the fact that Louis' successor, Philip III, "found this kingdom so rich that he sustained several wars against his adversaries," as proof that the payment of Louis' ransom had not resulted in the impoverishment of the kingdom and the circulation of leatherm oney indeed. Le Blanc stated that far from having impoverished his kingdom, Saint Louis had enriched it beyond measure by his acquisition of numerous relics of the Passion J 8 He went on to defend Louis’ crusades by noting that in his time it was as common for Christians to go to the Holy Land as it presently was for Frenchmen to go to Italy, that Louis did so "neither for his pleasure nor to waste time, but as the first son of the church, to whom belonged the defense of the faith," and that in so doing he followed a precedent set by previous French kingsJ^ Finally, Le

fr. 25102, fol. Iv: ”Et esl chose certaine que le royaume de france estoit si riche et si opulent, vivant saint loys. quil estoit nouvelles par tout le monde de ses charitez et aumosnes. Et entre ses faicts. dignes de mémoire II feist construire et ediffier vingt huict monastères, lesquelz il dota et fonda grandement, tant de revenuz que de plusieurs beaulx et riches joyaulx. Et durant son regne estoit la monnoye si bonne et si forte. Qjie long temps après son trespas. ses successeurs promisrent faire faire aussi bonne monnoye quelle estoit du vivant dudit saint loys. Et oultre est a noter que au jour de son deces. le roy philippes Ill.e de ce nom son filz et successeur, trouva icellui royaume si riche quil soustint plusieurs guerres contre ses adversaires desquelles il rapporta les victoires comme cy après sera diet."

^%.N., fr. 25012, fols, lv-2: "Et nest semblablement a obmectre. que oultre les choses cy dessus alleguees. enrichist son royaume du plus grand trésor qui fut au monde Car il acquist et rachepta la sainte couronne despines dont nostre seigneur Jesuscrist fut couronne. Et plusieurs autres saintes reliques de sa passion quil meist en la sainte chappelle de son palais a paris. Laquelle pour ceste cause il feist lors construire et ediffier, Congnoissant que telz precieulx reliquaires, valloient bien avoir lieu neuf et sans macule."

fr. 25012, fol. 2: "Et ne se fault esmerveiller. si pour la seconde fois il retourna contre lesdits infideUes. pource que lors estoit chose usitee aux chrestiens. aller en la terre sainte comme est de present aux francois aller en Italie Et ny alla ledit saint loys pour son plaisir ny pour perdre temps, mais comme premier filz de leglise. auquel appartenoit la deffense de la foy Et aussi 325 Blanc concluded his prologue by offering a providential explanation of the failure of Louis IX'scrusades.so He then returned to the matter of the relics acquired by Saint Louis, which he listed in a chapter entitled "Declaration of the said Holy R elics" .8i Le Blanc entitled the second chapter of his work "Kings of France who were in the Holy Land". In order to prove that "Saint

suivant ce que ses predecesseurs roys de france avoient souvent auparavant luy faict.”

80B.N., fr. 25012, fols. 2-2v: "Et si ses fortunes ne furent si prospères que communément on les desire. ne luy en fault imputer blame, Car le preux Judas macabeus disoit. que non en la multitude des gensdarmes est la victoire de la bataille. Ains que du ciel vient la force. Et aussi que le vouloir des suivans nest tousiours semblable a celluy de leur chef et conducteur. Et fauldroit pour contanter les espritz des hommes qui souvent sesbahissent pour quoy dieu ordonne des choses au contraire de leur oppinion. mesmement des fortunes dudit saint loys qui totallement estoit enclhi a son service, demander a dieu, pourquoy il la ainsi faict. Ausquelz le prophète ysaye respond pertinemment en disant Qpi est celluy qui a este son conseiller. Et pour ceste cause sire, est repute Ihomme sage qui se conforme au vouloir de celluy qui peust toutes choses Comme souvent faisoit. le bon prophète royal david. lequel en ses grandes tribulations disoit a dieu. Je suis bien heureulx de ce que tu mas humilie affin que je te congnoisse, Et tel repute la correction de dieu adversité. Qjje si bien estoit entendue, se devroit plutost nommer prospérité veu que souventefois. Il envoyé quelques petites tribulations a son serviteur pour le reconseiller avec luy. tant il se delecte en sa facture. Et a peur de perdre ce qui luy a tant couste a rachepter." In short, God denied success to Louis DCs crusades in order to test, bolster, and reaffirm the holy king's faith.

fr. 25012, fols. 2v-3: "Declaration desdites saintes reliques. La sainte couronne. Grant partie de la vraye croix, du sang de nostre seigneur Jesuchrist. des drapeaulx dont nostre seigneur fut enveloppe en son enfance. Autre grand portion de la vraye croix, du sang de limage nostre seigneur. La chesne ou lyen dont nostre seigneur fut lye. La sainte touaille estant en ung tableau. Grand partie de la pierre du sepulcre nostre seigneur, du laict de la vierge marye. Le fer de lance dont nostre seigneur fut frappe, une croix moyenne appellee la croix de victoire. Le manteau de pourpre dont nostre seigneur fut affuble par desrision. Le rozeau que les juifz misrent en la main de nostre seigneur pour sceptre. Lesponge en laquelle on bailla a boyre a nostre seigneur. Partie du suaire ou nostre seigneur fut envelloppe au sepulcre. Le drap dont nostre seigneur se seignit quant il lava les piedz a ses apostres. La verge de moyse. La haulte partie du chef saint Jehan baptiste. Les chiefz saint biaise, saint clement et saint simeon." 326 Louis was neither the first nor the last who went outside of his kingdom, or on the voyage to the Holy Land, when circumstances required it," he listed four other French monarchs who had undertaken crusades. In the High and Late Middle Ages, Charlemagne was popularly supposed to have gone to the Holy Land, and Le Blanc noted that "King Charlemagne went there in person and restored to the Christians the government of the kingdom of Jerusalem, which had been taken away from them by the Sarrasins." He transformed the first crusade into an expedition organized by the French king of the time by stating that "King Philip I sent his brother, Hugh the Great, and many knights from France there with Godefroy of Bouillon, who was made king of Jerusalem." Finally, Le Blanc noted that, like Saint Louis, both Louis VII and Philip II had gone to the Holy Land "in p e r s o n " . In the third chapter. Le Blanc took up "The Ransom of Saint Louis". Here, he advanced a number of arguments to prove that "Saint Louis did not destroy the kingdom for the payment of his ransom." Le Blanc began by positing that Louis' ransom "was not

®2b.N., fr. 25012, fol. 3v: "Roys de france qui ont este en la terre saincte. Sainct loys na pas este le premier ne le derrenier qui est aile hors son royaume ne au volage de la terre sainte quant les cas lont requis. Et entre autres y ont este ceulx qui sensuivent. Le roy Charlemaigne y alla en personne Et restablist aux chrestiens le gouvernement du royaume de Jherusalem. qui leur avoit este oste par les sarrazins. Le roy philippes premier y envoya hue le grand son frere et grande cavallerie de france. avec Godeffroy de Bullion qui fut faict roy de Jherusalem. Le roy Loys Vl.me [that is, Louis VII: as François, "Les Rois de France," 371, 376, 379, noted, Louis Le Blanc, because he discounted the reign of the bastard Louis III, always referred to the French kings named Louis by numbers one lower than those by which they are traditionally known] y alla en personne et mena grande cavallerie de france. Et entra dedans la sainte cite de Jherusalem en grand honneur et reverence. Le roy philippes deux.me diet auguste, y alla aussi en personne. Ledit saint Loys y alla aussi en personne ainsy que avoient faict ses predecesseurs roys." 327 excessive for such a king and for all of his knights who were with him, for it was only eight thousand gold sarrasin bezants, each bezant estimated to be worth fifty livres tournois, which makes four hundred thousand livres tournois." He proceeded to underline the modesty of that sum in four ways. First, he contrasted Louis' ransom, "which is not comparable to that of king John, which was three millions of gold," to the ransom that resulted from the capture of John II at the battle of Poitiers. Next, he noted that "The holy church, in the office of the said Saint Louis, in the fourth lesson of matins, sings 'Modico tamen nrecio et Quasi miraculoso liberatus est.' which is to say, in French, 'Saint Louis was freed from prison for a small price and as if miraculously'." Third, he urged his readers to view Louis' ransom as "gratuitous" in light of the fact that a comparable sum was often spent on the marriage of the eldest daughter of the king of France. He also stated that the "expenses of war" incurred during Louis' two crusades amounted to "only" one million five hundred and seventy-four thousand livres. Finally, he pointed to the prosperous state of the kingdom after the payment of Louis' ransom: "After the ransom of the said Saint Louis was paid, the kingdom did not remain so impoverished that he did not make and found several churches, religious houses, and hospitals, which he would not have done if he hadn't had the means, for he never imposed tailles, aides, or subsidies."83 in order to prove this point, he went on to list twenty-

®3b.N., fr. 25012, fols. 4-4v: "Rançon dudit saint ioys. Ledit saint ioys ne destruict ie royaume pour le paiement de sa rançon, laquelle ne fut excessive pour ung tel roy et pour toute sa chevallerie qui estoit avec luy Car elle ne fut que de huict mil bezans dor sarrazinois. chascun bezant estime valloir 328 eight such foundations in the fourth chapter of his work, "Declaration of the Churches Founded by Saint Louis".84 Le Blanc entitled the fifth chapter of his treatise "Leather Money." In it, he brought forth several arguments to prove that Louis IX did not issue such a currency. He began by arguing that the cinquante livres tournois. Qui sont quatre cens mil livres tournois Qui nest pas semblable a celle du roy Jehan qui fut de trois millions dor. dont le noble estoit compte pour deux escus. Et nen fut le royaume appauvry dor ne dargent du paiement desdits deux rançons Comme cy après sera diet. Sainte eglise chante au service dudit saint loys en la llll.e leçon de matines. Modico tamen precio et quasi miraculoso liberatus est. Qui est a dire en francois saint Loys a este délivré de prison pour petit pris et comme miraculeusement. Et ainsi la voulut et ordonna nostre seigneur Jesuscrist. qui tient et gouverne en sa main le vouloir et les cueurs des humains Or considérez, que la rançon dudit saint loys ne fut que gracieuse, et la raison si est. Car ce ne fut que le mariage dune fille aisnee de france Qui souvent a este tel quant le cas sest offert Et les ffaiz des guerres ne montèrent esdits deux volages que ung million cinq cens soixante quatorze mille livres. Apres la rançon dudit saint loys payee. Le royaume de demoura si appauvry et d[e] peuple et dargent. quil ne feist et fondast plusieurs églises religions et hospitaulx. Ce quil neust faict. sil neust eu de quoy. Car il nen feist jamais tailles aydes ne subsides. Et entre autres fondations. Il feist celles qui sensuivent que jay cy mises et declerees pour mémoire de ses sainctes reliques [sic]."

84b.N., fr. 25012, fols. 4v-5v: "Declaration des églises fondées par saint loys. La sainte chappelle du pallais a paris. La maison dieu de paris. Les quinze vingtz de paris. Les filles dieu de paris lors estans hors la ville aux champs. Leglise sainte Catherine du val des escolliers. Le couvent de sainte croix a paris. Le couvent des blancs manteaulx a paris. Le couvent des frétés prescheurs a paris. Le couvent des frétés mineurs a paris. Le couvent des augustins a paris. Le couvent des carmes a paris. Le couvent des beguynes a paris ou de present sont les seurs de lave maria. Le couvent des chartreux lez paris. Le couvent des freres prescheurs a compiengne. Le couvent des frétés mineurs audit compiengne. La maison dieu de vemon. La maison dieu de ponthoise. Le couvent et eglise de la sainte trinite a fontainebleau en gastinois. Labaye du liz près meleun quil feist fonder par la royne blanche sa mere. Labaye de maubuisson près ponthoise. Labaye de longchamp En faveur de madame ysabel de france. Labaye de royaumont quil fist construire et ediffier en son jeune aage. Labaye de royaulieu. Labaye de saint mathieu de rouen. Le couvent des freres prescheurs de rouen. Le couvent des dames appellees les enmurees lez rouen. Le couvent des beguynes de rouen. Et plusieurs couventz et religions feist le bon roy monseigneur saint loys. qui cy ne sont nommez. Et sur ce point. Qui est celluy qui osa dire, quil naict faict chose digne de mémoire ou salutaire et aussi pour retribution de ses bonnes oeuvres nostre seigneur luy a donne part au royaume celeste. Et qui ainsi fera, ainsi aura." 329 activities of Louis IX after his return from the seventh crusade could not have been undertaken by an impoverished king reduced to issuing leather money. First, the fact that Louis IX undertook a second crusade proved that the kingdom's finances had not been ruined by his first one: "If the kingdom had been so impoverished in the time of the said Saint Louis that, as some people say, leather money had been made, he would not have returned [overseas] on the second and final voyage that he made against the said infidels; for the said leather money could not have served him, because it would not have had any exchange value beyond [his own kingdom]".85 Second (and reiterating a previously-made point), Louis could not possibly have founded so many religious establishments during the interval between his two crusades had his first expedition in fact bankrupted the kingdom.86 Le Blanc went on to state that while leather money had been issued during the time of Saint Louis, it had not been issued by Saint Louis: "It is indeed true that, in the time of the said Saint Louis, the emperor Frederick 11, for a certain necessity that he had, had leather

85b.N., fr. 25012, fols. 5v-6: "Monnoye de Cuyr. Si le royaume eust este tant appauvry ou temps dudit saint loys. que Ion eust faict monnoye de cuir ainsi que aucuns dient. Il ne feust retourne au deux.me et derrrenier volage quil fist sur lesdits infidelles Car ladite monnoye de cuir ne luy eust peu servir par ce quelle neust poinct eu de cours par dda."

8^B.N., fr. 25012, fol. 6: "Et neust faict faire et construire entre lesdits deux volages esquelz il y eust quinze ans de distance, les relligions cy dessus declerees. et plusieurs autres en divers lieux de son royaume." 330 money made, on one side of which there is an eagle [and] on the other his head with his name around it."87 Next, Le Blanc appealed to archival evidence to which he had access because of his position. He began by pointing out that administrative documents written after the reign of Louis IX referred to the money of his time in positive terms: "In the ancient registers of the Chambre des Comptes, which must be fully believed, it is found that, in the year 1304, king Philip the Fair promised, to the bishop of Mende in Languedoc and to the churchmen of the country of France, to make money as good as there had been in the time of the said Saint Louis later, in the year 1315, king Louis Hutin wanted and ordered that the ordonnances of the said Saint Louis made with regard to monies be adhered to and kept." He went on to note that the supposed leather money of Saint Louis figured neither in Louis IX's own monetary ordonnances nor in historical literature: "And the ordonnances made by Saint Louis with regard to the said monies have been expressly seen in the Chambre des Monnaies. The ordonnance of the said leather money was not found among them, nor, likewise, in all the histories ofFrance. "88

87b.N., fr. 25012, fol. 6: "Bien est vray. que ou temps dudit saint loys Lempereur federic deux.me de ce nom pour quelque nécessite quil eust. feist faire de la monnoye de cuyr. En laquelle dun coste y a ung aigle de lautre son effigie, et alentour dicelle son nom."

88b.N., fr. 25012, fols. 6-6v: "Et encore, pour plus amplement monstrer le contraire de ce que aucuns ont voulu dire, que regnant ledit saint loys. fut faicte ladite monnoye de cuyr. et que ce fut luy qui la feist faire II se trouve es anciens registres de la chambre des comptes, ausquelz plaine foy doibt estre adjoustee. que le roy philippes le bel en lan m III.c IHI, promist a levesque de mende en languedoc. et aux gens deglise du pays de france faire aussi bonne monnoye quil y avoit ou temps dudit saint loys quoy volant le pape Benedict unze.me de ce nom. luy octroya quil peust lever sur les benefices de son 331 Finally, Le Blanc concluded his chapter on "Leather Money" by responding to those who, "by hearsay, and not knowing anything else about it", held that some of the leather money made in France during the reign of Louis IX was stored in the Louvre, in the halles des lingières of Paris, and in the grosse tour of Bourges. "It is not true," he wrote of this rumor, "for whether it was true was inquired of the captains, lieutenants, and concierges of the said places and of other people worthy of belief, who affirmed for the truth never to have heard of it."89 The purpose of Le Blanc's sixth chapter, "Gabelles", was to prove wrong "certain thoughtless speakers" who held that Saint Louis had imposed the much-reviled taxes on salt. However, having pointed out that they were first imposed by Philip of Valois, and

royaume durant trois ans le revenu dune annee de chascune benefice, qui vacqueroit durant iceulx trois ans pour renforcer la foible monnoye et la faire aussi bonne quelle estoit du temps dudit saint loys. Et depuis en lan m IIIc XV, le roy Loys hutin voulut et ordonna, que les ordonnances dudit saint loys faictes sur le faict des monnoyes feussent tenues et gardées. Et expressément ont este veues en la chambre des monnoyes. les ordonnances faictes par saint loys. sur le faict desdits monnoyes. Entre lesquelles na este trouvée lordonnance de ladite monnoye de cuyr ne semblablement en toutes les histoires de france." The belief that Louis IX had issued leather money stood in sharp contrast to the idyllic image of the reign of Saint Louis propagated by French nobles, who held up the strength of Louis IX's money as an ideal and who criticized his successors for failing to maintain currency as strong as that of Louis IX. On the "good money of Saint Louis", see Beaune, The Birth of an Ideology. 105-8.

89b.N., fr. 25012, fois. 6v-7: "Et pour respondre en oultre. a ceulx qui ont voulu dire, par ouyr dire et autre chose n'en scavent. Que ou chasteau du louvre, aux halles des lingieres de paris et en la grosse tour de bourges y a de ladite monnoye de cuyr faicte au royaume de france. regnant saint loys. Ce nest chose veritable, sauf leur reverence. Car il a este enquis aux cappitaines lieutenans et concierges desdits lieux et autres gens dignes de foy. sil estoit vray. Qui ont afferme pour vente n'en avoir oncques ouy parler. Lesquelles choses cy dessus recitees sont assez pour monstrer. que ledit saint loys na en son temps faict faire ladite monnoye de cuyr." 332 having defended that king's action,90 Le Blanc returned to the question of Saint Louis' supposed impoverishment of the kingdom and its corollary, the issuing of leather money. He began by stating that when Philip III succeeded Louis IX the former "found the kingdom neither impoverished nor indebted". He advanced the size, success, and cost of Philip Ill's campaign against Peter 111 of Aragon as proof of that fact, and noted that the cost of the campaign "exceeded two million two hundred thousand livres, which were not of leather m oney." 91 in the same vein, he went on to state that the kingdom was "rich and abundant" at the time of the accession of Philip P/, and to advance Philip IV's construction of the palais de Paris as proof of that fact.9z

^Og.N., fr. 25012, fol. 7: "Gabelles. Aucuns legiers parlans. ont semblablement voulu dire, que ledit saint loys mist les gabelles sus en son royaume. Sauf leur reverence. Jamais il ne les mist, mais longtemps après son deces. furent mises par le six.me roy son successeur fi.e.. Philip of Valois] et pour bonne et juste cause advisee et conclute par son bon conseil bien assemble." The belief that Louis IX had imposed new taxes stood in sharp contrast to the much more common late-medieval association of Saint Louis with fiscal freedom, on which see Beaune, The Birth of an Ideologv. 110-14, and Raymond Gazelles, "Une exigence de l'opinion depuis Saint Louis: la reformation du royaume," Annuaire-Bulletin de la Société de l’Histoire de France (1962-3) 91-99.

^^B.N., fr. 25012, fols. 7-7v: "Le roy philippes n i.e de ce nom. filz dudit saint loys succéda au royaume et le trouva ny apauvry ny endebte. Et le monstra bien quant il alla en personne avec grand ost et noble chevalerie de france. allencontre du roy darragon quil subiuga et fut occis ledit roy darragon dun coup quil eust en la bataille. H y mena si tresgrande armee que les fraiz du voiage montèrent plus de deux millions deux cens mille livres qui nestoient de monnoye de cuyr."

92b.N., fr. 2501.2, fol. 7v: "Le roy philippes quatre.me de ce nom diet le bel son fi.e.. Philip Ill's] filz trouva le royaume après le deces du roy son pere si riche et oppulent quU feist faire en son temps le palais de paris, excepte la sainte chappelle et lediffice du coste de la conciergerie, que avoit faict faire ledit saint loys. Et encores de present Ion appelle les salles qui y sont, les salles saint loys." 333 He continued his demonstration of the wealth of the kingdom under Saint Louis' successors in the seventh chapter, "The Canonization of Saint Louis". Here Le Blanc noted that Philip the Fair paid the costs associated with the canonization of his grandfather, that he was responsible for a number of ecclesiastical foundations, that "he found the kingdom so abundant in riches" that he was able to carry out several wars in Flanders, that his "battles and victories were neither made nor obtained without great expenses", and that he and his three successors (Louis X, Philip V, and Charles IV) received payments of over four hundred thousand livres from the Flemings.93 Le Blanc's eighth and final chapter addressed "The Ransom of King John", that is, the ransom that the French paid to the English to redeem John 11 after his capture at the battle of Poitiers (1356). He stated that "The ransom of king John was three millions of gold, [the payment of] which the kingdom hardly felt." Just as he had

fr. 25012, fols. 7v-8v: "Canonization de saint loys. Le roy philippes le bel feist faire a ses despens les dilligences du procès de la canonization dudit saint loys. lequel fut canonize a Ronune lan mil ll.c IIIlxx XVII. Il feist construire et ediffier leglise et manoir royal des seurs relligieuses saint loys de poissy. et les fonda grandement en Ihonneur dudit saint, et y entrèrent lesdites relligieuses lan m lll.c IIII, la vigille saint Jehan Baptiste. Il feist aussi construre labaye des seurs relligieuses du moncel près le pont ste maixance quil fonda lan m IIIc IX. Il donna congie a la royne Jehanne sa compaigne de fonda le colleige de navarre. qui est tant fame et renomme par tout le monde, pour les grandz personnaiges qui en sont yssus. 11 trouva le royaume si oppulent de richesses et de chevallerie quil soustint plusieurs guerres et entre autres en flandres ou dieu luy donna les victoires qui sensuivent. Près la ville de firmes lan m. ll.c IIILxx XVII. furent occis cinq cens hommes de cheval et dix sept mil hommes de pied, prins plusieurs prisonniers et menez en divers lieux a charretees. A saint omer lan m III.c II. quatre nulle flamentz occis. A Montz m. III.c IIII.xx fsici trente six mille flamentz occis en champ de bataille. Lesquelles batailles et victoires ne furent faictes ne obtenues sans grandz fraiz. Et est a noter sur ce que ledit roy philippes le bel. et ses trois filz roys receurent desdits flamentz et du pays pour leurs graces quilz leur feirent a cause de leurs rebellions plus de quatre cens mille livres." 334 earlier invoked the state of the kingdom under Philip III and Philip IV to prove that Saint Louis' ransom had not impoverished the kingdom, Le Blanc now argued that John's had not brought it to ruin by noting that his successor, Charles V, "found the kingdom so rich and abundant in goods that he expelled all his enemies and lived in great glory and sure peace all the days of his life."94 in short, having previously stated that John's ransom dwarfed the ransom of Saint Louis, Le Blanc now sought to prove that the payment of John's ransom had not impoverished the kingdom and, by extension, to offer yet another proof that the payment of Louis' ransom had not. "Thus 1 conclude," Le Blanc terminated his work, "against the slanderers and detractors of the honor, praise, and good reputation of the said Saint Louis who want to say only by hearsay and who would not know how to give any other grounds for it, that he destroyed the kingdom of France on account of the two voyages that he made for the recovery of the Holy Land; about which the truth is to the contrary, for the brief reasons and grounds written above, which are not words by hearsay, but [which are] well and properly proven by the ancient written documents of the Trésor des Chartes

fr. 25012, fols. 8v-9: "Rançon du roy Jehan. La rançon du roy Jehan comma dessus est diet, fut de trois millions dor. dont le royaume ne se sentit guieres. et qui soit vray. Le roy Charles le quint et son filz qui lui succéda au royaume le trouva, si riche et opulent en biens quil expulsa tous ses ennemys et vesquit en grand gloire et seure paiz. tous les jours de sa vye. Et feist six choses dignes de mémoire qui sensuivent II batailla reconquesta son domaine deschargea, ediffia. fonda, thesauriza. Ainsy monstra il bien. quU ne trouva pas le royaume pauvre de gens et de biens. Car il la[issa] au jour de son deces. le plus grand trésor de m[hole in the leaf] s que oncques roy de france laissa a son successeur roy Ainsi quil est notoire." 335 of the king and of his Chambre des Comptes, which surpass the understanding of the said slanderers, and which must be believed."95 This summary has been long, but its importance is evident. The contents of Louis Le Blanc's hitherto ignored defense of Saint Louis shed additional light on some of the charges against Louis IX that we have come across already. They bring to light another accusation that we have not yet seen, namely, the charge that Saint Louis' crusades were ill-advised, untraditional, frivolous undertakings. They also provide valuable insight into the nature of the late-medieval controversy over Saint Louis. Le Blanc's work confirms that some late-medieval Frenchmen believed the payment of Louis IX's ransom to have led to the issuing of leather money. It also casts additional light on the scope and intensity of that belief. In revealing that some Frenchmen believed it to be stockpiled at certain strongholds in Paris and Bourges, Le Blanc's treatise indicates that the leather money of Saint Louis was the subject of active speculation and rumor in fifteenth-century France. It also sheds additional light on the belief that the payment of the ransom had led to the imposition of new taxes. Whereas the

fr. 25012, fol. 9-9v: "Si conclus a llencontxe des comulateurs [?] et détracteurs de Ihonneur. louange et bonne renomme dudit saint loys après sa mort, combien quil ne soit mort, mais trespasse de ce ciecle en lautre ou il vit et regne avec les bien heureulx, Qui veullent dire seullement par ouyr dire et autre raison nen scauroient donner, Quil destruisit le royaume de france, pour les deux volages quil feist pour le recouvrement de la terre sainte Dont la vente est au contraire, pour les briefves causes et raisons cy dessus escriptes. qui ne sont paroUes par ouyr dire, mais bien et deuement prouvées par les anciens escriptz du trésor des chartes du roy et de sa chambre des comptes qui passent lentendement desdits mesdisans Esquelz escriptz toute foy doibt estre adjoustee." Le Blanc then signed and dated his treatise: see note 71 above. 336 author of B.N., fr. 9688 claimed that Louis had levied the tiers et dangier on wood in order to pay his ransom, Le Blanc's work indicates that other Frenchmen believed Saint Louis to have imposed the taille, the aides, and, especially, the gabelle. Some fifteenth- century Frenchmen identified Louis IX as the monarch who had first imposed the most onerous and unpopular royal taxes to which they were subject. Finally, the Chronique abregee de monseigneur saint louis also confirms that some Frenchmen believed the kingdom to have felt the impact of the payment of Louis' ransom very "hard" indeed. For one thing, it confirms that some of them believed it to have weighed as heavily upon the French people as had the imposition of the gabelle and the payment of the ransom of John II. Indeed, it was at roughly the same time that the author of B.N., fr. 5704 associated these three matters that Le Blanc attempted to disassociate them by pointing out that the first did not result in the second and that the impact of the third outweighed by far that of the first. Furthermore, Le Blanc's work also suggests that some Frenchmen believed that the kingdom had suffered the effects of the payment of Louis' ransom for quite a long time. As we have seen. Le Blanc did not limit his demonstration of the negligibility of the burden imposed by the ransom to underlining the modesty of the sum and to arguing that Louis could neither have founded so many churches nor undertaken his second crusade had the kingdom been impoverished by his first one. Instead, he continued his demonstration by arguing at length that the kingdom was "rich" and 337 "abundant" under Louis' successors. To this end, he invoked its financial well-being not only under Louis' immediate successor, Philip III, but also under Philip IV and even under the latter's three sons. The attention that he devoted to this argument strongly suggests that Le Blanc sought to debunk a belief of the detractors of Saint Louis. Apparently, some of them thought that the impact of the payment of Louis' ransom had been "hard" enough to have affected the kingdom's finances for several generations. In addition to illuminating the allegations against Saint Louis that we have already seen. Le Blanc's work also provides evidence of an allegation that we have yet to explore. It indicates that some Frenchmen criticized not only the effects of the ransom that stemmed from the capture of Louis IX on his first crusade, but also the fact that he undertook two crusades in the first place. Le Blanc's work provides ample proof of criticism of Louis' crusades themselves. Its very first sentence attacked those who held that Louis IX had impoverished his kingdom "as much on account of the two armies that he led against the unbelievers and infidels for the protection and defense of the Holy Land and the exaltation of the faith as on account of his ransom that he paid to the sultan. ' Indeed, in noting that Louis' detractors held "that in order to meet the expenses of his wars he imposed the tailles, aides, and gabelles and had leather money made on account of the great poverty and scarcity of silver that was in this kingdom," Le Blanc tied their charges against Louis less to the payment of his ransom in particular than to the cost of his two crusades in general. Furthermore, in his 338 chapter on "The Ransom of Saint Louis", Le Blanc noted not only that Louis' ransom amounted to "only" four hundred thousand livres tournois, but also that the "expenses of war" incurred during both crusades came to "only" one million five hundred and seventy-four thousand livres. Finally, in his conclusion. Le Blanc again related the charge that Louis impoverished the kingdom to his crusades as a whole in denouncing those who maintained "that he destroyed the kingdom of France on account of the two vovages that he made for the recovery of the Holy Land." Taken together, these passages indicate that some Frenchmen blamed Saint Louis' supposed impoverishment of the kingdom not merely on the payment of his ransom, but on the cost of his crusades in general. What is more. Le Blanc's work indicates that some of them viewed those crusades as frivolous and uncustomary. In his prologue. Le Blanc felt it necessary to point out that expeditions to the Holy Land were common in Louis' time, that Louis undertook his crusades "neither for his pleasure nor to waste time", and that in so doing he followed in the footsteps of several of his predecessors. He went on to devote a full chapter to "Kings of France who were in the Holy Land", the point of which was to prove that Louis IX "was neither the first nor the last" French king to go there on crusade. As we have seen, he pointed to the supposed crusade of Charlemagne, Philip I's supposed organization of the first crusade, Louis VH's participation in the second crusade, and Philip IPs role in the third crusade as precedents for the two crusades of Louis IX. 339 These passages permit the reconstruction of the charge that Le Blanc sought to debunk. Apparently, some late-medieval Frenchmen, knowing about the crusades of Saint Louis but not about those of his predecessors, viewed the former as an ill-advised and regrettable novelty. The fact that late-medieval historians of France reported Louis IX's crusades more frequently than any of the other royal crusades cited by Le Blanc might help to explain how such a view arose. When I examined the accounts of the reign of Louis IX in twenty-three unofficial histories of France, I found that eighteen of them reported Louis' leadership of the seventh and/or eighth crusades.96 in contrast, only eleven noted that Charlemagne had

9G(1) B.N., fr. 1233 reported both of Saint Louis’ crusades (fol. 103b: "Et en Ian mil II.c XLVIII. ala saint loys oultre mer fol. 106a: "Lan deux cens soixante neuf saint loys ala derechief oultre mer ”); (2) B.N., fr. 1623 reported both crusades (fol. 94: "Et fu deux foiz ala sainte terre doultre mer "); (3) B.N., fr. 1707 did not report the seventh crusade and alluded to the eighth crusade (fol. 36: "En thunes mourut cest chose voire"); (4) B.N., fr. 4954 alluded to both crusades (fol. 18: " quil pourchassa et desengaiga envers lempereur baudouyn de constantinoble qui estoit venu devers luy pour avoir secours pour la deffense de la terre saincte"; fol. 18v: " les ossemens du corps du roy sainct loys son pere apportez de la terre saincte. ou il deceda"); (5) B.N., fr. 4991 reported the seventh crusade, but not the eighth (fol. ISvA: "Et en Ian mil deux cens. XLVIII. le roy saint loys sen ala oultre mer "); (6) B.N., fr. 5696 reported the seventh crusade and alluded to the eighth (fol. 37v: " et après alla oultre mer sur les sarrazins et a son retour "; fol. 40: " les ossemens du corps de son pere qui avoient este apportez de la terre saincte ou ledict loys decedda "); (7) B.N., fr. 5697 reported only the seventh crusade (fol. 29: " Et en Ian mil CC XLV il partit de france pour aler oultre mer "); (8) B.N., fr. 5704, fols. 38V-39, reported both crusades: see the corresponding section of this chapter; (9) B.N., fr. 5734 reported the seventh crusade and alluded to the eighth (fol. lOSv: " Et après ala oultre mer sur les sarrasins. Et a son retour Apres saint loys qui moru en thunes fu fait roy de france phelippe son filz "); (10) B.N., fr. 9688, fol. 41v, reported both crusades: see the corresponding section of this chapter; (11) B.N., fr. 10137 reported both crusades (fol. 33v: "Lan mil lie XLVIII partit le roy de france pour aller oultre mer "; fols. 35v-36: "En Ian mil II.c LXIX. Le roy. et ses troys filz et grant chevalerie partirent deux.me fois de france pour aller oultre mer "); (12) B.N., fr. 10139 reported only the seventh crusade (fol. 11: " en Ian mil Ile XLVIII le roy se partit de son pais pour aller oultre mer "); (13) B.N., fr. 10468 340 crusaded in the Holy Land.^7 The participation of French kings in the second and third crusades was also reported by roughly half of the historians whose works I studied. Only eleven noted that Louis VII had been to the Holy Land,98 and only thirteen made mention of reported both crusades (fol. 109: " il passa oultre mer 11 retourna depuis en france. puis rala en thunes "); (14) B.N., fr. 23019 reported only the seventh crusade (fols. 3 la-32a: " en Ian M lie XLVIII le roy se parti de son pays pour aler oultre mer "); (15) B.N., fr. 24976 reported both crusades (fols. 33v-34: "Lan mil II.c XLVIII il alla en la terre saincte et les choses bien dispousees passa la mer seconde foiz "); (16) B.N., n.a. fr. 7519 reported both crusades (fol. 42: "En celui an alla le roy a grant ost de chrestiens en la terre doultre mer"; fol. 45v: "Lan mil II.c LXIX. le roy saint loys print son erre et sen ala a athunes"); (17) B.N., lat. 5027, fol, 80v, reported the seventh crusade; (18) B.N., lat. 5195 reported tx)th crusades (fols. 13v-14: "En Ian mil lie XLVIII. il alla oultre mer Saint loys derechief en Ian mil lie LK. alia oultre mer ").

97(1) B.N., fr. 1233, fol. 93vB: "11 ala chacier les mescreans et délivra la cite de constantinoble (2) B.N., fr. 1623, fol. 91v: "Et icellui roy conquist pluseurs royaumes de sarrazins la ou le nom de dieu fu puis nommez aourez et servis Et ycellui roy apporta les sainctes reliques de Contentinoble a ays en alemaigne (3) B.N., fr. 4991, fol. 8vB: "Et conquist surye et Jherusalem. Et remist le patriarche Jehan en son siege."; (4) B.N., fr. 5696, fols. 19v-20: " et conquist surie et Jherusalem et remist le patriarche Jehan en son siege qui sen estoit fouy en constuninoble quant la terre de Jherusalem fut perdue et les chrestiens occis."; (5) B.N., fr. 5704, fols. 28v, 29v: "Il alla visiter le sainct sepulcre par terre et alla visiter lempereur Constantin il alla contre les infidèles secourir lempereur constantinnoble "; (6) B.N., fr. 5734, fols. 101- lOlv: "11 remist le patriarche Jehan en son siege qui sen estoit en fouy en constantinoble quand la terre de Jherusalem fu perdue, et les chrestiens occiz."; (7) B.N., fr. 9688, fols. 27-27v: "Cestui conquist la terre de surie et de iherusalem. Et y remist iehan le patriarche en son siege qui sen estoit fouy en constantinoble quant la terre fut perdue. Et les chrestiens occis."; (8) B.N., ff. 10137, fol. lOv: "11 alla en la compaignie lempereur de constantinnoble en Jherusalem recouvrer la saincte terre "; (9) B.N., fr. 10139, fol. 7: " et conquist Surie et Jherusalem (10) B.N., n.a. fr. 7519, fol. 26v: "11 conquist surie et jherusalem. et y remist le patriarche Jehan en son siege."; (11) B.N., lat. 5195, fol. 10: "U alla chasser les mescreans et délivra la cite de constantinnoble ".

98(1) B.N., fr. 1233, fol. lOOvB: "11 ala oultre mer lan mil cent quarante six."; (2) B.N., fr. 4948, fol. 97; "11 espousa Alienor fille au roy daquitaine Et ala oultre mer "; (3) B.N., fr. 4954, fol. 17: "Ledit roy loys fut en la terre saincte pour la deffense de la foy chresdenne et y feist de grans armes de sa personne "; (4) B.N., fr. 5696, fol. 33v: "Ledict roy loys avec plusieurs barons de france alla en la terre saincte pour la deffense de la foy chrestienne Et ot de grans victoires sur les turcs "; (5) B.N., fr. 5704, fol. 36v: "11 alla oultre mer contre Salhadin "; (6) B.N., fr. 9688, fol. 40v: "Et fut en la saincte terre avec conrax 341 Philip IPs participation in the third crusade.99 Finally, while more of them took note of the first crusade, only eleven of the seventeen that did so associated the French royal family to it. Ten mentioned the participation of Philip I's brother, Hugh, and one, like Louis Le Blanc, presented Philip I as the organizer of the expedition. lOO empereur Et y fist moult be beaux fais (7) B.N., fr. 10137, fol. 24v: "Cil roy loys et moult de barons de france se croisèrent pour aller sur les sarrazins..... (8) B.N., fr. 10468, fol. 108v: "11 espousa alienor seule fille au duc dacquitaine. et la mena oultre mer (9) B.N., n.a. fr. 4209, fol. 8v: " ledit loys Vü.e puis quil fut retourne de la terre de promission par jalousie il répudia sa femme.... (10) B.N., lat. 5027, fol. 74: " ledit roy loys le jeune avecquez elienior sa femme alerent oultre mer et en iherusalem, mais il fist pou ou néant (11) B.N., lat. 5195, fol. 12v: "11 alla oultremer lan mil c. xl."

99(1) B.N., fr. 1233, fol. lOlvA: "Il ala oultre mer et print acre"; (2) B.N., fr. 4948, fol. 97v: "Il ala oultremer et conquist acre"; (3) B.N., fr. 4991, fol. 14a: "11 print la croisiee pour aler oultre mer sur les sarrazins et en la terre de Jherusalem et de Surie "; (4) B.N., fr. 5697, fol. 27: "Cestui roy se croisa pour aler oultre mer Et prist le roy de france la cite dacchre "; (5) B.N., fr. 5704, fol. 37v: "Le dit philippe alla outre mer contre les infidèles "; (6) B.N., fr. 9688, fols. 40v-41: "Cestui se croisa pour aler oultremer Et print le roy de france la cite dacre "; (7) B.N., fr. 10137, fols. 27v-28; (8) B.N., fr. 10139, fol. 10: "Ce roy se croysa pour aller oultre mer Et print le roy de france la cite dacre "; (9) B.N., fr. 10468, fol. 109: "11 ala oultre mer. Il conquist acre";( 10) B.N., fr. 23019, fol. 30a: "Et si fut oultre mer ou il fist moult de biaux faiz"; (11) B.N., fr. 24976, fols. 30v-31: "Cestuy roy se croisa pour aller oultre mer ....Le roy de france print la cite dacre "; (12) B.N., lat. 5027, fols. 74v-75; (13) B.N., lat. 5195. fol. 13: "Il alla oultremer et print acre."

^(^%ix touched on the first crusade without associating it with the French royal family: (1) B.N., fr. 1233, fol. 99a: " et en son temps godeffroy de bullion conquist iherusalem "; (2) fr. 4948, fol. 97: "En son temps fu prinse Jherusalem par Godeffroy de billon"; (3) B.N., fr. 4991, fol. 12a: "Au temps dicellui roy Godeffroy de bullion due de metz en lorrainne entreprist de aler conquerre la sainte terre doultre mer et Jherusalem sur les sarrazins. Et se assembleront nobles et non nobles variez et pucelles et prisrent la croix pour aler avec ledit godeffroy et conquirent la sainte terre"; (4) B.N., n.a. fr. 4209, fol. 8: " durant ce temps furent prinses par les francois les citez de iherusalem et dantioche Godefroy de bilhon duc de lohraine. le conte de flandres et plusieurs autres firent leur alec en Jherusalem en lannee mil cent et six. et en la lll.e annee ensuivant fut Jherusalem par eulx prins"; (5) B.N., lat. 5027, fol. 73v; (6) B.N., lat. 5195, fol. 12: "En son temps godefroy de bullion conquist Jerusalem et toute la terre saincte". Nine noted the participation of Philip I's brother, Hugh: (7) B.N., fr. 5696: " hue le grant qui puis fut en la terre saincte avec godeffroy de billon" (fol. 29v); "Et au temps de cestuy en lan mil IIlI.xx XVI sassemblerent nobles et non nobles clers laiz varletz pucelles et 342 In sum, it is indeed plausible that some late-medieval Frenchmen believed Louis IX to have been the one of the very few, and perhaps even the only, French king to have crusaded overseas. Louis Le Blanc's work indicates that some Frenchmen adhered to such a belief, which aggravated their allegations against Saint Louis.

prindrent la croix de leur voulente et allèrent oultre mer sur les sarrazins avec godeffroy de billon et conquist la terre saincte " (fols. 30v-31); the author also implied that Philip I supported the crusade in noting that "Ledict roy philippe achepta de herpin conte de bourges ladicte conte Le pris de lx.m l[ivres] et fut pour luy ayder a aller ou voyaige doultre mer a lencontre des mescroyans" (fol. 31); (8) B.N., fr. 5697: " et hue le grant qui depuis fut en la terre saincte avecques godeffroy de bullion" (fol. 24); "Et après lan mil DILxx XVI. les nobles et non nobles clercs, et non clercs prindrent la croix de leur propre vouloir et allèrent oultre mer sur les sarrazins avecques godeffroy de bullion et conquistrent ladicte terre" (fol. 24v); (9) B.N., fr. 5734: " hue le grant, qui puis fu en la terre sainte avec godefroy de bullion" (fol. 103v); "Et au temps de cestui lan. m. IIILxx et XVI. se assamblerent nobles et non nobles, clers. et les varies, et pucelles. et prindrent la croix de leur volente. et allèrent oultre mer sur les sarrasins avec Godefroy de bullion, et conquirent la terre sainte" (fol. 103v); (10) B.N., fr. 9688, fol. 40: " saint thibaut danceis qui fut ne en france et qui avoit este reclus a venise xn. ans out grant renom et tant prescha en france que il fist croisier moult de gent qui allèrent en iherusalem Et y ala hue le grant conte de vermandois frere de ce roy philippe Et pluseurs autres. Et conquistrent iherusalem Et en fut godeffroy de billon roy"; (11) B.N., fr. 10137, fols. 22-22v: "En son temps le pape urban tint concile general a clermont en auvergne; et après le conseil. A la requeste du pape hue frere dudit roy et plusieurs autres princes, et seigneurs de divers royaumes chrestiens passèrent en Jherusalem "; (12) B.N., fr. 10139, fol. 9v: " hue conte de vermandois qui fut en la terre saincte"; (13) B.N., fr. 10468, fol. 108v: " en son temps lan mil IIIIxx XVI au pourchas de pierre lermite. hue frere du roy. robert comte de flandres Robert duc de normandie Le comte de thoulouse. godeffroy de billon et plusieurs nobles de france et de boemont roy de cecille conquirent Jherusalem"; (14) B.N., fr. 23019, fol. 29a: " hue le grant qui puis fut en la terre sainte avecques godefroy de billon"; (15) B.N., fr. 24976: " hue le grant qui puis fut en la terre sainte avecques godefroy de billon II fut aprandre Jherusalem et fut ung des troys qui fut eslu pour estre roy " (fols. 26-26v); "Godefroy de billon conquit en son temps Jherusalem" (fol. 27); (16) B.N., n.a. fr. 7519: ".....et hue le grant qui puis fut en la terre saincte avecques godeffroy de billon" (fol. 34); "En lan mil IIILxx XVI. se assemblèrent gens de toutes pars nobles et non nobles clercs et laiz varletz et pucUes. et prindrent de leur volunte la croix, et allèrent oultre mer sur les sarrasins avecques godeffroy de buillon. et conquirent la terre saincte" (fol. 34v). Finally, one presented Philip I as the organizer of the first crusade: (17) B.N., fr. 5704, fols. 35v-36: "Et [Philip I] envoya contre les infidèles en Jherusalem grant armee avecques godeffroy de bUlon qui fut le tiers preux cristien et estoit duc de lorraine, lequel conquesta Jherusalem." 343 Those allegations were deeper and more serious than the charge that the payment of Louis' ransom had brought financial ruin upon his kingdom. They extended to the charge that Louis' crusades themselves represented an untraditional and undesireable expenditure of money. Louis had impoverished the kingdom by the excessive cost of expeditions that were unpredecented and even frivolous. Beyond regretting the supposed consequences of the fact that Louis IX had been captured while crusading, some late-medieval Frenchmen condemned his crusades themselves. In essence, they remembered Saint Louis as a king who had found a new and bad way to spend his people's m o n e y , loi Besides this additional allegation against Louis IX, Le Blanc's work also provides valuable insight into the duration, intensity, and nature of the late-medieval controversy over Saint Louis. On the one hand, the known written assertions that the payment of Louis' ransom had led to the circulation of leather money and to the imposition of taxes dated to the first decades of the fifteenth century. It was in 1409 that the author of "Les Aventures" wrote that the payment of Louis' ransom had led to the issuing of

lOlBeaune, The Birth of an Ideology. 123-4, noted that the crusades of Saint Louis came under attack towards the end of the fifteenth century. She related criticism of his crusades to the disintegration of the crusading ideal, which transformed Louis' crusades into nothing more than lost wars, and pointed out that detractors faulted Louis for having abandoned his kingdom and for having placed his life in danger by participating in person, and that they alleged the crusades to have been "poorly managed operations". In fact, as Le Blanc's Chronique abregee reveals, the criticism of Louis' crusades ran much deeper: their cost was alleged to have been excessive and to have impoverished the kingdom, they were viewed as unprecedented, they were even considered to have been frivolous. 344 leather money. It was in or shortly after 1423 that the author of B.N., fr. 9688 repeated that charge and added that Louis had imposed taxes in order to raise his ransom money. On the other hand, Le Blanc's denial of those assertions dated to 1498. I know of no text dealing directly with the issues of Louis' supposed leather money and taxation written after B.N., fr. 9688 and before Le Blanc's Chronique abreeee. but it is evident that the principal charges against Saint Louis remained very much alive in the interim. Indeed, the fact that Le Blanc sought to debunk allegations that were not made by the earlier texts suggests an aggravation of the charges against Louis IX during the course of the fifteenth century. The early fifteenth-century texts did not assert that the leather money of Saint Louis was stored at Paris and Bourges, that Louis had imposed the gabelle, that the kingdom had felt the effects of the payment of his ransom for generations, that even discounting his ransom the cost of Louis' crusades had been excessive and had impoverished the kingdom, or that those expeditions represented an outrageous and unprecedented novelty. However, in 1498, Louis Le Blanc attempted to respond to all of these charges. In sum, it seems that the charges against Saint Louis grew in number, scope, and seriousness during the course of the fifteenth century. Louis IX's crusades were even more controversial at the end of the century than they had been at the beginning. The intensity of the controversy over Louis IX at the end of the fifteenth century is evidenced not only by the polemical nature of Louis Le Blanc's treatise in defense of the king, but also by the 345 seriousness of his effort to debunk the allegations of Saint Louis' detractors. Le Blanc searched the archives of the Chambre des Comptes for documentary evidence of the high quality of Louis IX's money. He searched the archives of the Chambre des Monnaies to prove that no ordonnance relative to leather money was on record there. He searched histories of France for references to such an ordonnance and for proof of the kingdom's financial well-being under Saint Louis' successors. It may well have been he who caused the keepers of the Louvre, the halles des linsières. and the grosse tour of Bourges to be interrogated about the alleged storage of Saint Louis' leather money at those sites. In short, Le Blanc did a lot of research. The fact that he devoted considerable effort to defending the memory of Louis IX indicates that the crusades of Saint Louis were the subject of heated controversy in his time. Finally, Le Blanc's work also provides evidence of two important elements of the late-medieval controversy over Saint Louis. It confirms that the accusations against Louis IX were primarily oral in nature, and that they emanated primarily from the popular strata of French society. With regard to the first of these points, it is important to note that in attacking the detractors of Louis IX, Le Blanc did not refer to a single written affirmation of their charges. Instead, he repeatedly addressed their accusations as rumors circulated by word of mouth. I he charges that Saint Louis had impoverished the kingdom, issued leather money, and imposed new taxes were "words said and recounted by hearsay". It was merely "by hearsay" that some people 346 claimed that the leather money of Saint Louis was stored in Paris and in Bourges. It was "only by hearsay" that the "slanderers" of Louis IX held that his two crusades had ruined the kingdom. Le Blanc's own treatise stood in contrast to the accusations leveled by those "slanderers", for his work was not based on "words by hearsay". In short, Le Blanc appears not to have read the accusations against Louis IX, but rather to have heard them. That those accusations circulated primarily by word of mouth helps to account for the paucity of written texts alleging them. It also helps to explain why, while written affirmations of Louis' issuing of leather money and imposition of taxes dated to the first decades of the fifteenth century. Le Blanc was so keenly aware of these charges and so outraged by them at the end of the century. Finally, the oral nature of the charges against Louis IX helps to explain why Le Blanc responded to allegations against Saint Louis that the texts written several generations earlier did not make. It seems that, in the telling, the charges against Louis IX grew in number and seriousness during the course of the fifteenth century, with the result that Le Blanc heard allegations that exceeded the scope of those leveled by the earlier, written texts. He seems, furthermore, to have heard those allegations from members of the lower classes of French society. Le Blanc twice claimed not only that the detractors of Saint Louis based their allegations on hearsay, but also that they "would not know how to give any other proof of their assertions. He described them as "thoughtless speakers" and termed their propositions "thoughtless". 347 He claimed that those who said that Louis' leather money was stored at Paris and at Bourges spoke by hearsay "and not knowing anything else about it". He stated that the written documents upon which he based his treatise "surpass the understanding" of Louis' slanderers. In short, Le Blanc repeatedly invoked the ignorance, lack of intelligence, and lack of education of those whose beliefs about Louis IX he sought to debunk. While he may have done so simply to discredit them. Le Blanc does appear genuinely to have been struck by the gap between their unscholarly accusations and his own historical erudition. Taken together with the fact that the authors of both "Les Aventures" and B.N., fr. 9688 issued from an urban, mercantile mileu. Le Blanc's insistence that the detractors of Louis EX were ignorant and unlettered thus confirms Colette Beaune's contention that criticism of Saint Louis emanated from the popular strata of French society. The Chronique abreeee de monseigneur saint lovs evidences Le Blanc's disdain for the popular critics of Louis IX, but it also testifies to the intensity of their criticism at the end of the fifteenth century.

Louis Le Blanc. II Louis Le Blanc's effort to defend the reputation of Louis IX extended beyond his authorship of the Chronique abreeee de monseigneur saint lovs. He also sought to prove that the payment of Louis' ransom had not impoverished the kingdom in La saincte vie et haultz faictz. dignes de mémoire, de monseigneur sainct lovs. rov de france. the life of Louis IX that he wrote sometime between 1495 348 and 1 5 0 9 J 02 The work in question survives in B.N., fr. 5721 and possibly in B.N., fr. 13754, a manuscript that belonged to the confraternity of dry-goods merchants ofP a ris. n contains two important passages relative to the ransom of Saint Louis. In his Chronique abreeee. Le Blanc sought to minimize the weight of the financial burden that Louis' ransom had imposed upon his kingdom. In La saincte vie de monseigneur sainct lovs. he went much further. In a chapter entitled "The Payment of the Ransom of My Lord Saint Louis and of his Entire Following, Without Any Difficulty," Le Blanc sought to deny that the payment of the ransom had imposed anv burden on the French people. "Good king Saint Louis," he wrote, "sent my lord Charles, count of Anjou, his brother, to France to arrange for the payment of the said ransom. Charles first addressed himself to the abbot of Saint- Denis in France and requested him to contribute to the payment of this ransom by handing over the golden crucifix that had been given to his church by one of the former kings of France for conversion into the said payment, which the said abbot did willingly. And the said

^02on this work, see François, "Les Rois de France," 377-380, and Daly, "Mixing Business with Leisure," passim.

I03i read the work in question in B.N., fr. 5721, for a description of which see the Catalogue des manuscrits français de la Bibliothèque Nationale V, 76. François, "Les Rois de France," 378-9, stated that the manuscript came into the hands of the confraternity of dry-goods merchants of Paris, for in 1666 those merchants published a work entitled La sainte vie et les hauts faits de Mer saint Louis, rov de France, the text of which was identical to B.N., fr. 5721. However, B.N., fr. 13754, which I did not examine, may have been the manuscript on the basis of which the confraternity based its edition: it belonged to the confraternity of dry-goods merchants, and it appears to contain a copy of Le Blanc's work. On B.N., fr. 13754, see note 105 below. 349 crucifix was immediately taken and brought to Paris. And one of its arms was removed by the master minter, who forged it FLe.. the arm of the crucifix] into gold bezants. And by the grace of God it gave forth so much [gold] that the entire ransom was paid and discharged from it, and also there was so much of it left over that the master minter was paid for his trouble from it, and the remainder amounted to five hundred livres, from which another arm for the said crucifix was remade. And then the said gold bezants were sent to Damietta for the whole payment of the said ransom, without any other travail

[that is, "toil", or, "sufferring"] of his [Le., Louis IX's]p e o p le ." The origin of this remarkable tale is obscure. Colette Beaune dated the story to the end of the fifteenth century. She stated that it most likely originated at Saint-Denis, where it "was probably told to visitors of the royal tombs", and she pointed to it as the culmination of the myth, propagated primarily by fourteenth and fifteenth- century liturgies, that Louis' ransom had been raised

m iraculously.ios Kathleen Daly, who studied La saincte vie de

fr, 5721, fols. 44-45: "Payement de la rencon de monseigneur sainct loys Et de tout son bamaige Sans aulcun grief. Le bon roy sainct loys envoya en france monseigneur Charles vonte danjou son frere, pour faire la diligence du payement de ladicte rencon Lequel sadressa premièrement a labbe de sainct dénis en france Et le requist de ayder au payement dicelle rencon. En baillant le crucifix dor qui avoit este donne a son eglise par aulcun des anciens roys de france pour convertir oudict payement. Ce que ledict abbe fist voluntiers. Et tantost fut prins ledict crucifix, et apporte a paris Et luy fut oste lun des bras par le maistre monnoyeur qui le forgea en bezans dor Et par la grace de dieu II foisonna tant, que toute la rencon en fut payee et acquittée. Et si en demoura si largement que le maistre monnoyeur en fut paye de sa peine. Et le résidu monta cinq cens livres dont Ion fist refaire ung aultre bras audict crucifix. Et puis furent envoyez lesdicts bezans dor, a damyette pour tout le payement de ladicte rencon, Sans aultre travail de son peuple ",

lOSgeaune, The Birth of an Ideoloev. 107-8. Beaune did not mention Louis Le Blanc in discussing the tale of the crucifix. She paraphrased most of the tale 350 monseigneur sainct lovs hypothesized that "Le Blanc's allegation that Louis IX's ransom was raised miraculously, without burdening his subjects, may reflect hostility even among royal servants to the

and did not provide the French text, but did directly quote the phrase "without any other toil from the king’s people". She cited B.N., fr. 13754 (fols, 30-31), which she identified both as La Sainte vie et hauts faits dignes de mémoire de Monseigneur Saint Louis roi de France, which is the title of Le Blanc's life of Louis K (page 94, note 21), and as the "book of the confraternity of dry- merchants " (page 109, note 106), While I have not examined B.N., ff, 13754, the text of the tale of the crucifix that Beaune cited from it seems to be identical to the text in B.N., fr, 5721, and the manuscript seems to contain a copy of Le Blanc's work. If it does, then the copy of that work possessed by the confraternity of dry-goods merchants would appear to have been B.N., fr, 13754, and not, as Francois thought, B,N„ fr, 5721 (see note 103 above). In any event, that corporate body did possess a manuscript that related the tale of the crucifix. Furthermore, if B.N,, ff, 13754 indeed contains a copy of Le Blanc's work, then La saincte vie de monseigneur sainct loys is the only known written source of the tale of the crucifix. On the one hand. Le Blanc may well have heard the story at Saint-Denis, or have heard it ffom someone who had. On the other hand, he may simply have invented it. The tale did bear a relation to liturgical offices for Saint Louis, Beaune noted that "the liturgy of 1298 onward" stated that Louis' release for a modest ransom was a miracle and that "a Benedictine liturgy from the first half of the fifteenth century" stated that Louis was freed by a miracle. She might have added that Louis Le Blanc, referring to the office of Saint Louis, stated that the modesty of the ransom was miraculous in his Chronique abregee (B.N,, fr, 25012, fol, 4: "Saincte eglise chante au service dudit saint loys en la llll.e lecon de matines, Modico tamen precio et quasi miraculoso liberatus est. Qui est a dire en francois saint Loys a este délivré de prison pour petit pris et comme miraculeusement. Et ainsi la voulut et ordonna nostre seigneur Jesuschrist "), and that in La saincte vie de monseigneur sainct lovs he invoked the same liturgical text immediately after having related the miracle of the crucifix: "Et puis furent envoyez lesdicts bezans dor, a damyette pour tout le payement de ladicte rencon, Sans aultre travail de son peuple, qui en ensuyvant le text du service divin dudict sainct loys, que nostre mere saincte eglise chante, Qjii est tel Deinde a sarracenis career! mancipatus, modico tandem precio, et quasi miraculose liberatus est. Le pris de ladicte rencon fut bien petit pour le prince et pour toute sa noble chevalerie qui estoit avec luy " (B,N,, fr, 5721, fols, 45- 45v), In short. Le Blanc used the tale of the crucifix to explicate the liturgy, to which he referred not in order to demonstrate that God had operated a miracle in favor of Louis IX, but rather to prove that the payment of Louis IX's ransom had not impoverished the kingdom. Such is the only purpose to which the tale of the crucifix is known to have been put, and it is probably the purpose for which it was invented. 351 burden of royal taxation, and his desire to show that his patron saint was not responsible for increasing it/'^o^ The views of Beaune and Daly require revision in the light of Le Blanc's authorship of the Chronique abreeee. of which they were unaware. While it did indeed transform the payment of Louis IX's ransom into a miraculous event, and while we know from his Chronique abregee that Le Blanc wanted to show that Saint Louis had not increased taxes, the primary purpose of the tale of the crucifix was neither to illustrate that God had operated a miracle in the holy king's favor nor to express hostility to taxation. The probable purpose for which it was invented was, rather, to defend Saint Louis against the charge that the payment of his ransom had impoverished the kingdom. In any event, that is clearly why Le Blanc related it. The title of the chapter in which he did so, and his insistence that the payment of the ransom did not burden Louis' subjects, indicate as much. So does the second passage of La saincte vie de monseigneur sainct lovs that touched on the ransom of Louis IX. Towards the end of his work, immediately after having narrated Saint Louis' death. Le Blanc noted that Louis had established many good customs in France, "not only for the people of his kingdom, but also for foreign merchants, to whom he had good justice done regarding their merchandise and transactions. And lO^Daly, "Mixing Business with Leisure," 110, note 39. The personal devotion of Louis Le Blanc to Saint Louis to which Daly alluded is indicated by the last lines of La saincte vie de sainct lovs : "Auquel fi.e.. Saint Louis] comme son filleul je supply et requiers pour retribution de ce petit livre quil luy plaise estre mon avocat et intercesseur envers celle qui est seule vierge et mere, de me impetrer grace envers son glorieux filz Jhesus, Et estre participant de son royaulme de paradis " (B.N., fr. 5712, fol. 106v). 352 because of this merchants began to come there from all parts, wherefore the kingdom was in a better condition than it had been in the time of his predecessors: which is against those who madly and ignorantly say, by the hearsay of common, unlettered, artisanal people, who have it on the word of old women, that the said Saint Louis destroyed and impoverished his kingdom for the payment of his ransom which is not true, because the crucifix paid it, as is written a b o v e . " This vitriolic passage is important for a number of reasons. It confirms that the miraculous tale of the crucifbc was intended neither to exalt Saint Louis nor to criticize royal taxation, but to defend Louis IX against the charge that the payment of his ransom had impoverished the kingdom. It also confirms how and among whom the allegations against Saint Louis circulated. Le Blanc once again underlined the oral nature of those allegations by referring to them as hearsay, and by qualifying them as what one might call "old wives' tales". In referring to the detractors of Saint Louis as common, unlettered artisans, he once again identified them as members of the humbler classes of French society.

107 b.n ., fr. 5721, fols. 95-96: "Precieuse chose est et digne davoir en remembrance le trespassement de tel prince Cestassvoir a ceulx du royaulme de france Car mainte bonne coustume il y establit. dont la plupart ne sont pas usaige, et non seulement pour ceulx de son royaulme; mais pour les marchans forains. Ausquelz il faisoit faire bonne justice de leurs marchandises et affaires. Et a cause de ce les marchans commencèrent a y venir de toutes pars Parquoy le royaulme fut en meilleur estât quil navoit este ou temps de ses devanciers. Qjii est contre ceulx qui follement et ignarement dyent par ouyr dire des simples gens mechaniques non lettrez, qui le tiennent par diet de vieilles, que ledict sainct loys destruisit et apouvrit son royaulme. pour le payement de sa rencon de prison quil paya pour luy et tous les syens. Ce quil nest pas vray: Car le crucifix la paya, ainsy que cy dessus est escript." 353 Finally, the passage provides an additional indication of the intensity and tenacity of the late-medieval controversy over Louis IX. It seems that Le Blanc did not think historical erudition of the type he employed in his Chronique abregee sufficient to silence the allegation that the payment of Saint Louis' ransom had ruined the kingdom. In La saincte vie de sainct lovs he had recourse to a miracle.

Etienne Le Blanc To attribute the Chronique abregee de monseigneur saint lovs to Louis Le Blanc is to correct an error made by scholars who were not familiar with B.N., fr. 25012. Modem scholars who were unaware of Louis Le Blanc's treatise attributed his words in defense of Saint Louis to his son, Etienne LeB la n c , los in fact, the latter merely plagiarized large parts of his father's Chronique abregee in a work known as the Généalogie de Bourbon. Successor to his father as a royal notary and secretary (1509) and later contrôleur général de l'Epargne (1527) and secretary to Louise de Savoie and to Marguerite d'Angouleme, Etienne Le Blanc was a literary figure and historian of some note.io^ He composed an

lOSjsjotably, Beaune, The Birth of an Ideology. 109, and Daly, "Mixing Business with Leisure," 115, note 1.

I09on the life and works of Etienne Le Blanc, see H. Constant d'Yanville, Chambre des Comptes de Paris. II, 776, 927; Leopold Delisle, "Traductions d’auteurs grecs et latins offertes à François 1er et Anne de Montmorency par Etienne Leblanc et Antoine Macault," Tournai des Savants ( 19001476-492: L. Mirot, "Notes sur Etienne Le Blanc et ses compilations historiques," Bulletin de la Société de l'histoire de Paris et de l’Ile de France 36 (1909) 38-45; M. François, "Les Rois de France," 380; Anne-Marie Lecoq, François 1er imaginaire. Symbolique et politique à l'aube de la Renaissance française. Paris 1987, 246- 354 account of the marriage of Isabelle of France to Richard II of England (1395) on the occasion of Louis XII's marriage to Henry VIll's sister, Mary, in 1514.1 He offered his Gestes de Blanche de Castille to Francis I's mother, Louise de Savoie, sometime between 1515 and 1521.111 He dedicated a translation of four of Cicero's Orations to

Francis I in or shortly after 1529.112 Finally, Etienne Le Blanc composed his Généalogie de Bourbon. He wrote it sometime between 28 April 1521 and 14 November 1 5 2 2 ,and it is known to survive only in B.N., fr. 5719. Written on the command of Louise de Savoie, its purpose was to defend her claim to the duchy of Bourbon.1 14

247, 477-478; Kathleen Daly, "Mixing Business with Leisure," 114-115; and Colette Beaune, The Birth of an Ideology. 108-9. That Etienne Le Blanc was a secretary to Marguerite d'Angoulême is not indicated by these works, but is evident in Abel Lefranc and Jacques Boulenger (eds.). Comptes de Louise de Savoie (1515. 1522) et de Marguerite d'Angoulême (1512. 1517. 1524.1529.1539). Paris 1905, 83 [account for 1529], 90 [account for 1539].

^ lOOn this work was studied by Mirot, "Notes sur Etienne Le Blanc et ses compilations historiques," 38-45.

lllO p the date of composition of the Gestes de Blanche de Castille. see A.-M. Lecoq, Francois 1er imaginaire. 477-478. For a description of B.N., fr. 5715, the sole manuscript in which it is known to survive, see the Catalogue des manuscrits français de la Bibliothèque Nationale V. 74.

^ ^ 2por the date of composition of this work, which survives in Paris, B.N., fr. 1738, see A.-M. Lecoq, François 1er imaginaire. 246.

^ l^For a description of B.N., fr. 5719, see the Catalogue des manuscrits français de la Bibliothèque Nationale V. 75-76. The terminus post auem is provided by Le Blanc's reference (fol. 3v) to the death of Suzanne de Bourbon (28 April 1521). The terminus ante auem is given by his reference (fol. 3v) to the fact that Anne de Beaujeu, who died on 14 November 1522 (and not Pierre II de Beaujeu, who died in 1503; cf. Lecoq, François 1er imaginaire. 478) "vit encores". On the Généalogie de Bourbon, see Beaune, The Birth of em Ideology. 108-9; Daly, "Mixing Business with Leisure," 115, note 51; Lecoq, François 1er imaginaire. 478-9.

fr. 5719, fol. 5v: "A treshaulte trespuissante tres excellente magnanime et tres débonnaire princesse, et ma tresredoubtee dame Madame La 355 Etienne Le Blanc began his work by setting forth a genealogy of the house of Bourbon, in order that readers of his work might more easily understand its c o n te n ts .^ ^5 He began his genealogy with Saint Louis. After having noted the dates of Louis' birth and coronation, Le Blanc stated that "towards the end of this book 1 have made a little treatise against those who have wanted to take his good reputation away from him after his death, by saying that in his time he had destroyed his kingdom on account of the two voyages that he made overseas for the recovery of the Holy Land, which is not true as is fully proven by the said t r e a t i s e . " He then proceeded to trace the

duchesse dangoulmois et danjou. Contesse du maine, mere tres begnine et tressaige du Treschrestien Roy de france. Et mon souverain et naturel seigneur, francoys premier de ce nom. Ma dame désirant comme vostre treshumble et tresobeissant serviteur et subiect accomplir ce que de vostre benigne grace il vous a pieu me commander Jay depuis ung mois en ca serche. tant au trésor des chartes du roy, en la chambre de ses comptes, que aux anciennes hystoires de france. Tout ce qui faict mention de Bourbon Et ce que en ay trouve lay mis et rédigé par escript en ce petit abregie.... llSg.N., fr. 5719, fol. 1: "Genealogie de Bourbon. Pour plus facillement entendre le contenu en ce present livre au commencement diceluy ay mys ceste présente genealogie de la maison de Bourbon."

^ ^^B.N., fr. 5719, fols. 1-lv: "Monseigneur Saint Loys Roy de france filz de Loys. VILe de ce nom. lequel loys estoit filz de philippe Auguste dit le conquérant fut ne. M. CC. XIII. et couronne roy de fiance. M. CC. XXVI. en laage de. XIII. ans, et durant sa minorité la royne blanche sa mere eut le gouvernement du royaume dont elle sacquicta vertueusement envers dieu. Le roy son filz et au bien et soulagement des subiectz dudit royaume. Pour Ihonneur et reverence duquel sainct Loys, et de ceulx qui sont descenduz de luy vers la fin de cedit livre ou feuillet XlX.e ay faict ung petit traicte contre ceulx qui luy ont voulu oster après son trespas sa bonne renommee, disant quil avoit en son temps destruict son royaume, a cause des deux voyages quil feist oultremer, pour le recouvrement de la terre saincte, qui nest chose veritable saufve leur reverence comme il est amplement prouve par ledit traicte." 356 genealogy of the ducal house of Bourbon from Louis' son, Robert of Clermont, to the death of Suzanne of Bourbon in 1521.ti7 Le Blanc then launched into the heart of his work, a chronological presentation of summaries of important documents bearing on the history of the house of Bourbon designed to support Louise's claim to the duchy. Although he wrote it in only a month. Le Blanc did a good deal of archival research, uncovering and presenting numerous relevant documents preserved at the Trésor des Chartes and at the Chambre des Comptes.^ i & Only at the end did Etienne Le Blanc undertake the defense of Saint Louis that he announced at the outset of his work. Addressing Louise de Savoie, he stated that "in making this little book, 1

^ fr. 5719, fols. lv-3v. Fols. 4-4v are blank. Fol. 5 bears a luxurious miniature that depicts Etienne Le Blanc presenting the manuscript to Louise de Savoie and which is described and reproduced in Lecoq, Francois 1er imaginaire. 478-9. The text resumes on fol. 5v, with the address to Louise de Savoie cited in note 113 above.

fr. 5719, fols. 5v-22v. In his address to Louise de Savoie, Le Blanc stated that " désirant accomplir ce que il vous a pieu me commander Jay depuis ung mois en ca serche. tant au trésor des chartes du roy, en la chambre de ses comptes, que aux anciennes hystoires de france. Tout ce qui faict mention de Bourbon " (fol. 5v). He also noted that the time restraint imposed by his patroness had limited his research: " Laquelle conte est venue en la maison darmaignac par mariage comme Ion dit, Ce que je nay bonnement sceu veriffier, pour la briefvete du temps que Ion ma donne" (fol. 12). Examples, which could be multiplied, of archival research and documentary evidence: " Comme il appert par deux lettres estans oudit trésor des chartes données en lan mil deux cens vingct et troys" (fol. 6v); "Par arrest de la court de parlement estant oudit trésor donne, mil. CC. LVIII. fut dit que lesditz contes ny avoyent nul droit" (fol. 6v); "Jay serche oudits trésor des chartes et chambre des comptes loriginal de ladicte lettre, Lequel ne sest peu trouver. Jay aussy veu le testament dudit monsieur sainct Loys a ceste fin " (fol. 7); " ainsy que le recite le roy loys le huün par ses lettres données en lan mil. CCC. XIllI. par lesquelles il confesse aussy avoir receu en hommaige dudit conte ledit loys " (fol. 7v); "Le roy Loys dernier decedde (i.e.. Louis XII] par ses lettres données lan mil. CCCC. IIILxx XVIII, estans enregistrées en ladite chambre des comptes veult et luy plaist que " (fol. 22). 357 remembered that you bear the name of my lord Saint Louis, your ancestor, and that I once made a certain little treatise about him, in order to respond to those who have wanted to take his good reputation away from him by saying that in his time he had destroyed the kingdom of France on account of the two voyages that he made overseas wishing to recover the Holy Land, and that he had been constrained to have leather money made and to impose the gabelles in this kingdom, which is not true, as will be shown below."ii9 He went on to conclude his work with the promised treatise, which he entitled "Demonstration That My Lord Saint Louis Did Not

Destroy the Kingdom By the Holy Voyage That He Made Overseas". 120 For all that he claimed its authorship, a comparison of his "Demonstration" to Louis Le Blanc's Chronique abregee reveals that, by and large, he simply abbreviated and copied his father's work .121

Ï fr. 5719, fol. 22v; "Ma dame, en faisant ce petit livre 11 mest venu en mémoire que portez le nom de monseigneur sainct loys vostre progeniteur dont a present est question, et que autrefoys en avoys faict quelque petit traicte pour respondre a ceulx qui luy ont voulu oster sa bonne renommee disant quil avoit en son temps destruit le royaume de france, pour les deux voyages quil feist oultremer voulant recouvrer la terre saincte, et quil avoit este contrainct de faire faire de la monnoye de cuyr et mectre sus les gabelles en ce royaume, Qui nest pas vray saufve leur reverence Comme cy après sera monstre."

120b,n,^ fr. 5719, fol. 23: "Probacion que monseigneur sainct loys ne destruisit point le royaume Pour le sainct voyaige quil feist oultremer." The said treatise occupies fols. 23-30 of the manuscript.

I2lin the second part of the Genealogie de Bourbon. Etienne Le Blanc made use of a document that "jay trouvée entre les besongnes de feu mon pere en son vivant greffier des comptes" (B.N., fr. 5719, fol. 7). It would appear that he also found the text now known as B.N., ff. 25012 - the sole, unpublished, autograph copy of Louis Le Blanc's Chronique abregee de monseigneur saint lovs - among his late father's affairs, and that he presented it as his own, original work. Etienne Le Blanc's use of Louis Le Blanc's Chronique abregee in the Généalogie 358 Etienne Le Blanc began by stating that "Some people have wanted to say that, in his time, the good king of France, my lord Saint Louis, impoverished and destroyed the kingdom on account of the first voyage that he made in the Holy Land, for its protection and defense against the infidels and Sarrasins, because of the payment for the capture and ransom of his person and of all the knights of his army that he paid to the sultan, and that his successors, the next kings, were quite aware of it; which he did not do." He went on to state that Louis had in fact enriched his kingdom by the acquisition of numerous relics of the Passion, and to note that he undertook his first crusade "as he to whom belongs the defense of the fa ith " . 122 While this passage represented a considerable alteration and

de Bourbon does not represent the only occasion on which the former put the latter's historical writings to use: Daly, "Mixing Business with Leisure," 115, note 51, found that in writing his Gestes de Blanche de Castille the younger Le Blanc "plagiarized" his father's La saincte vie et les haultz faictz de monseigneur sainct lovs , and "borrowed" from his father's short history of the French kings (B.N., fr, 5869).

^22gj\j_^ fr. 5 7 1 9, fols, 23-23v: "Aucuns ont voulu dire que le bon roy de france monseigneur sainct loys ait en son temps appovry et destruict le royaume pour le voyaige premier quil feist en la terre saincte pour la tuition et deffence dicelle. Alencontre des infidelles et sarrazins a cause du payement de la prinse et raencon de sa personne et de toute la chevalerie de son ost quil paya au souldan et que ses successeurs roys prouchains sen apperceurent bien. Ce quil na pas fait Mais au contraire il a enrichy le reaume et augmente du plus grand trésor quil soit sur la terre. Car il acquict et racheta la saincte couronne despines dont nostre seigneur Jhesucrust fut crucifie en larbre de la croix et plusieurs autres sainctes reliques de sa passion quil meist en la saincte chappelle de son palais a paris. Laquelle il feist lors faire et construire pour ceste cause congnoissant que lesdictes sainctes reliques valoient bien avoir lieu et repositoire tout neuf et sans macule. Lequel voyaige il feist comme celui auquel appartient la deffense de la foy et ne fut pas destruction de son royaume mais la plus grant et digne richesse quil ot sceu acquérir. Car cestoit pour laugmentation de la foy et de son royaume treschrestien." 359 abbreviation of Louis Le Blanc's p r e f a c e ,^ 23 the remainder of Etienne Le Blanc's "Demonstration" was, with a few exceptions, a faithful copy of his father's Chronique abregee. Etienne Le Blanc's first chapter, "Declaration of the Said Holy Relics", reproduced exactly the text of that chapter in Louis Le Blanc's w o r k .124 His next chapter, "Kings of France who were in the Holy Land", was identical to the chapter of the same title in his father's work, with the exception of one addition. Whereas Louis Le Blanc had concluded his list of crusader kings with Saint Louis, his son added Charles VI, who "sent many knights from France there three different tim e s " .^25 The younger Le Blanc then reproduced his

*23compare Louis Le Blanc's preface (B.N., fr. 25012, fols. l-2v), the text of which is in notes 74-80 above, to the passage of Etienne Le Blanc's work contained in the previous note. The latter represents a considerable alteration and abbreviation of the former. Whereas the elder Le Blanc had tied the charge that Louis had impoverished the kingdom "as much" by the cost of his two crusades in general as by the payment of his ransom in particular, the younger Le Blanc related it only to Louis' capture on his first crusade and the resulting ransom. The phrase to the effect that Saint Louis' successors were very much aware of his impoverishment of the kingdom (in other words, that the kingdom remained impoverished for quite some time) was added by Etienne Le Blanc. Etienne Le Blanc omitted all of the references to taxation, leather money, Saint Louis' ecclesiastical foundations, the high quality of Louis IX's money, and the wealth of the kingdom under Philip III in Louis Le Blanc's preface, probably because they only represented a summary of important points to be made later, in the course of the treatise. He retained his father's words on the relics acquired by Saint Louis. He omitted his father's passage on the facts that crusades were customary in the time of Saint Louis, that Louis did not undertake his crusades frivolously, and that in undertaking them he followed in the footsteps of his predecessors, but he did note that Louis undertook his crusades as the defender of the faith. He omitted his father's long providential explanation of the failure of Saint Louis' crusades. l24compare B.N., fr. 5719, fols. 23v-24v to B.N., fr. 25012, fols. 2v-3, the text of which is in note 81 above.

125compare B.N., fr. 5719, fols. 24v-25 to B.N., fr. 25012, fol. 3v, the text of which is in note 82 above. Etienne Le Blanc added that "Le roy Charles VI.e y envoya grande chevalerie de france par trois diverses fois" (fol. 25). The only other difference lies in his reference to Charlemagne as "Le roy sainct 360 father's chapter on "The Ransom of Saint Louis", adding nothing and omitting the phrase "and the expenses of war in the two voyages amounted to only one million five hundred and seventy-four

thousand l i v r e s ".^26 His next chapter, "Declaration of the Churches Founded by Saint Louis", was virtually identical to the chapter of the

same title in his father's Chronique a b r e e e e .^27 Etienne Le Blanc's next chapter, "Leather Money", differed from his father's chapter of the same title in only three respects. He added a phrase relative to the leather money supposedly issued by emperor Frederick II. He omitted "And the ordonnances made by Saint Louis with regard to the said monies have been expressly seen in the Chambre des Monnaies. The ordonnance of the said leather money was not found among them, nor, likewise, in all the histories of France." He also omitted the halles des linsières and the grosse tour of Bourges from the list of sites at which some believed Louis

IX's leather money to be s to r e d . 128

Charlemaigne" (fol. 24v), for Louis Le Blanc had not qualified that monarch as a saint.

126compare B.N., fr. 5719, fols. 25-26 to B.N., fr. 25012, fols. 4-4v, the text of which is in note 83 above. Etienne Le Blanc omitted the phrase "Et les fraiz des guerres ne montèrent esdits deux volages que ung million cinq cens soixante quatorze mille livres".

127compare B.N., fr. 5719, fols. 26-27v to B.N., fr. 25012, fols. 4v-5v, the text of which is in note 84 above. The differences between the two texts are minor: (1) Etienne Le Blanc omitted "Le couvent des carmes a paris" from his hst; (2) He added the following bracketed words: "Labbaye de maubuisson pres ponthoise [quil feist fonder par la dicte royne blanche sa mere]" (fol. 27); (3) He added the following bracketed words: "Labbaye de longchamp en faveur de [sa seur] madame ysabel de france" (fol. 27).

ï28compare B.N., fr. 5719, fols. 27v-28v to B.N., fr. 25012, fols. 5v-7, the text of which is in notes 85-89 above. (1) In order to make clear that it was the leather money of emperor Frederick II that had been mistaken for the leather 361 After having reproduced Louis Le Blanc's chapter on "Gabelles" without any alterations, 129 Etienne Le Blanc omitted most of his father's chapter on "The Canonization of Saint Louis". In the younger Le Blanc's work, the chapter of that title noted only that Philip the Fair paid the expenses associated with his grandfather's canonization. 130 Etienne Le Blanc went on completely to omit his father's chapter on "The Ransom of King John". 131 Finally, he more or

money of Saint Louis, Etienne Le Blanc added the following bracketed words: " et alentour dicelle son nom. [et cest ce que aucuns ont voullu dire que regnant sainct loys fut faicte ladicte monnoye de cuir.] Et encores pour plus amplement " (fol. 28); (2) He omitted the following bracketed words: " fussent tenues et gardees. [Et expressément ont este veues en la chambre des monnoyes. les ordonnances faictes par saint loys. sur le faict desdites monnoyes. Entre lesquelles na este trouvée lordonnance de ladite monnoye de cuyr ne semblablement en toutes les histoires de france] Et pour respondre en oultre " (fol. 28v); (3) Compare Etienne Le Blanc's " oyr dire et autre chose nen scavent que au Louvre a paris y a de ladicte monnoye de cuir ce nest chose veritable saulve leur reverence, car il a este enquis aux cappitaines lieuxtenans concierges et autres gens qui ont afferme " (B.N., fr. 5719, fol. 28v) to Louis Le Blanc's " ouyr dire et autre chose n'en scavent Que ou chasteau du louvre, aux halles des lingieres de paris et en la grosse tour de bourges y a de ladite monnoye de cuyr faicte au royaume de france régnant saint loys. Ce nest chose veritable, sauf leur reverence. Car il a este enquis aux cappitaines lieutenans et concierges desdits lieux et autres gens dignes de foy. sil estoit vray. Qui ont afferme " (B.N., fr. 25012, fols. 6v-7).

'29compare B.N., fr. 5719, fols. 28v-29v to B.N., fr. 25012, fols. 7-7v , the text of which is in notes 90-92 above.

130compare B.N., fr. 5719, fol. 29v to B.N., fr. 25012, fols. 7v-8v, the text of which is in note 93 above. Etienne Le Blanc's chapter on the "Canonization de Sainct Loys" contained only the first sentence of Louis Le Blanc's chapter of that title: "II [Philip the Fair] feist faire a ses despens les diligences du procès de la canonization dudict sainct loys lequel fut canonize a Romme lan mil II.c IIILxx XVII" (B.N., fr. 5719, fol. 29v).

^31por the text of this chapter in Louis Le Blanc's Chronique abreeee. see note 94 above. 362 less copied his father's conclusion, with the obvious exception of its final passage, where the latter had signed and dated his w o r k . 1^2 While the defense of Saint Louis in Etienne Le Blanc's Généalogie de Bourbon was unoriginal, it does shed more light on the controversy over Saint Louis. For one thing, it is hard to believe that Etienne Le Blanc dredged up long-forgotten charges against Louis DC merely to extend the length of his work or to flatter Louise de Savoie by pointing out her relationship to Saint Louis. Le Blanc would hardly have brought the accusations against Saint Louis to her attention had they fallen by the wayside during the first decades of the sixteenth century. In other words, the very fact that he saw fit to append his father's defense of Saint Louis to his own work indicates that criticism of Louis IX had not abated during the quarter of a century since Louis Le Blanc had written his Chronique abregee. Indeed, careful examination of several of the minor changes that he made to his father's text indicates that, beyond having read the treatise, Etienne Le Blanc had both independent knowledge of the charges against Louis IX and a real desire to prove them false. As we have seen, the elder Le Blanc's text responded to the charge that Saint Louis had impoverished the kingdom not just by the payment of his ransom in particular, but by the cost of his two crusades in general. In contrast, this allegation was much less evident in the younger Le Blanc's work.

^Compare B.N., fr. 5719, fols. 29v-30 to B.N., fr. 25012, fols. 9-9v, the text of which is in notes 95 and 72 above. Etienne Le Blanc reworded and slightly abbreviated parts of his father's conclusion contained in note 95. He omitted the contents of note 72. 363 Etienne Le Blanc altered his father's statement that the detractors of Louis IX claimed that "Saint Louis impoverished his kingdom, as much on account of the two armies that he led against the unbelievers and infidels as on account of his ransom that he paid to the sultan," to read that those detractors held that "Saint Louis impoverished and destroyed the kingdom on account of the first voyage that he made in the Holy Land because of the payment for the capture and ransom of his person and of all the knights of his army that he paid to the sultan". In doing so, he narrowed the charges against Saint Louis to the specific matter of his ransom. Furthermore, whereas Louis Le Blanc had written that Saint Louis' detractors claimed that "in order to meet the expenses of his wars he imposed the tailles, aides, and gabelles and had leather money made," Etienne Le Blanc simply wrote that they claimed that Saint Louis "had been constrained to have leather money made and to impose the gabelles in this kingdom". In doing so, he disassociated Louis' alleged circulation of leather money and imposition of taxes from the allegedly excessive costs of his crusades themselves. Finally, his omission of the phrase "and the expenses of war in the two voyages amounted to only one million five hundred and seventy-four thousand livres" represented Etienne Le Blanc's one and only alteration of his father's chapter on "The Ransom of Saint Louis ". In omitting it, he chose not to include his father's most direct response to the charge that the costs of Louis' two crusades themselves had been excessive. 364 Compared to his father, Etienne Le Blanc was consistently less concerned about the charge that the cost of the crusades themselves had bankrupted the kingdom, and he was more intent on focusing upon the alleged effects of the ransom. It is difficult to account for the difference without supposing that he knew of allegations against Saint Louis from sources other than his father's treatise. In other words, Etienne Le Blanc probably knew of allegations against Saint Louis that focused specifically and pointedly upon the payment of his ransom. Therefore, in order to make his own "Demonstration" more pertinent, he altered his father's text to speak directly to that matter. Similarly, he appears to have known from other sources that some Frenchmen supposed the kingdom to have sufferred the effects of the payment of Louis IX's ransom for a very long time. His father seemed to be aware of this charge, because he devoted considerable effort to demonstrating the wealth of the kingdom under Saint Louis' successors. However, Louis Le Blanc never explicitly stated the charge and, consequently, did not respond directly to it. In contrast, Etienne Le Blanc did. After having stated that his detractors asserted that Saint Louis had impoverished the kingdom on account of the payment of his ransom, Etienne Le Blanc added that those detractors also asserted "that his successors, the next kings, were quite aware of it". This phrase, which is a way of saying that Louis IX's detractors supposed that the impoverishment of the kingdom lasted well beyond Louis IX's death, represents one of the few additions that Etienne Le Blanc made to his father's work. It is significant because 365 it confirms what Louis Le Blanc's work merely implied, namely, that some Frenchmen believed the kingdom to have sufferred the negative impact of the payment of Saint Louis' ransom for generations. It is also important as further evidence of Etienne Le Blanc's independent knowledge of allegations against Saint Louis, and of his interest in debunking them. In all likelihood, it was because he had heard or read the charge in question that Etienne Le Blanc explicitly addressed and denounced an accusation that his father had not even mentioned. Finally, several other slight differences between the "Demonstration" and the Chronique abresee also suggest that Etienne Le Blanc had independent knowledge of allegations against Saint Louis and a concern to debunk them. For one thing, it is important to note that his addition of Charles VI to Louis Le Blanc's list of French kings who took part in or supported crusades represented one of Etienne Le Blanc's few additions to his father's work. His attempt to reinforce his father's demonstration of the fact that Louis IX's crusades represented a customary undertaking implies that he was particularly sensitive to the charge that they represented an untraditional one. Furthermore, the fact that he omitted his father's reference to the supposed storage of leather money at the halles des lingières and the grosse tour of Bourges while retaining his reference to its supposed storage at the Louvre might reflect Etienne Le Blanc's own knowledge of rumors about the leather money of Saint Louis. In other words, it is possible that he reported the rumor as he had 366 heard it. Likewise, Etienne Le Blanc's omission of the phrase in which his father noted that "all the histories of France" contained no references to Saint Louis' leather money could well have resulted from his knowledge that some of them did. In sum, despite the fact that it is unoriginal, Etienne Le Blanc's defense of Louis IX is a valuable document. His alterations of his father's treatise reveal that he had independent knowledge of some of the allegations against Saint Louis and, therefore, that those allegations were still current at the time he wrote. They also reveal that he wrote his "Demonstration " not as an idle exercise, but out of a desire to defend the memory of Saint Louis. Etienne Le Blanc did plagiarize his father's work, but he did so in order to address a contemporary controversy about which he knew a good deal and about which he felt strongly.

B.N.. fr. 10468. B.N.. fr. 1233. and B.N.. fr. 24976 Three late-medieval historians openly asserted that the ransom of Louis IX had negative effects on his kingdom, and two openly asserted that it had not. Given that the ransom of Saint Louis was a controversial matter in late-medieval French historiography, I scrutinized nineteen additional accounts of the reign of Louis IX in order to see if, how, and to what extent the controversy affected unofficial historians who did not openly pronounce on the question. I found that four of the nineteen accounts mentioned neither of Louis IX's two crusades, and that one alluded to his second crusade 367 but not to his first. 133 of the fourteen accounts that did mention his first crusade, nine of them mentioned neither the capture of the king nor hisransom. 134 Three mentioned his capture, but not his

ransom . 135 Finally, only two stated both that Saint Louis had been

133%he author of B.N., fr. 1707 alluded to the eighth crusade - "En thunes mourut cest chose voire" (fol. 36) - but not to the seventh. The authors of B.N., fr. 4948 (fol. 97v), fr. 5709 (fol. 78), n.a. fr. 4209 (fols. lO-lOv), and n.a. fr. 4811 (fol. 8) wrote of neither. As for B.N., lat. 5027 and lat. 14663,1 have had to exclude them from this analysis because, by an oversight, 1 failed fully to note what their authors said about the crusades of Louis K.

134( 1) The author of B.N., fr. 1623 alluded to the seventh crusade only in noting that Louis IX " fu deux foiz ala sainte terre doultre mer pour acquerre la grace de dieu et lamour" (fol. 94); (2) The author of B.N., fr. 4954 alluded rather obliquely to the seventh crusade: " et aultre sainctes reliques de sa passion quû pourchassa et desengaigea envers lempereur baudouyn de constantinoble qui estoit venu devers luy pour avoir secours pour la deffense de la terre saincte" (fol. 18); (3) The author of B.N., fr. 4991 reported that " en lan mil deux cens. XLVIIl. le roy saint loys sen ala oultre mer avec nobles gens de son royaume Et a son retour appourta la sainte coronne de quoy dieu en sa passion fut coronnez Et icelle fist mectre en sa chappelle du palaix " (fol. 15v); (4) The author on B.N., fr. 5696 reported that Louis DC " alla oultre mer sur les sarrazins et a son retour fît apporter la saincte couronne dont nostre seigneur fut couronne et la mist en sa chappelle du palais " (fols. 37v-38); (5) The author of B.N., fr. 5697 noted that " en lan mil CC XLV il partit de france pour aler oultre mer, et a son retour il apporta la saincte coronne, et la fist mettre en sa chappelle a paris" (fol. 29); (6) The author of B.N., fr. 5734 stated that Louis DC " ala oultre mer sur les sarrasins. Et a son retour il apporta la sainte couronne dont nostre seigneur Jhesucrist fu couronne, et le mist en la chapelle du palais " (fol. 105v); (7) The author of B.N., fr. 10139 likewise noted that " en lan mil Ile XLVIII le roy se partit de son pais pour aller oultre mer Et a son retour il apporta la saincte couronne et la mist en la saincte chapelle du palais " (fol. 11); (8) The author of B.N., fr. 23019 also related that " en lan M lie XLVIIl le roy se parti de son pays pour aler oultre mer et a son retour il aporta la sainte couronne dont dieu fut couronne. Et la fist mettre en la chappelle du pales " (fols. 31a-32a); (9) The author of B.N., fr. 5195 stated that "En lan mil Ile XLVIIL il alla oultre mer et print damiete et conquist grant pais" (fol. 13v).

135(1) With regard to the seventh crusade, the author of B.N., fr. 1233 noted only that "Et en lan mil ll.c XLVIll. ala saint loys oultre mer et print dainiete. Et fut pris ala massome" (fol. 103b); (2) The author of B.N., fr. 10468 stated " Et quant il eut son royaume paisible il passa oultre mer. Il prinst damiete. puis fu desconfis devant maxence. et prins. 11 retourna depuis en france" (fol. 109); (3) The author of B.N., fr. 24976 noted that "Lan mil ll.c XLVIIl il alla en la terre 368 captured and that a ransom had been delivered to his captors. 136 In sum, I found that late-medieval historians of France typically said little or nothing about Louis' capture and his ransom. This in itself suggests what we already know, namely that the facts of the seventh crusade were a sensitive matter in late-medieval French historiography. It also raises the question of whether any historians purposely omitted those facts in order deliberately to obscure them. In other words, were the polemics over Louis IX's ransom sufficiently heated and sufficiently well-known to cause some historians not to mention the ransom in order to safeguard the good reputation of Saint Louis against his detractors? The answer is probably affirmative in the cases of the three historians who mentioned Louis' capture but not his ransom. The author of the history of the French kings contained in B.N., fr. 10468,

saincte et applicqua en egippte et print la puissant cite de danete et puis fu prisonnier et délivré et retourna en france " (fol. 33v).

136(1) The author of B.N., fr. 10137 provided a long account of the seventh crusade, based on the Grandes Chroniques. The relevant passages of his account (fols. 33v-35) read as follows: "Lan mil lie XLVin partit le roy de france pour aller oultre mer et délaissa lors robes fines de couleur et esperons dorez et se vestit simplement fut le roy et tous les chrestiens prins ou tuez. excepte le cardinal qui estoit le premier party de lost. Le roy estoit malade, et quant il fut guery Le souldain et luy firent traictie, que tous chrestiens seroient délivrez, et auroient les chrestiens delà la mer treves dix ans. et par tant le roy rendroit damiete, et payeroit VIlLm besans (2) The author of B.N., n.a. fr. 7519 noted that "En lan mil 11c. XXK. Isicl le Ville jour après la trinite il print la cite de damiete. puis dillec sen alla sur les sarrazins en la cite de masseure ou il perdit robert son frere. le conte dartois après sarrasins quil chassoit. Lan ensuivant mil Hc XXX fut ledit roy prins avecques ses deux freres le conte de poitiers et dangeou et grant nombre de chrestiens Apres en icelle annee par grant somme dor et dargent qui fut donne aux sarrasins et par damiete qui leur fut randue. fut ledit roy st louys [délivré] et ses deux freres et les chrestiens qui estoint prisonniers. Lors le roy st louys après sa délivrance envoya ses deux freres en france " (fols. 42-42v). 369 a cleric writing at Rouen in 1436, told his readers that "when he [Louis IX] had his kingdom at peace, he passed overseas. He took Damietta, then was defeated before Mansurah, and captured. He

later returned to France." 137 "in the year 1248, Saint Louis went overseas and took Damietta, and was captured at Mansurah," the royal clerk Noël de Fribois informed his audience inl459.i38 Writing shortly after 1461, the author of the history of France found in B.N., fr. 24976 wrote that "In the year 1248, he [Saint Louis] went to the Holy Land and disembarked in Egypt and took the mighty city of Damietta and then was captive and was freed and returned to France." 139 These three historians were willing to admit that Louis was taken prisoner, but chose to say nothing about the means of his release. They did so deliberately, for all three were familiar with the Grandes Chroniques, which did report Louis' ransom.I'lo

137 b,n .^ fr. 10468, fol. 109: " Et quant il eut son royaume paisible il passa oultre mer. Il prinst damiete. puis fu desconfis devant maxence. et prins. Il retourna depuis en france." On the chronicle in question, see section (I) of Chapter II, "The Sources".

138b.n ., fr. 1233, fol. 103b: "Et en lan mil. lie. XLVIII. ala saint loys oultre mer et print damiete. Et fut pris a la massome." On the chronicle in question, see section (N) of Chapter II, "The Sources".

^39b.n ., fr. 24976, fol. 33v: "Lan mil II.c XLVIII 11 alia en la terre saincte et applicqua en egippte et print la puissant cite de danete et puis fu prisonnier et délivré et retourna en france ". On the chronicle in question, see section (P) of Chapter II, "The Sources".

140on the use of the Grandes Chroniques by the author of B.N., fr. 10468, Noël de Fribois, and the author of B.N., fr. 24976, see, respectively, sections (1), (N), and (?) of Chapter II, "The Sources". 370 They may have omitted mention of the ransom simply by way of brevity. As authors of short histories of France, they necessarily had to abbreviate their much longer sources. However, such an explanation does not address the real question, which is whv. given that they could not include everything, they chose to include certain facts and to exclude others. Unlike most of the unofficial historians whose works 1 read, the three historians in question were willing to include the unpleasant fact that a French king had been taken prisoner while on a crusade. However, they were not willing to include the payment of his ransom. We know that the ransom was a controversial matter on the basis of which some late-medieval Frenchmen formed a negative opinion of Louis IX. Given that reality, it is reasonable to propose (although impossible definitively to prove) that the three historians in question omitted the ransom so as to avoid any suggestion that the first crusade of Saint Louis had a negative effect on his kingdom. They definitely knew about the ransom. In all probability, they knew something about the allegations against Saint Louis associated with it. It is plausible to conclude that they omitted the former in order to avoid evoking the latter.

B.N.. lat. 5195 The author of the history of France found in B.N., lat. 5195, a canon of the cathedral chapter of Rouen who wrote sometime between 1479 and 1483, noted neither that Louis IX had been taken 371 prisoner nor that he had paid a ransom. Like the three historians discussed in the previous section, he acted deliberately. While the author of B.N., lat. 5195 was familiar with the Grandes Chroniques, his primary source was the Abrège des Chroniques de France of Noël de Fribois.^^i As we have seen, Fribois related the capture of Louis IX, but deliberately opted not to mention his ransom. The author of B.N., lat. 5195 went even further. Whereas his source noted that "In the year 1248, Saint Louis went overseas and took Damietta, and was captured at Mansurah," he reported that "In the year 1248, he [Saint Louis] went overseas and took Damietta and conquered [a] large [amount of] country [Le., territory]." 142 Viewed in context, this revision is significant. For one thing, it represented the only occasion on which the author of B.N., lat. 5195 revised anvthing that his source said about anv of the real or imagined crusades of the French kings. The author of B.N., lat. 5195 reported the supposed crusade of Charlemagne to the Holy Land in virtually the same words as Noël de Fribois. 143 He did not

*4l0n the chronicle contahied in B.N., lat. 5195 and on its authors use of the Abrégé des Chroniques de France of Noël de Fribois as a source, see section (S) of Chapter II, "The Sources", and Chapter IV, "The French Kill Their Kings".

l42compare B.N., fr. 1233, fol. 103b (Noël de Fribois) - "Et en Ian mil II.c XLVIII. ala saint loys oultre mer et print damiete. Et fut pris a la massome" - to B.N., lat. 5195, fol. 13v: "En lan mil lie XLVIII. il alla oultre mer et print damiete et conquist grant pais."

^43compare B.N., fr. 1233, fol. 93vB ("II ala chacier les mescreans et délivra la cite de constantinoble et en remuneracion de ce lempereur Constantin lui donna une partie du fust de la vray croix de nostre seigneur ihesucrist le suaire en quoy il fut enveloppe ou sepulcre ung des doux dont il fut attachie a la croix la chemise que la vierge marie avoit vestue quant elle enfanta nostre seigneur ihesucrist les bras de sainct symeon entre lesquelz il le receut 372 substantially alter Fribois' account of the first crusade, 144 and he

simply copied Fribois' account of the secondc r u s a d e 145 and his account of the third crusade. 146 Neither historian discussed the

Albigensian crusade of Louis V lll,i4 7 the author of B.N., lat. 5195 did not alter Noël de Fribois' account of the second crusade of Saint

Louis, 148 and neither discussed the crusading activities of Philip

lesquelles tressainctes reliques icellui Charles le grant mist en la chappelle par luy fondee a ays en alemaigne ") to B.N., lat. 5195, fol. 10 ("11 alia chasser les mescreans et délivra la cite de constantinnoble. En remuneracion de ce lempereur de constentinnoble lui donna grant partie du fust de la vraye croix, le suaire en quoy Jhesucrist fut enseveli au sepulcre. ung des clous et la chemise que la vierge marie avoit vestue quant elle enfanta nostre seigneur Jhesucrist les bras saint symeon. entre lesquelz il le receut.") While the author of B.N., lat. 5195 did not revise anything that Noel de Fribois had said about the supposed crusade of Charlemagne, he did add to it by noting, unlike Fribois, that "11 conquist Jerusalem et la terre saincte qui avoit este sarrasine plus de cent cinquante ans. au paravant" (fol. lOv).

^44compare B.N., fr. 1233, fol. 99a (" et en son temps [Le., during the reign of Philip I] godeffroy de buillon conquist iherusalem ") to B.N., lat. 5195, fol. 12 ("En son temps [i.e.. during the reign of Philip I] godefroy de buillon conquist Jerusalem et toute la terre saincte").

^45compare B.N., fr. 1233, fol. lOOvB ("11 [i.e.. Louis VII] ala oultre mer lan mil cent quarante six") to B.N., lat. 5195, fol. 12v ("Il [i.e.. Louis VII] alla oultremer lan mil G. XL").

^46compare B.N., fr. 1233, fol. lOlvA ("11 [i.e.. Philip II] ala oultre mer et print acre") to B.N., lat. 5195, fol. 13 ("U [i.e.. Philip II] alla oultremer et print acre").

^47Noël de Fribois alluded to the Albigensian crusade in stating that "II [Louis VIII] print avignon" (B.N., fr. 1233, fol. 103a), but did not note that Louis VIII did so as a crusader. The author of B.N., lat. 5195 made no allusion to the crusade in his account of the reign of Louis VIll (fol. 13).

148compare B.N., fr. 1233, fol. 106 a ("Lan mil deux cens soixante neuf saint loys ala derechief oultre mer Et en lan mil II.c LXX. sainct loys trespassa ") to B.N., lat. 5195, fol. 13v ("Saint loys derecief en lan mil He LK [sic] alia oultre mer ou il fut long temps et en lan mil lie LXX. trespassa devant carthage "). 373 111.149 Of all the facts about all of the crusades reported by Noël de Fribois, the capture of Saint Louis was the only one omitted by the author of B.N., lat. 5195. Furthermore, his revision of Fribois' account of the seventh crusade represented the only instance in which the author of B.N., lat. 5195 revised anything that his source said about the reign of Louis IX. The author of B.N., lat. 5195 repeated some of what Noël de Fribois said about the reign of Saint Louis, and he abridged other sections of Fribois' account. He omitted parts of Fribois' account, and he added additional material to it. However, only in the case of the capture of Saint Louis did he revise, and contradict, his source.iso He

149Neither Noël de Fribois nor the author of B.N., lat. 5195 mentioned Philip Ill's participation in his father's second crusade. Both mentioned Philip's war against Peter III of Aragon, but neither noted that it was a crusade: compare B.N., fr. 1233, fol. 107b ("11 [Philip III] print et destruisit la cite de Jennes lan mil II.c Illl.xx VI Isicl ") to B.N., lat. 5195, fol. 14 ("En lan mil lie IIIIxx et VI. FsicI 11 [Philip III] conquist la cite de genes parpignon et tout le royaume darragon").

^SÛRelative to the account of the reign of Louis IX in Noël de Fribois' Abrège des Chroniques de France (B.N., fr. 1233, fols. 103a - 107b), the account of the reign of Louis IX in B.N., lat. 5195 (fols. 13-14), reads as follows: "[Summary, with important textual similarities, of B.N.. fr. 1233. fols. 103a. line 23 - 103b. line 25: Saint loys. filz dudit loys commença glorieusement a regner lan mil lie. XXVI et régna XLIIII ans. En lan mil Ile XXXIX il alla a tout grant ost secourir lempereur de constantinnoble sur les mescreans. dont il apporta la couronne dont nostre seigneur fut couronne, grant partie de la vraye croix, lesponge dont il fut abreuve, le fer de la lance de quoy nostre seigneur fut frappe en son tressaint coste, duquel pur sang et pure eaue yssirent dont les sept sacremens deglise eurent leur commencement lesquelles sainctes reliques il mist en la saincte chappelle a paris laquelle il fonda.] [Révision of B.N.. fr. 1233. fol. 103b. lines 25-27: En lan mil Ile XLVIIl. il alla oultre mer et print damiete et conquist grant pais.] [Summary, with important textual similarities, of B.N.. fr. 1233. fols. 103b. line 27 - 103vA. line 6: Saincte elizabeth de hongrie fut en son temps, n fonda les églises de Reaumont lostel dieu de paris, celui de pontoise de vernon et de compiegne II fonda labbaye de longchamp près paris Les quinze vingtz aveugles II fist parfaire les chartreux et les filles dieu de paris. Il fist faire les carmes les begines les augustins les blans manteaulx et saincte croix. Labbaye de maubuisson et celle du liz et les enmures de Rouen et 374 singled out the fact of Louis' capture, and he deliberately expunged it. It is impossible to prove that he did so in order to safeguard the reputation of Saint Louis, but such is the most likely explanation. At a time when some were saying that the ransom of Louis IX had negative effects on the kingdom, the author of B.N., lat. 5195 deliberately omitted the fact of the king's capture and transformed the seventh crusade into a successful expedition. Like the three historians studied in the previous section, he must have known something of the allegations against Louis IX associated with the augmenta les chanoineries de la Ronde audit lieu.] fOmission of B.N.. fr. 1233. fols. 103vA. line 7 - 104b. line 30. a digression on the lilies and the French arms] [Addition: II fut tresgrant justicier et droit. En son temps il fist deffendre que nul ne blasphemast le nom de dieu et de ses sains.] IBrief summary of B.N.. fr. 1233. fols. lOSvB. line 6 - 106a. line 5: deffendist aussi que nul ne changast estât ne habit autre quil estoit acoustume porter chascun en son regard et condicion.] IBrief summary of B.N.. fr. 1233. fols. 104b. line 31 - 104vA. line 8: Il deffendist aussi que nul ne yendist ou engagast offices royaulx ou commissions a qui il appartient administrer justice sur grans paines et punicions] [Omission of B.N.. fr. 1233. fols. 104yA. line 9 - 105a. line 36. a digression on justice, a passage on Saint Louis' order that excommunicated in&yiduals haye themselyes absolyed, mention of the "Childrens' Crusade"] [Repetition of B.N.. fr. 1233. fol. 105a. lines 37-39: A saint loys. henry roy dengleterre filz Jehan fist hommage en lan mil lie LIX.] [Omission of B.N.. fr. 1233. fol. 105a. line 40 - 105b. line 31. contents of a letter sent to Saint Louis by the Tartars] [Brief summary of B.N.. fr. 1233. fols. 105b. line 32 - lOSyB. line 5: En son temps nasquit une femme sans bras laquelle filloit de ses pies jouoit aux tables cousoit desindoit concepyoit et portoit beaulx enfans.] [Repetition, with some additional material, of B.N.. fr. 1233. fol. 106a. lines 6-13: Saint loys derecief en lan mil lie LIX. alia oultre mer ou il fut long temps et en lan mil lie LXX. trespassa devant carthage in regno tironorum] [Omission of B.N.. fr. 1233. fols. 106a. line 14 - 107b. line 15. prayers said by Saint Louis during his last days, digression on the "louenge de bouche", praise of Saint Louis] [Addition: et fut emporte enterrer a saint dénis, ouquel enterrement plusieurs merveilleux et grans miracles furent faiz par les mérités dudit saint tant daveugles ladres et malades.]." In addition, the author of B.N., lat. 5195 obviously opted not to include the account of Louis' capture and ransom contained in the Grandes Chroniques, with which he was familiar. 375 seventh crusade. Like them, but to an even greater extent, he reacted against those allegations. Whereas they sought not to evoke them by remaining silent on Louis' ransom, he sought to render them false by denying that Louis had ever been captured.

B.N.. n.a. fr. 7519 and B.N.. fr. 4990 Two manuscripts of another unofficial history of the French kings provide a final glimpse at the controversy over the ransom of Louis IX in late-medieval French historiography. The work in question is the glossed version of the chronicle known by the incinit "A tous nobles". Its author was a cleric who wrote in Brittany or a nearby part of western France. He composed his work between 1440 and 1470, probably between 1440 and 1461, and possibly between 1445 and 1 4 5 9 .isi His account of the seventh crusade took note of the capture and ransom of Louis IX. In B.N., n.a. fr. 7519, one of the four manuscripts in which his work is known to survive, that account began by stating that Louis took Damietta and that he subsequently pursued the Sarrasins to Mansurah. It went on to state that the king was taken prisoner, along with two of his brothers and many other Christians. Finally, it noted that "later in this year, by [means of] a large quantity [grant somme! of gold and silver that was given to the Sarrasins and by [means of] Damietta, which was returned to them, the said king Saint

the version of "A tous nobles" in question, which is known to survive in B.N., fr. 4990 (fols. l-39v), B.N., n.a. fr. 7519 (fols. 15-85v), Bibl. Ste.-Geneviève 1993 (fols. l-69v), and Bibl. Ste.-Geneviève 1994 (fols. l-62v), see section (K) of Chapter II, "The Sources", of which this paragraph is a partial summary. 376 Louis was freed, and his two brothers and the Christians who were captives." 152 In B.N., fr. 4990, which contains another copy of the same work, the account of the seventh crusade is identical to the account in B.N., n.a. fr. 7519, with the exception of a single word. Here, the text stated that Louis was freed "by [means of] a quantity Fsommel of gold and silver that was given to the Sarrasins and by [means] of Damietta.....". 153 In one manuscript, the ransom was a "large quantity" of gold and silver. In another, it was a "quantity" of those precious metals. While I have been unable to determine which were the author's original words,! 54 the difference between the two manuscripts is noteworthy. It represents not only the lone textual difference in their accounts of the seventh crusade, but also the only textual

*52 b.n ,, n.a. fr. 7519, fols. 42-42v: "En celui an alla le roy a grant ost de chrestiens en la terre doultre mer. En lan mil II.c XXIX. fsicl le Vllle jour après la trinite il print la cite de damiete. puis dillec sen alia sur les sarrazins en la cite de masseure ou U perdit robert son frere. le conte dartois après sarrasins quil chassoit. Lan ensuivant mil Ile XXX Fsicl fut ledit roy prins avecques ses deux freres le conte de poitiers et dangeou et grant nombre de chrestiens. En celui an eut la royne de france ung fîlz qui fut appelle Jehan en la cite de damiete. lequel elle fist nommer chrestien pour la tristesse quelle eut de son mary. Apres en icelle annee par grant somme dor et dargent qui fut donnée aux sarrasins et par damiete qui leur fut randue. fut ledit roy st louys [délivré] et ses deux freres et les chrestiens qui estoint prisonniers. Lors le roy st louys après sa délivrance envoya ses deux freres en france ".

153b.n ., fr, 4990, fol. 21: " par somme dor et argent qui fut donnée aux sarrasins et par damiete ". i54Because I have been able to narrow the date of execution of B.N., fr. 4990 only to sometime after 1444,1 am unable to state whether it was executed before or after B.N., n.a. fr. 7519, which was executed in or after 1459. I have not yet been able to examine the two other known manuscripts (Bibl. Ste.- Geneviève 1993 and 1994), which would aid in the resolution of the question. 377 difference in the entirety of their accounts of the reign of Louis IX. Indeed, it is one of the very few textual differences in the entirety of the two copies of the version of "A tous nobles" question.in iss The explanation of the difference may well lie in an innocent error on the part of one of the copyists. However, one of them may have acted deliberately. Indeed, given the paucity of textual differences between the two manuscripts, and given that the ransom of Louis IX was a controversial matter in late-medieval French historiography, it is reasonable to suggest that the difference between the two manuscripts represents yet another manifestation of that controversy. In the event that the author of the version of "A tous nobles" found in B.N., n.a. fr. 7519 and B.N., fr. 4990 originally used the words "quantity of gold and silver", the adjective "large" represents an addition by the copyist of B.N., n.a. fr. 7519. Perhaps he had read or heard that Louis IX had been constrained to pay a hefty ransom, a ransom large enough to have inflicted a serious financial burden upon his kingdom, and therefore added the word "large" so as to underline that fact.

noted in section (K) of Chapter II, "The Sources", the gloss of the version of "A tous nobles" in question begins with Christ and terminates during the reign of Charles the Bald in B.N., fr. 4990, whereas it runs to the reign of Louis VI in B.N., n.a. fr. 7519. Likewise, the text itself terminates in 1382 in B.N., fr. 4990, whereas it runs to 1440 in B.N., n.a. fr. 7519. For the periods for which the gloss and the text are comparable, 1 noted only forty-three additional non orthographic textual differences between the two manuscripts. In sum, for the periods for which they are comparable, the gloss and the text in the two manuscripts are virtually identical. Given the length of the version of "A tous nobles" in question, the textual differences are few and minor. 378 In the event that the author originally used the words "large quantity of gold and silver", the adjective "large" was omitted by the copyist of B.N., fr. 4990. Perhaps he had read or heard that the ransom of Saint Louis had placed an onerous burden on his people, or that the king had instituted new taxes in order to pay it, or that he had issued leather money as a result of it, and therefore omitted the word "large" so as to safeguard the memory of Louis IX against such accusations. In either event, one of the two copyists had to have altered the text before him. If he acted deliberately, then that alteration provides a final indication of widespread knowledge of the controversy over the ransom of Saint Louis, and a final glimpse at the intensity of that controversy, in late-medieval France.

Conclusion In conclusion, this study of the ransom of Louis IX in late- medieval historiography has revealed the controversy over it to have been far more widespread and intense than was previously thought. More texts bear marks of the controversy than was previously known. Colette Beaune was aware that the author of Les aventures affirmed that Saint Louis had issued leather money and that the author of B.N., fr. 9688 affirmed that he had issued leather money and had imposed new taxes, but the author of B.N., fr. 5704 also reported that the payment of Louis' ransom had had a negative effect on his kingdom. She knew of Etienne Le Blanc's "Demonstration", but did not know of Louis Le Blanc's Chronique 379 abregee and did not fully explore the defense of Saint Louis embedded in his La saincte vie de monseigneur sainct lovs ..... The explicit references to accusations against Louis IX contained in these texts are important, but the written evidence of those accusations extends beyond them. In assembling evidence of the controversy over the ransom of Louis IX, the silence of other texts must also be considered. In all likelihood, it was in order to defend Saint Louis that the author of B.N., fr. 10468, the author of B.N., fr. 24976, and Noël de Fribois, all of whom knew that Louis had been put to ransom, informed readers of their works that the king had been captured but not that a ransom had been paid to his captors. In all probability, it was the same desire that motivated the author of B.N., lat. 5195, who knew that Louis had been captured and had paid a ransom, to relate neither fact to his audience and, instead, to contradict his sources by presenting the seventh crusade as a successful expedition. Finally, the fact that either the copyist of B.N., n.a. fr. 7519 or the copyist of B.N., fr. 4990 altered the text that he copied in order, respectively, to maximize or to minimize the size of Louis IX's ransom, also belongs in the file of written evidence of the controversy over it.

ISôBeaune, The Birth of an Ideology, did allude briefly to one additional text, which 1 have not examined, that bears on the late-medieval controversy over Louis DCs ransom. She noted (page 108, note 103) that in his De laudibus sancti Ludovici (1516), the university scholar Josse Clichtove both acknowledged that Louis had imposed new taxes in order to pay his ransom and defended him for having done so: "He established new taxes to pay that ransom, which was very high. These taxes continued afterwards, but that was the fault of his successors and not his. Besides, it is normal that the people pay the ransom of its king." 380 While that written evidence is more plentiful than was previously known, it remains rather limited. An important reason for the relative paucity of texts bearing on the controversy over the ransom of Louis IX is the fact that, as the written texts make clear, the accusations against Saint Louis were primarily rumors that circulated by word of mouth. In noting that Saint Louis had issued leather money, the author of Les aventures recorded a legend that he had heard within the merchant milieu of Paris, and which the recitation of his rhymed chronicle was in turn destined to relate to other late-medieval auditors. Louis Le Blanc, in both his Chronique abregee and his La saincte vie de monseigneur sainct lovs repeatedly referred to the allegations against Louis IX as hearsay. Several of the changes that Etienne Le Blanc operated upon his father's Chronique abregee in writing his own "Demonstration" indicate that, beyond having read his father's work, he had himself heard accusations leveled against Saint Louis. In sum, the written evidence of the controversy over the ransom of Louis IX is but the tip of an iceberg. It represents the surfacing of rumors and unwritten legends the extent of which it is impossible fully to measure. Despite the fact that the written evidence probably does not reflect all that late-medieval Frenchmen had to say about the ransom of Louis IX, it does indicate that the charges against Saint Louis were more numerous and more serious than was previously thought. Colette Beaune knew that some Frenchmen believed the kingdom to have been impoverished as a result of the payment of Louis IX's 381 ransom, and that they accused Saint Louis of having issued leather money and of having imposed the gabelle and the tiers et dangler on wood. In fact, they believed additional things about these allegations, and they leveled additional charges against Saint Louis. Some late-medieval Frenchmen likened the negative impact of the payment of Louis IX's ransom to the impact of the imposition of the gabelle by Philip VI and to that of the payment of the ransom of John 11. In grouping it together with two extremely unpopular fiscal burdens, they expressed just how "hard" they believed the payment of Louis’ ransom to have affected his kingdom. In a similar vein, others underlined the extent of the ruin brought about by Louis' ransom by positing that the kingdom had remained impoverished for several generations after his death. Louis IX was accused not only of levying the gabelle and the tiers et dangler, but also, as we know from Louis Le Blanc's work, of imposing the taille and the aides. What is more, his crusades themselves came under attack. Some late-medieval Frenchmen blamed Saint Louis' alleged impoverishment of the kingdom not just on the payment of his ransom in particular, but on the cost of his two crusades in general. They criticized him for having ruined his kingdom by undertaking expensive, unprecedented, and even frivolous expeditions to the Holy Land. Like the number and seriousness of the charges against Saint Louis themselves, the persistence of those charges in time, their dispersion in space, and their diffusion among different segments of the French population have yet to be fully appreciated. 382 The earliest evidence of the charges against Louis IX dates to the reign of Charles VI. It was in 1409 that the author of Les aventures, giving written expression to a legend that had probably circulated by word of mouth for several generations, claimed that Louis IX had issued leather money. Allegations against Saint Louis continued to be levied, and the controversy over his ransom continued to surface in French historiography, during the reign of Charles VII. It was around 1423 that the author of B.N., fr. 9688 repeated the claim that Louis had issued leather money and added that he had imposed new taxes on his subjects. The author of B.N., fr. 10468 deliberately omitted mention of Saint Louis' ransom in 1436. In the event that the copyist of 3.N., fr. 4990 deliberately sought to minimize the size of Louis' ransom, he did so sometime after 1444. The copyist of the Rouen manuscript of Lesayentures deliberately omitted the two quatrains relative to Saint Louis in the middle of the fifteenth century. In the event that the copyist of B.N., n.a. fr. 7519 deliberately sought to maximize the size of Louis' ransom, he did so in or after 1459, the year in which Noël de Fribois deliberately omitted mention of the ransom from his history of France. The controversy did not abate during the reign of Louis XL It was early in the reign of that monarch, sometime shortly after 1461, that the author of B.N., fr. 24976 deliberately omitted mention of Saint Louis' ransom. It was late in the reign of Louis XI, sometime between 1479 and 1483, that the author of B.N., lat. 5195 383 deliberately omitted mention not only of Saint Louis' ransom, but also of his very capture. The number of manuscripts asserting that Louis IX had issued leather money increased in the last decades of the fifteenth century, when the copyist of the Brussels manuscript of Les aventures left intact that text's quatrains on Saint Louis. It was during the reign of Charles Vlll, sometime between 1488 and 1498, that the author of B.N., fr. 5704 remarked upon the negative impact of the payment of Saint Louis' ransom. Finally, the controversy over that ransom persisted during and beyond the reign of Louis Xll. Louis Le Blanc addressed his Chronique abregee. which rebutted several charges against Saint Louis not evidenced by any of the earlier written texts, to Louis Xll in 1498. Sometime between 1495 and 1509, he made use of a newly-invented argument in defense of Saint Louis in his La saincte vie de monseigneur sainct lovs Etienne Le Blanc plagiarized his father's Chronique abregee in 1521-22, not merely to flatter Louise de Savoie, but out of a real desire to rebut contemporary allegations against her illustrious ancestor. In sum, Frenchmen debated the ransom of Louis IX throughout the entire period under consideration in my study. From the time of Charles VI to that of Louis XII, oral accusations against Saint Louis, written charges against him, omissions and alterations that reflected knowledge of the controversy over his ransom and committment to the cause of his defense, and written defenses of Louis IX surfaced in French historiography. What is more, given the persistence of the 384 controversy, it is not surprising that the allegations against Saint Louis came to be known in more places, and by more people, than has previously been thought. Colette Beaune singled out Paris as the source of late-medieval ambivalence toward Saint Louis. She was correct to do so, for all of the texts that directly asserted allegations against Louis IX, and all of the texts that explicitly denied those charges, were Parisian in origin: the author of Les Aventures was a Parisian, the author of B.N., fr. 9688 wrote at Paris or at nearby Soissons, and Louis and Etienne Le Blanc lived and worked in the capital. However, while Paris was no doubt the source of the allegations against Saint Louis, it was by no means the only place where those allegations were known. The author of B.N., fr. 10468 and the author of B.N., lat. 5195 were Normans who wrote their works at Rouen. Their attempts to defend Louis DC by deliberately omitting, respectively, mention of his ransom and mention of his capture and ransom, indicate that they knew something of the charges against him. Furthermore, B.N., fr. 9688, which asserted that Saint Louis had issued leather money and had imposed new taxes, was exchanged between two Normans at Bayeux in 1463.157 while allegations against Saint Louis did not originate in Normandy, the controversy over his ransom was certainly known there. It was also known in the north of France and even beyond the borders of the kingdom, for the copyist of the Brussels manuscript of Les aventures, which eventually came into the possession of a

I57see section (H) of Chapter II, "The Sources". 385 municipal official of Antwerp, did his work in the region of Lille. Finally, it seems that rumors about the ransom of Louis IX also circulated south of the Loire, in Berry. If the belief that the leather money of Saint Louis was stored in the grosse tour of Bourges did not originate in that city, then it was, at a minimum, made known there by the inquiry into the matter alluded to by Louis Le Blanc in his Chronique abregee. In sum, while Paris was indeed the center of the controversy over the ransom of Louis IX, the geographical scope of that controversy extended well beyond the capital. Just as the controversy over the ransom of Louis IX came to be known in more places than was previously thought, so did the allegations against Saint Louis come to be known by a public more diverse than has previously been appreciated. On the one hand, Colette Beaune identified the "popular strata" of Paris as the source of misgivings about Saint Louis. She was correct to identify negative opinions of that monarch with the humbler classes of urban society, for the detractors of Louis IX did indeed issue from them. The author of Les aventures and the author of B.N., fr. 9688 issued from an urban, mercantile milieu, and Louis Le Blanc harped repeatedly on the base social standing and the lack of education of those Frenchmen whose assertions about Saint Louis he sought to debunk. On the other hand, while such people no doubt represented the source of allegations against Louis IX, their allegations resonated far beyond the popular strata of urban society. The Paris manuscript of Les aventures, which asserted that Louis IX had issued leather money, found its way into the library of 386 the dukes of Burgundy. The Brussels manuscript of Les aventures eventually came into the possession of J.B. Verdussen, an ëchevin of Antwerp. The copyist of the Rouen manuscript, who deliberately omitted the two quatrains relative to Saint Louis, may have had some clerical training. B.N., fr. 9688, which asserted that Saint Louis had issued leather money and had imposed new taxes, was in the possession of Antoine de Talentes, a canon of Bayeux, before Christmas of 1463. After that date, it was owned by Tristan Lermite, lord of Moulins and of Le Bouchet, royal counselor and provost of the marshals of France and of the royal household. 158 The author of B.N., fr. 5704 addressed his work to princes and nobles, and it did indeed reach his desired audience. The manuscript, which asserted that the burden of Louis IX's ransom had fallen "hard" upon the kingdom and which likened it to the burden of John II's ransom and to that of the gabelle, may have belonged to a member of the royal family in the time of Charles VIII, and it

definitely belonged to the noble family whose arms it b e a r s . ^ 5 9 The royal official Louis Le Blanc obviously had knowledge of a full range of accusations against Saint Louis. Members of the confraternity of dry-goods merchants of Paris who read the copy of Le Blanc's La saincte vie de monseigneur sainct lovs in the possession of their corporation knew that some people claimed that the payment of Louis IX's ransom had impoverished the kingdom.

ISSsee section (H) of Chapter II, "The Sources".

I59see section (U) of Chapter II, "The Sources". 387 The guardians of the Louvre, the halles des lingières. and the grosse tour of Bourges claimed to know nothing about the leather money of Saint Louis, but they were made aware of its supposed existence if the inquiry reported by Louis Le Blanc actually occurred. Louis Le Blanc's son, the royal official Etienne Le Blanc, knew of the allegations against Saint Louis, and related them to Louise de Savoie, to whom he offerred his "Demonstration". In all probability, the royal official Noël de Fribois, who deliberately omitted mention of Louis IX's ransom from his history of France, knew something of the allegations against Saint Louis. The same holds true for the author of B.N., fr. 10468, who was definitely a cleric and probably a monk of Mont-Saint-Michel, and for the author of B.N., lat. 5195, who was a canon of the cathedral chapter of Rouen. In sum, while belief in the veracity of the allegations against Saint Louis may have been limited to the popular strata of France's urban society, knowledge of those accusations most definitely was not. It extended all the way from the uneducated individuals without the ability to understand written documents denounced by Louis Le Blanc to such learned and able scholars as Noël de Fribois, Louis Le Blanc himself, and his son Etienne. It touched not only Louis Le Blanc's "common, mechanical, unlettered people, who have it on the word of old women", but also merchants, cathedral clergy, royal officials, nobles, members of the royal family, and even the mother of a reigning king of France. 388 To appreciate the number of texts that bear marks of the controversy over the ransom of Saint Louis, the number of charges leveled against Louis IX, the persistence of those charges in time, and their widespread geographical and social diffusion, is better to grasp, in quantitative terms, the extent of the late-medieval controversy over the ransom of Saint Louis. In addition, in qualitative terms, this study has also brought to light the intensity of that controversy. A number of striking facts about the texts that we have studied illustrate their authors' sensitivity to the issue of Saint Louis' ransom and the depth of feeling engendered by the controversy over it in late-medieval France. While the deliberate omissions of the ransom by Noël de Fribois, the author of B.N., fr. 10468, and the author of B.N., fr. 24976 are important examples of sensitivity to the issue of Saint Louis' ransom, the deliberate omissions by the copyist of the Rouen manuscript of Les aventures and by the historian who composed B.N., lat. 5195 are still more significant. The copyist's omission of the two quatrains on the crusades of Louis IX, the first of which reported that the payment of Louis' ransom had resulted in the circulation of leather money, represented one of onlv two omissions that he made. He was willing to copy almost the entirety of Les aventures, but he was not willing to copy the quatrains on Saint Louis. The historian's omission of his source's account of the capture of Saint Louis, and his replacement of the fact of Louis' capture by the assertion that the seventh crusade had resulted in substantial territorial gains, represented his onlv revision 389 of his source's account of the reign of Saint Louis and his onlv omission or revision of anvthing that his source reported about all of the crusades of the French kings. He was willing to accept all that his source said about Saint Louis except that he was captured and he was willing to repeat all that his source said about every crusade except the first crusade of Louis IX. Clearly, these two individuals were, so to speak, hypersensitive to the seventh crusade and all that was associated with it. This depth of feeling was shared by the copyist who altered the size of Saint Louis' ransom as it was reported in the version of "A tous nobles " that he copied. The fact that the copyist of B.N., fr. 7519 wrote that Louis delivered a "large quantity of gold and silver" to his captors while the copyist of B.N., fr. 4990 stated that he paid them a "quantity of gold and silver" would not be particularly noteworthy were these two manuscripts otherwise dissimilar. Such, however, was not the case. The difference in question represented the onlv textual difference in the accounts of the reign of Louis IX in two virtually identical copies of a rather long history of France. That is why the first copyist's insistence on emphasizing that the ransom was high or the second copyist's insistence on lowering its size testifies to intense feelings about Saint Louis' ransom on the part of the copyist who altered the text. The works of Louis and Etienne Le Blanc also demonstrate the intense feelings provoked by the controversy over Saint Louis' ransom in late-medieval France and the weight attached to the issue by late-medieval Frenchmen. The vitriolic tone of Louis Le Blanc's 390 polemics against the detractors of Louis IX indicates the intensity and the personal committment with which he undertook the defense of Saint Louis. So do the lengths to which he went to debunk their allegations. In his Chronique abregee. which was based on considerable historical research, he brought forth a variety of arguments in defense of Saint Louis and provided multiple proofs of the falsehood of the charges against him. In his La saincte vie de monseigneur sainct lovs he left behind arguments based on scholarship and historical erudition and resorted to a miracle in order to prove that the payment of Louis' ransom had not impoverished the kingdom. As for Etienne Le Blanc, he was not, as we have seen, a mere plagiarist. He altered the text of his father's Chronique abregee so as to respond more directly and more forcefully to several of the allegations against Louis XL Finally, the issue of the ransom of Louis IX engendered strong feelings and reactions not only among Frenchmen who sought to shield or defend the memory of Saint Louis against the charges leveled against him, but also among those who accepted the veracity of those allegations. For the author of B.N., fr. 5704, an historian very much concerned about the weight of royal fiscal demands and the financial well-being of the French people, the payment of Louis' ransom was a memorable disaster on a par with the payment of John ll's ransom and the imposition of the gabelle. For the author of Les aventures, the payment of the ransom was the central fact of Louis' reign. In his mind, the impoverishment 391 of the kingdom caused by the payment of Louis' ransom and his consequent issuing of leather money considerably diminished the stature of Louis IX. Indeed, he conveyed to his audience a tarnished image of the reign of Saint Louis. Likewise, the author of B.N., fr. 9688 did not hold Saint Louis in high esteem. While one cannot prove a causal link between his belief that the payment of Louis' ransom had led both to the issuing of leather money and to the imposition of new taxes and the fact that he chose neither to praise Louis IX nor to describe his virtues, the connection is highly likely. He did not explicitly condemn Saint Louis, but he did not attempt to inform his audience that Louis was a king worthy of praise. In short, Louis Le Blanc was right to accuse those who leveled allegations against Louis IX of detracting from the "honor, praise, and good reputation" of Saint Louis. Those who believed the charges against Louis IX viewed them not as minor blemishes on the record of an otherwise excellent monarch, but as stains large and indelible enough to dishonor him, to strip him of praise, and to blacken his memory. Finally, in exposing the full extent and intensity of the late- medieval controversy over the ransom of Louis IX, this study has provided a vivid example of the diversity that characterized the views of the past held by unofficial historians of France in particular and by late-medieval Frenchmen in general. Just as unofficial historians treated the questions of royal bastardy and regicide in a 392 variety of ways, so they assessed the ransom of Saint Louis in different ways. On the one hand, two of the twenty-three unofficial historians whose works I studied, the authors of B.N., fr. 9688 and B.N., fr. 5704, did not hesitate to tell their readers that the payment of Louis' ransom had adversely impacted his kingdom. In addition, two other historians did not hesitate to report that Louis had been captured and ransomed during the course of his first crusade. On the other hand, at least one of the nine historians who described the seventh crusade without mentioning that Louis was captured or ransomed, namely, the author of B.N., lat. 5195, did so deliberately. Likewise, the three historians who mentioned Louis' capture but not his ransom, namely, Noël de Fribois and the authors of B.N., fr. 10468 and B.N., fr. 24976, also deliberately omitted the latter. In sum, faced with a controversial event, the unofficial historians whose works I studied reacted differently. Some were willing to mention the ransom, but others were not. Some desired to shield the memory of Louis DC against the allegations that surrounded the payment of his ransom, but others accepted the truth of those allegations and exposed the memory of Louis IX to them. Some qualify as defenders of Saint Louis, while others qualify as detractors. What is more, the different approaches of unofficial historians to the question of his ransom reflected a broader disagreement about Louis IX among late-medieval Frenchmen in general. 393 At the very time that royal propaganda lauded Saint Louis, clerics held him up as a spiritual model, and noblemen looked back upon his reign as a golden age of good government, some Frenchmen adhered to a negative view of Louis EX. The tenacity of the allegations leveled against him indicates that the positive and well- propagated royal, clerical, and noble opinions of Saint Louis failed to win over the popular Parisian milieu in which those charges originated. Indeed, the fact that the charges against Saint Louis came to be known well outside of Paris and outside of the humbler ranks of urban society indicates that a negative opinion of Louis IX that flew in the face of the dominant positive images of that king could and did achieve considerable circulation in late-medieval France. In short, the duration and the geographic and social diffusion of the controversy over the ransom of Saint Louis stand as testimony to the persistent rivalry of diverse views of important figures in French history in the late-medieval period. Late-medieval Frenchmen not only disagreed about Louis IX. They also debated about him. Indeed, the intensity of the debate over the ransom of Saint Louis is perhaps the ultimate evidence of the diversity of opinion that characterized late-medieval French historical culture. In late- medieval France, Saint Louis had a set of detractors and he had a set of defenders. While they both approached the question of his ransom with great emotion, neither was able to impose its own interpretation.

UNOFFICIAL HISTORIES OF FRANCE IN THE LATE MIDDLE AGES Volume II

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

Sanford C. Zale, B.S.F.S., M.A.

*****

The Ohio State University 1994

Dissertation Committee: Approved by

Dr. Joseph Lynch /\ Dr. John Rule Adviser Dr. Timothy Gregory Department of History TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES...... xii

CHAPTER PAGE

VI. LISTS OF THE FRENCH KINGS, I ...... 394

Introduction...... 394 "Cy aprez fait mencion de tous les roys de France combien ilz regnerent"...... 400 Le Dit des Rovs...... 403 "Ce sont les noms de tous les roys qui ont este en France puis quelle Fu fondée" 405 "Ce sont les noms des roys de France anciennement nommes gaule"...... 407 "S'ensuit les noms des roys de France" ...... 412 "Les noms des roys de France"...... 416 "Le huytiesme livre de ceste cronique est du regne des treschrestiens roys de France". .420 Conclusion...... 423

Vil. LISTS OF THE FRENCH KINGS, II...... 428

Introduction...... 428 The Merovingians...... 428 The Reign of Gilles...... 433 The Sons of Clovis...... 437 The Sons of Chlotar ...... I 443 The Sons of Clovis II...... 447 The Last Merovingians...... 455 The Carolingians...... 461 From the Death of Louis II to the Accession of Louis r v...... 462

X Charles of Lorraine...... 47 6 The Capetians...... 482 Conclusion...... 488

VIII. CONCLUSION...... 494

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 511

XI LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

2. The Kings of France According to "Cy aprez fait mencion de tous les roys de france combien ilz regnerent" (B.N., fr. 4948)...... 402

3. The Kings of France According to Le Dit des Rovs (B.N., fr. 1707)...... 404

4. The Kings of France According to "Ce sont les noms de tous les roys qui ont este en france puis quelle fu fondée" (B.N., fr. 1623) ...... 406

5. The Kings of France According to "Ce sont les noms des roys de france anciennement nommes gaule" (B.N., lat. 5027) ...... 411

6. The Kings of France According to "S'ensuit les noms des roys de france" (B.N., fr. 1965) ...... 415

7. The Kings of France According to "Les noms des roys de france" (B.N., fr. 1965) ...... 419

8. The Kings of France According to the eighth book of the universal chronicle contained in B.N., fr. 5709...... 422

Xll CHAPTER VI LISTS OF THE FRENCH KINGS, I

Introduction In the three previous chapters, we saw how unofficial historians addressed three issues which, while they had broad implications for the French monarchy, centered specifically on certain monarchs. In the next two chapters, we will see how they addressed an important general question in the history of the French monarchy as a whole. Since late-medieval historians of France invariably organized their works in terms of the reigns of the French kings, they inevitably had to ask "Who were those monarchs?", that is, "Which individuals should be considered to have been kings of France?". This chapter and the succeeding one will examine seven late-medieval lists of the French kings, in order to see how some of them answered that question. It was not an easy question to answer. For one thing, the history of the monarchy contained numerous facts that simply did not square with late-medieval royal succession practices and with late-medieval ideas about the nature of the French monarchy. For example, it had not always been the case that there had always been only one French king, that the king of France had always been the

394 395 closest legitimate male heir of his predecessor, and that he had always been crowned. The Merovingian past in particular offerred many realities which jarred with late-medieval practices and with late-medieval ideas about the monarchy. For instance, tradition had it that a foreigner, a Roman named Gilles, had reigned during the forced exile of Childeric 1. Furthermore, upon the death of Clovis in 511, his kingdom had been divided among his four sons, who had home the royal title simultaneously. In 561, the kingdom had once again been divided among the four sons of Chlotar 1. In 673, Childeric 11 had deposed the reigning monarch, his elder brother Theuderic 111, who had subsequently been restored two years later. Dagobert 111 had died in 715, but his son, Theuderic IV, had acceded to the throne only in 721, following the reigns of Chilperic II and Chlotar IV, who were not Dagobert's sons. Facts that did not fit late-medieval practice also characterized the history of the Carolingian dynasty. Both Charlemagne and his brother Carloman had succeeded their father, Pepin, in 768. Louis II had died in 879, but his legitimate son, Charles the Simple, had not been crowned until 893, that is, after the reigns of his illegitimate half-brothers Louis III and Carloman, after the reign of Charles the Fat, and during the reign of Eudes. Charles the Simple had died in 929, but Robert 1 had been anointed in 922 and Raoul had been crowned in 923. Louis IV, the son of Charles the Simple, had acceded to the throne not upon the death of his father, but in 936, upon that 396 of Raoul. In 987, Hugh Capet had become king despite the existence of a legitimate Carolingian heir, Charles of Lorraine. Finally, the history of the Capetian dynasty posed problems for late-medieval Frenchmen who wanted to know who had been the kings of France. Philip, the eldest son of Louis VI, had been crowned in 1129, but had died in 1131, seven years before his father. Louis X's posthumous and short-lived son, John 1(1316), was his father's legitimate heir, but had never been crowned. These facts were troubling because they did not fit late- medieval royal practice and ideology, according to which the kingdom was indivisible, no bastard could accede to the throne, and the closest legitimate male heir was the rightful successor to the reigning monarch. They also raised questions about the role of the coronation in making the king. They were especially troubling because contemporary royal ideology and practice were supposed to date from time immemorial. In other words, it was not simply the case, in the later Middle Ages, that contemporary ideology informed such contemporary practices as not dividing the kingdom, barring bastards from the succession, and bestowing the crown upon the closest legitimate male heir. It was also the case that contemporary theories and the practices that they informed were projected upon the past so as to iustifv them by their supposed antiquity and time-honored inviolability. In the view dominant in the later Middle Ages, the kingdom had alwavs been indivisible, no bastard had ever mounted the throne, the closest legitimate male heir had alwavs succeeded the reigning monarch. 397 Consequently, late-medieval historians had to decide whether to consider certain past individuals to have been kings against a backdrop of contemnorarv ideology and contemoorarv practices that dictated that those individuals should not have been kings. If the kingdom was indivisible, had the four sons of Clovis, the four sons of Chlotar 1, and the two sons of Pepin all really been kings? If no bastard had ever sat on the French throne, had Louis 111 and Carloman really been kings? If the closest legitimate male heir of the reigning monarch automatically became king upon his death, had Childeric 11, Chilperic 11, Chlotar IV, Charles the Fat, Eudes, Robert 1, and Raoul really been kings ? These were the terms in which they conceived the questions. That is why their answers were always informed by political ideology. What is more, they had to provide those answers against a backdrop of contemporary events that emphasized the political nature of their responses. Historians who wrote during and after the reign of Charles Vll knew that by the Treaty of Troyes (1420), Charles VI had disinherited his only surviving son, the future Charles Vll, in favor of Henry V of England and the latter's heirs. They knew that upon the death of Charles VI in 1422, both Charles Vll and Henry VI of England had claimed to be the rightful king of France, and that for decades the latter had made good his claim in large parts of the kingdom. They knew that rumors of Charles VH's bastardy, which his opponents had propagated to justify his exclusion from the throne, had been widespread. They knew, finally, that Charles had been crowned and anointed only in 1429, seven 398 years after the death of his father. Consequently, they had to make decisions about past monarchs in the light of analogous contemporary events and the political questions that they raised. Knowing that the English king Henry VI had effectively ruled much of the French kingdom, they had to decide how to deal with the effective rule of the foreigner Gilles. Knowing that partisans of the Treaty of Troyes had argued in favor of Charles Vi's ability to dispose of his kingdom as he saw fit and that its opponents had argued against it, they had to decide what to make of the partitions of 511, 561, and 768, in which Clovis, Chlotar 1, and Pepin had done just that. Knowing that partisans of Charles Vll had argued that the closest legitimate male heir automatically became king upon the death of the reigning monarch, they had to confront periods like 673-675, 715-721, and 879-936, when such had not been the case. Knowing that some had sought to justify the exclusion of Charles Vll on the grounds of his supposed bastardy, they had to deal with the reigns of the illegitimate Louis 111 and Carloman. Knowing that Charles Vll had been crowned seven years after the death of his father and that some had considered him to have become king only then, they had to consider the question of the role of the coronation in making the king. Had Charles of Lorraine, the rightful but uncrowned successor to Louis V, been king of France? Had Louis Vi's son Philip, who had been crowned but had never effectively reigned? Had Louis X's son John I, who had effectively reigned but had never been crowned? 399 In sum, to determine which individuals had been kings of France was a difficult task. Historians who undertook it had to confront historical facts that contradicted contemporary ideology and practice which were supposed to have been ancient and immutable. They had to make their determinations in the light of contemporary events calling into question the nature of the French monarchy. In short, to determine which individuals had been kings of France was necessarily to voice an opinion on important aspects of the nature of the French monarchy. To list the kings of France was more than an historical exercise. It was also a contemoorarv political act. It follows that to examine a late-medieval list of the French kings is to gain insight into its author's views on important questions about the nature of French kingship itself. It also follows that to compare the lists of French kings composed by late-medieval historians is to compare their positions on those questions. 1 studied seven such lists. In this chapter, 1 shall present them individually. In the next chapter, 1 shall analyze them on a comparative basis for the period for which they are comparable, that is, from Pharamond to Charles VI. It goes without saying that 1 could have studied other lists, and that 1 could have studied more of them. However, to have done so would have altered only the details of my comparative analysis, not the validity of its general point. The seven texts in question suffice to illustrate that late-medieval French historians composed significantly different lists of the French monarchs: there was no canonical list of the French kings in late- medieval France. Because thev disagreed on important aspects of 400 French kingship, late-medieval historians simply did not consider the same individuals to have been kings of France.

"Cv aprez fait mencion de tous les rovs de france combien ilz regnerent" The earliest list of the French kings under consideration is the one provided by the author of the short chronicle of the French kings from the Trojan origins to the reign of Charles VI entitled "Cy aprez fait mencion de tous les roys de france combien ilz regnerent". This chronicle was composed sometime between November 1380 and October 1388. It is known to survive in three manuscripts, the bulk of each of which is occupied by copies of the first recension of the universal history known as the Manuel d'histoire de Philippe VI de Valois, with a continuation to 1383.^ While the text in question is a brief chronicle, it is useful to consider it as a list of the French kings. The fact that either its author or the copyist of one of the manuscripts in which it survives saw fit to state that it related how long "all the kings of France" reigned indicates that it was perceived to list those monarchs comprehensively. Furthermore, the fact that it is known to exist only in manuscripts that contain the first recension of the Manuel d'histoire de Philippe VI de Valois indicates that "Cy aprez fait mencion" was intended to provide readers of the Manuel with a convenient, ordered list of the reigns of the French kings. ipor a full treatment of "Cy aprez fait mencion de tous les roys de france combien ilz regnerent", see section (A) of Chapter II, "The Sources", of which this and the succeeding two paragraphs are a summary. 401 While one could leam French history by reading the Manuel, to do so was a potentially long and tedious process. The Manuel was a bulky universal chronicle which contained considerable passages on the French kings, but a reader interested only in those passages would first have to locate them, and one interested only in the most essential chronological or genealogical information would have to read them in order to find it. The anonymous author of the Manuel appears to have understood this inconvenience, for he inserted a catalogue of the French kings based on the Reges Francorum of Bernard Gui into the second recension of his work. The first recension of the Manuel did not, however, contain such a list. It was in all likelihood to provide readers of the Manuel with the convenience of a short catalogue of the French kings that "Cy aprez fait mencion" was appended to an updated version of the first recension of the Manuel early in the reign of Charles VI. After a brief account of the Trojan origins and of the dukes who were commonly believed to have ruled the French prior to the establishment of the monarchy, "Cy aprez fait mencion" contains chapters for fifty-one kings from Pharamond to Charles VI. Its author stated the length of each monarch's reign, and then added varying amounts of genealogical material and historical information about their deeds. Table 2, which is based on the text of "Cy aprez fait mencion" in B.N., fr, 4948 (fols. 96-98), represents those fifty-one monarchs. In this table as in the succeeding ones 1 have arrayed the listed monarchs in three columns, by dynasty. For the sake of clarity, 1 402 Table 2: The Kings of France according to "Cy aprez fait mencion de tous les roys de france combien ilz regnerent" (B.N., fr. 4948)

1) Pharamond 20) 33) Hugh Capet 2) Clodion 21) 34) Robert 11 3) Merovech 22) 35) Henry I 4) Childeric 1 23) 36) Philip 1 5) Gillesa 24) 37) Louis VN 6) Clovis 25) 38) Philipe 7) Chlotar 1 26) 39) Louis Vll 8) Chilperic I 27) 40) Philip II 9) Chlotar II 28) 41) Louis VIII 10) Dagobert 1 29) 42) Louis IXf 11) Clovis 11 30) 43) Philip 111 12) Chlotar III 31) 44) Philip IV 13) Childeric 11^ 32) 45) Louis X 14) Clovis IV 46) Philip V 15) Childebert III 47) Charles IV 16) Dagobert 111 48) Philip VI 17) Chiloeric II 49) John 11 18) Theuderic IV 50) Charles V 19) Childeric 111 51) Charles VI

^ The copyist of B.N., fr. 4948 Inailverlamly conflated the entries on Gilles and Clovis, writing that "Gilles qui estoit rommain fu roy tant comme chilperich ot espouse clotilde par laquele il sc converti " (fol. 96). The intention of the author is clear in another cop) of the same work, where an entry stating that "Gilic qui estoit rommain fu roy tant comme chilperic fu chacie hors" is followed by an entry on ""Clovis fil/ chilperic ot espouse clotilde par laquele il se converti"" (11.N., fr. 4940, fol. 123v). ’’ The text (fol. 96v) stales that Childeric 11 " regna en lieu de thierry son frere qui estoit débouté,'" which is factually accurate. However, the list contains no independent entry for cither the first or second reign of Theuderic III, and the author does not appear to have considered him to have reigned either before or after his brother Childeric 11. Although the author excluded Ijouis III, a lower numbering of the kings named Ijouis does not characterize his work, since he referred to monarchs not by their numbers but as the sons of their fathers. What were in all probability originally two separate entries on louis VI and Louis VIi have been conflated into one, no doubt by an error at some point in the manuscript tradition: "loys le groz son [Philip I'sj filz XIX ans [in fact, louis Vlj. 11 recut le pape Alixandre que les lombars avaient chacie, et saint thommas de cantorbie. 11 espousa Alienor fille au roy daquitaine. lit ala outremer. Apres la répudia, lit la prist le roy henty dangieterre nomme au court mantel lin fact, louis Vil] "" (fol. 97). Because the author's intention was in all likelihtxxl to include entries on both monarchs, 1 have included them both in the above table. ^ Although the author included Philip, the son of louts VI who was crowned during the lifetime of his father but who preceded him to the grave, a higher numbering of the kings named Philip does not characterize his work, for the same reason that a lower numbering of the kings named louis does not. lor the sake of clarity, I have identified the said Philip simply as "Philip" in the ahove table and In the others in which he figures.

^ What were in all probability originally two separate entries on louis IX and Philip 111 have been conflated into one, no doubt by a copying erro r "loys le saint son [louis Vlll"s| filz XLllll ans [in fact, louis IX). 11 espousa j sabel fille du roy darragon, et ala contra pierre darragun pour la Toy dc leglise [in fact, Philip lllj" (fol. 9À ). Because the author's Intention was in all likelihood to include both monarchs, 1 have included them both in the above table. 403 have designated those with the same names by the numbers by which they are identified in modern scholarship . Those kings whose names are underlined are monarchs who figure in some but not all of the seven lists under consideration. Those whose names are both underlined and emboldened are monarchs who appear only in the particular list represented by the table. In the case of "Cy aprez fait mencion", then, the author included nine kings omitted by one or more of the authors of the other six texts under consideration, and two of those nine (Gilles, who replaced Childeric 1 during his exile, and Robert 1) were not included by any of the other authors.

Le Pit des Rovs The second list under consideration is the one provided by the author of the Pit des Rovs. a verse history of the French kings from the Trojan origins to 1380. The Pit des Rovs was composed early in the reign of Charles VI, and it is known to survive in seven fifteenth- century manuscripts. Its author, a Parisian, based his work on a copy of Guillaume de Naneis's Chronique abrégée continued to 1381.2 While the Pit des Rovs is a short history of the French kings, the fact that its author enumerated the kings of France whose reigns he chronicled makes his work liable to analysis as a list of those monarchs. In B.N., fr. 1707 (fols. 30-37), the copy of the text upon which Table 3 is based, the Pit des Rovs is 422 lines long. After fifteen lines of prologue and forty-six on the Trojan origins, the

2por a full treatment of the Pit des Roys, see section (B) of Chapter II, "The Sources", of which this paragraph is a summary. 404 Table 3: The Kings of France according to Le Dit des Rovs (B.N., fr. 1707)

1) Pharamond 26) Charles Martel 40) Hugh Capet 2) Clodion 27) Pepin 41) Robert II 3) Merovech 28) Charlemagne 42) Henry I 4) Childeric I 29) Louis the Pious 43) Philip I 5) Clovis 30) Charles the Bald 44) Louis VI 6) Chlodomer 31) Louis II 45) Louis VII 7) Childebert I 32) Louis III 46) Philip II 8) Chlotar 1 33) Carloman 47) Louis Vlll 9) Guntram 34) Eudes 48) Louis DC 10) Sigibert I 3 5 )Raoul 49) Philip 111 11) Charibert 36) Charles the Simple 50) Philip IV 12) Chilperic I 37) Louis IV 51 ) Louis X 13) Chlotar II 38) Lothaire 5 2 )JohnJ 14) Dagobert I 39) Louis V 53) Philip V 15) Clovis II 54) Charles IV^ 16) Chlotar 111 55) Philip VI 17) Childeric II 56) John II 18) Theuderic III 57) Charles V 19) Clovis IV 58) Charles VI 20) Childebert III 21) Dagobert 111 22) Chlotar IV 23) Chilperic II 24) Theuderic IV 25) Childeric III

^ 1; was no doubv by a copyini; error lhal Charles IV did noi fiKure in the version of ihe Pit des Rovs contained in the tnanuscipt. The text identified Louis X as the fifty-first king, discussed but did not assign numbers to John I and i’hiiip V, and identified I’hiiip VI as the fifty-fifth monarch. The intention of the author having certainly been to count Charles IV as the fifty-fourth king, I have included him as such in the above table. 405 foundation of Paris, and the dukes who governed the French prior to the establishment of the monarchy, the author reached Pharamond, "de france le premier roy", and devoted the remaining 361 lines of his work to fifty-eight French kings up to and including Charles V1.3 Table 3 represents those monarchs. It features sixteen kings about whose inclusion the authors of the seven late-medieval texts in question were not unanimous, including one (Charles Martel, said to be the twenty-sixth king of France) who appeared in this list but in none of the others.

"Ce sont les noms de tous les rovs oui ont este en france puis quelle fu fondée" The third list under scrutiny is the one provided by the author of "Ce sont les noms de tous les roys qui ont este en france puis quelle fu fondée", a short history of the French kings known to survive only in B.N., fr. 1623 (fols. 89-95v). The chronicle was composed by a Parisian very shortly before or very shortly after the death of Charles VI (1422).4

^While Charles VI, who "reigns at present" is termed the fifty-eighth king of France (B.N., fr. 1707, fol. 37), the text in fact lists only fifty-seven, the reason being the accidental omission, by the copyist, of the verses on Charles IV. That the omission was accidental is indicated by the numérotation of the last Capetians and the first Valois given by the text: it terms Philip IV the fiftieth king and Louis X the fifty-first, discusses but does not assign numbers to John I and Philip V, does not mention Charles IV, and then terms Philip VI the fifty- fifth king. In other words, it is clear that the author’s intention was to count John 1, Phihp V, and another monarch - namely, the successor to Philip V, Charles IV - as the fifty-second through fifty-fourth kings of France.

^For a full treatment of "Ce sont les noms de tous les roys qui ont este en france puis quelle fu fondée", see section (F) of Chapter 11, "The Sources", of which this paragraph is a summary. 406 Table 4: The Kings of France according to "Ce sont les noms de tous les roys qui ont este en france puis quelle fu fondée" (B.N., fr. 1623)

1) Pharamond 26) Pepin 40) Hugh Capet 2) Clodion 27) Charlemagne 41) Robert II 3) Merovech 28) Louis the Pious 42) Henry 1 4) Childeric I 29) Charles the Bald 43) Philip 1 5) Clovis 30) Louis II 44) Louis VI 6) Chlodomer 31) Carloman 45) Philipa 7) Childebert 1 32) Louis 111 46) Louis Vll 8) Chlotar I 33) Charles the Fat 47) Philip 11 9) Guntram 34) Eudes 48) Louis Vlll 10) Sigibert I 35) Raoul 49) Louis IX 11) Charibert 36) Charles the Simple 50) Philip 111 12) Chilperic I 37) Louis IV 51) Philip IV 13) Chlotar 11 38) Lothaire 52) Louis X 14) Dagobert 1 39) Louis V 53) Philip V 15) Clovis II 54) Charles IV 16) Chlotar III 55) Philip VI 17) Childeric II 56) John II 18) Theuderic 111 57) Charles V 19) Clovis IV 58) Charles VI 20) Childebert III 21) Dagobert III 22) Chlotar IV 23) Chilperic II 24) Theuderic IV 25) Childeric 111

^ AUhuut>h ihc author included Philip, son of louis VI, a hiither numbcrinR of the kings named Philip did not characterize his work, because he referred to them not by their numbers but by their sobriquets. 407 It is appropriate to study it as a list of the French kings because its author, like the author of the Pit des Rovs. enumerated the monarchs whose reigns he chronicled. After two chapters on events prior to the establishment of the monarchy, he devoted each of the fifty-eight remaining chapters of his work to the kings from Pharamond to Charles VI. Table 4 represents those monarchs. It bears a good deal of resemblance to Table 3. Indeed, it is possible that the author of "Ce sont les noms fondée" used either the Chronique abrégée of Guillaume de Nangis or the Parisian Dit des Rovs as one of his sources. For one thing, the two lists differed with regard only to four monarchs. Relative to the Pit des Rovs. the author of "Ce sont les noms fondée" excluded two kings, Charles Martel and John 1, and included two others, Charles the Fat and Philip, son of Louis VI. For another, alone among the lists under consideration, they named the same Merovingians in the same order. As Table 4 indicates, the author of "Ce sont les noms fondée" included sixteen monarchs not named by each and every of the seven lists under scrutiny. One of those sixteen kings (Charles the Fat) appeared in his work but in none of the others.

"Ce sont les noms des rovs de france anciennement nommes gaule" The fourth text under consideration is a numbered list of the French kings from Pharamond to Charles VI entitled "Ce sont les noms des roys de france anciennement nommes gaule". It occupies fols. 109v-110vof B.N., lat. 5027. 408 Unlike the three previous texts, it is purely and simply a list of the French monarchs. Its author enumerated sixty kings from Pharamond to Charles VI, noting nothing other than their names and their numbers in the order of succession. On rare occasions, he added their filiation and/or the dates of their accessions and/or very small amounts of historical information about theirreig n s.s In all probability, "Ce sont les noms gaule" was composed during the reign of Charles VII. On the one hand, it was definitely composed after 1422, for its author noted the death of Charles VI.^ On the other, the presence in the manuscript of a continuation of the list for the reigns of Charles VII and Louis XI, written in another hand and seemingly early in the reign of the latter monarch, indicates that the list had to have been copied into the manuscript (and therefore, obviously, composed) prior to the first years of Louis XI.7

^The author noted only the name and the number in the order of succession of most of the kings that he listed: "Pepin fut le XXVIIIe roy" and "Philippe le premier du nom fut le XLIIe roy" are typical entries (B.N., lat. 5027, fol. 110). He also noted the filiation of twenty-two monarchs and the date of accession of eight monarchs. He provided historical information about the reigns of ten of them, noting that Clovis was the first Christian king, that Chlotar I held the kingdom alone after the death of his brothers, that Dagobert I likewise "held alone all the monarchy of France", that Charlemagne and Louis the Pious were emperors, that Philip II conquered Normandy, and that Philip IV and his sons ruled Navarre as well as France.

^B.N., lat. 5027, fols. llO-llOv: "Charles le Vie de [ce] nom dit le débonnaire trespassa en lan M.CCCC.XX1I. le XXIe iour doctobre en laage de liiii ans et par ainxi il régna par lespace de xlii ans."

?One has the impression, but cannot prove, that the continuation of the list (B.N. lat. 5027, fol. llOv) for Charles VII and Louis XI was written in the manuscript shortly after the accession of the latter. The continuator noted simply that Louis XI was coronated and that, following his coronation, he " entra a paris a grant magnificence, accompaig[ne] de tous les seigneurs 409 The list was copied into B.N., lat. 5027 by the same hand that copied the item that precedes it in the manuscript (fols. 67-109), namely, the untitled chronicle of the French kings from the Trojan origins to 1384 inaccurately known as the Chronique anonyme finissant en 1383. Natalis de Wailly opined that the chronicle "seems to have been written during the reign of Charles VI," but it is also possible that its composition dates to that of Charles VII. Its author based his work on the amplified version of Guillaume de Nangis's Chronique abrégée continued to 1384, and it is known to exist in three manuscripts.® While the list mav have been authored by the same individual who composed the chronicle,^ what is sure is that the former was de France, excepte son frere Charles maisne de luy lequel estoit demoure pour consoler sa mere marie daniou."

®For a full treatment of the work known as the Chronique anonyme finissant en 1383. see section (G) of Chapter II, "The Sources", of which this paragraph is a summary.

^The various elements that one might use to date the composition of the chronicle and to make a judgment as to whether its author also composed the list are in my judgment too sparse to support sure conclusions. Natalis de Wailly, who edited the fragments of the chronicle in RHF XXI, stated that its author "appears to have written under the reign of Charles VI" (RHF. XXI, 142), but provided no reasons for this judgment. If the author in fact wrote late in the reign of that monarch, he could well have authored the list after Charles's death in 1422. His authorship of the list would be less likely were he to have written his chronicle shortly after 1384, but one has no valid reason to assume that he did so since by no means did all medieval chronicles either terminate at or even near the dates of their composition or receive continuations. The intimate relationship - to be demonstrated presently - between the list and the chronicle might indicate a common authorship, but does not preclude the possibility that the former was composed by an attentive reader of the latter, or even by the copyist of B.N., lat. 5027. The information available on the other two manuscripts in which the chronicle is known to survive is spotty and not of use in t r ^ g to resolve the two questions. The description of Cotton Julius E.Vl given by the Catalogue of the Manuscripts in the Cottonian library, deposited in the British Museum (London 1802) 18, is rather general and does not indicate whether or not the manuscript also contains the list of French 410 based on the latter. With only four significant exceptions to be discussed later, the author of the list included, in the same order, all of the kings to whom the chronicle devoted one or more chapters, lo The fact that the source for the list was the chronicle is of great value, for it will permit us to know exactly on what bases the author of "Ce sont les noms gaule" included various French monarchs in, and excluded others from, his list. That list is represented in Table 5. Since its author derived it from a chronicle based on Guillaume de Nangis's Chronique abrégée continued to 1384, and since the continuation of the same work to 1381 was the primary source of the author of the Pit des Rovs. it is interesting - and indicative of the diversity that characterized late- medieval lists of the French kings - to compare the list of monarchs given by "Ce sont les noms gaule" and the one given by the Dit des Rovs. kings. As for Poitiers, Bibl. mun., 215 (fols. 1-8), it was executed in the two decades after 1480 and the first leaves of the manuscript, in which the chronicle is the first item, are missing, thus making it impossible to know if it originally contained the list prior to the chronicle (see the Catalogue general des manuscrits des bibliothèques publioues de France. Départements XXV (Paris 1894) 62-65). Prudence and my present state of knowledge about the manuscripts thus dictate dating the chronicle to the reign of either Charles VI or Charles VII and withholding judgment about the authorship of the list.

^(^The ordre of the kings in "Ce sont les noms des roys de france anciennement nommes gaule" follows perfectly the order of the chapters that deal with each monarch in the chronicle, which, given the inclusion in the chronicle of a number of kings rarely mentioned, much less dealt with in separate chapters, in late-mediev^ histories of the French kings (especially Theudebert I, Theudebald, Childebert II, and Theuderic II), leaves little doubt as to the source of the list. The four monarchs to whom the author of the chronicle devoted independent chapters but who do not appear in the list are Louis III and his brother Carloman, Charles the Fat, and Eudes: they were excluded, as I shall demonstrate in Chapter VII, "Lists of the French Kings, II", on the basis of an extremely close reading of the text of the chronicle. 411 Table 5: The Kings of France according to "Ce sont les noms des roys de france anciennement nommes gaule" (B.N., lat. 5027)

1) Pharamond® 32) Pépin 43) Hugh Capet 2) Clodion 33) Carloman 44) Robert 11 3) Merovech 34) Charlemagne 45) Henry 1 4) Childeric I 35) Louis the Pious 46) Philip 1 5) Clovis 36) Charles the Bald 47) Louis VI 6) Theuderic I 37) Louis II 48) Louis Vil 7) T h eu d eb ert I 38) Charles the Simple 49) Philip 11 8) T h eu d eb ald b 39) Raoul 50) Louis Vlll 9) Chlodomer 40) Louis IVc 51) Louis IX 10) Childebert 1 41) Lothaire 52) Philip 111 11 ) Chlotar I 42) Louis V 53) Philip IV 12) Chilperic 1 54) Louis X 13) Charibert 55) Philip V 14) Sigibert I 56) Charles IV 15) Guntram 57) Philip VI 16) Childebert il 58) John II 17) T heuderic II 59) Charles V 18) Chlotar II 60) Charles VI 19) Dagobert 1 20) S igibert III 21) Clovis II 22) Chlotar 111 23) Childeric 11 24) Theuderic 111 25) Clovis IV 26) Childebert 111 27) Dagobert III 28) Chlotar IV 29) Chilperic II 30) Theuderic IV 31) Childeric III

® The author designated the kings from Pharamond to Childeric I as the first through fourth "non-Christian " kings, and rebcgan his enumeration at one with Clovis, t'or the sake of clarity, 1 have rendered the numbering uniform in this table. ^ It was by a copying error that Theudebald was omitted from the list as it exists in the manuscript. The text designated "fhcudebert I as the third Christian king (and therefore the seventh in all) and Chlodomer as the fifth (and therefore the ninth). The intention of the author was clearly to include Theudebald as the fourth (and eighth) king, for he was included in that position in the chronicle upon which the author scrupulously based his list lor this reason, I have included him in the above table. Because the author omitted louis III from his list, he designated the subsequent kings named iouis by numbers one lower than those by which they arc traditionally known (kc., louis IV d"Outremer is " iouis ill "; Saint Louis is " louis VIII" ). Por the sake of clarity, I have used the traditional numbering in the above table and in all others characterized the lower, untraditlonal numbering. 412 As a comparison of Table 3 and Table 5 Indicates, the two lists are identical neither globally nor for any of the three dynasties. On the one hand, the author of "Ce sont les noms gaule" included seven monarchs (Theuderic I, Theudebert I, Theudebald, Childebert II, Theuderic II, Sigibert III, and Carloman the son of Pepin) not counted by the author of the Pit des Rovs. On the other, the author of the Pit des Rovs counted five kings (Charles Martel, Louis III, Carloman the son of Louis the Stammerer, Eudes, and John I) not included by the author of "Ce sont les noms gaule". Two authors, one using Guillaume de Nangis's Chronique abrégée directly early in the reign of Charles VI, the other using it indirectly during that of Charles VII, produced different lists of the French kings. If they agreed about fifty-three monarchs, they did not share the same opinions about another twelve. As Table 5 indicates, the list of the French kings composed by the author of "Ce sont les noms gaule" was in a sense the most controversial of the seven under consideration. It contained eighteen monarchs about whose inclusion their authors were not unanimous, seven of whom figured in none of the other six lists.

"S'ensuit les noms des rovs de france" The fifth list of the French kings under consideration dates to the reign of Louis XI or to that of Charles VIII. It is entitled "S'ensuit les noms des roys de france", and it occupies fols. 128-131 of B.N. fr. 1965. In the manuscript, it follows a copy of the Rosier des Guerres (fols. l-127v), a manual of the "mirror of princes" genre written in 413 1481-1482 on the order of Louis IX and by his physician-astrologer Pierre Choisnet for the instruction of the future Charles VIII. 11 "S'ensuit les noms" was definitely composed after 1461, since its author noted that Charles VII, the last French monarch accounted for in his work, had died in that year. In addition, similarities between the historical section of the Rosier and the list given by "S'ensuit les noms",^z and the fact that the two items were copied

1 ^For a description of B.N., fr. 1965, see the Catalogue des manuscrits français de la Bibliothèque Nationaie 1, 340. The Rosier des Guerres is known to exist in ten fifteenth-century manuscripts, namely: Paris, B.N., fr. 442, fols. 55-182; fr. 1238; fr. 1239; fr. 1240; fr. 1965, fols. 1-127v; fr. 4986; fr. 17273; fr. 24261; Rouen, Bibl. mun., 996; and Vatican, Reg, lat. 823. Of these, only B.N. fr. 1965 contains "S'ensuit les noms des roys de france". The authorship of the Rosier has long been a matter of dispute, and to attribute it to Pierre Choisnet is to find the arguments of Jean Kaulek ("Louis XI est-il I'auteur du Rosier des Guerres?." Revue Historique 21 ( 1883) 312-322), A. Hellot ("Etude critique sur les sources du Rosier des Guerres." Revue Historique 29 (1885) 75-81) and Charles Samaran ("Pierre Choisnet, le Rosier des Guerres et le Livre des Trois Eages." BEC 87 (1926) 372-380) more convincing than those of Paulin Paris ( Les manuscits frangois de la Bibliothèque du Roi (Paris 1836-48) IV, 116-135), Maurice Diamantberger ("Un essai de réhabilitation. Nouvelles recherches sur le Rosier des Guerres de Louis XI," Mercure de France. 15 July 1925,513-521, and the introduction to his 1925 edition. Le Rosier des Guerres, enseignements de Louis XI Rov de France Pour le Dauphin son fils (Paris 1925), and, most recently, André Stegmann ("Le Rosier des Guerres: Testament nolitiaue de Louis XI," in Bernard Chevalier and Philippe Contamine (eds.). La France de la fin du XVe siècle: Renouveau et Anogée. Paris 1985, 313-323), ail of whom attributed it to Louis XI himself. It was written definitely after the birth of the future Charles VIII in 1470 and before the death of Louis XI in 1483, and Samaran, "Pierre Choisnet", 376, convincingly dated its composition to 1481- 1482.

^ Zjhe Rosier des Guerres consisted of two parts. The first was a sort of mirror- of-princes that contained "plusieurs bons notaibles enseignemens, qui pevent servir en guerre et a la garde, deffense et gouvernement du royaulme," and it comprised, depending on the manuscript, the first eight or nine chapters of the work. The second was an abbreviated chronicle of France from the Trojan origins to the birth of the future Charles VIII. It comprised the final chapter of the Rosier ("Le neuf.me chappitre contenant cronique abregee du royaume de france ", B.N., fr. 1965, fol. 2), and, inasmuch as it was an integral part of that work, it was by error that the Catalogue des manuscrits français de la Bibliothèque nationale I, 340, identified the Rosier and the chronicle, which, in B.N., fr. 1965, a posterior hand has entitled "Summa 414 into the manuscript by the same hand, indicate that its composition may postdate that of the Rosier, to which it will have been appended as a sort of supplement. Whether it was written after 1461 or after 1481-82, it was definitely composed prior to the death of Charles VIII in 1498. In that year and with the said monarch still alive, another hand wrote a series of historical notes and another list of the French kings on a few empty leaves at the end of the volume that already contained the Rosier and "S'ensuit les noms".13 Alone among the seven texts under consideration, "S'ensuit les noms " is arrayed in the form of a simplified genealogical tree. The information provided about each monarch is contained within a circle, and each circle is joined by a "branch" to those of the preceding and succeeding kings. In each circle, the author noted the name of the king, his relationship to the previous monarch, the length of his reign, and the year of his death.

cronicorum francie", as two separate works. It is possible that the author of "S'ensuit les noms des roys de france" used the historical section of the Rosier in determining which monarchs to include in his work. He was, with the exception of the author of "Les noms des roys de france", another, later list of the French kings that follows "S'ensuit les noms" in B.N., fr. 1965 and whose author probably used "S'ensuit les noms" as the basis for his own list (see the next section of the present chapter), the only one of the seven authors under consideration to exclude from his list six Carolingians and Robertians included in some but not all of the others, namely, Louis 111, Carloman, Charles the Fat, Eudes, Robert 1, and Raoul. It is noteworthy that the work to which his list was appended provided clear bases for most of these exclusions. The Rosier bluntly stated that "Louis [111] and Carloman, sons of king Louis the Stammerer, are not counted in this chronicle because they were [born] of his concubine" (B.N., fr. 1965, fol. 127), and, speaking of Charles the Simple, that "It seems that those who reigned between his father [that is, Louis II] and him must not be counted in the number of kings descending in the straight line...." (fol. 51v).

1 ^Namely, the list of the French kings to be discussed in the next section of the present chapter. 415 Table 6: The Kings of France according to "S'ensuit les noms des roys de france" (B.N., fr. 1965)

1 ) Pharamond 22) Pepin 31) Hugh Capet 2) Clodion 23) Charlemagne 32) Robert II 3) Merovech 24) Louis the Pious 33) Henry 1 4) Childeric 1 25) Charles the Bald 34) Philip 1 5) Clovis 26) Louis 11 35) Louis VI 6) Childebert I 27) Charles the Simple 36) Philipb 7) Chlotar 1 28) Louis IVa 37) Louis Vll 8) Chilperic I 29) Lothaire 38) Philip II 9) Chlotar II 30) Louis V 39) Louis Vlll 10) Dagobert 1 40) Louis IX 11) Clovis 11 41) Philip 111 12) Chlotar 111 42) Philip IV 13) Childeric 11 43) Louis Xc 14) Theuderic 111 44) Philip V 15) Clovis IV 45) Charles IV 16) Childebert 111 46) Philip VI 17) Dagobert 111 47) John 11 18) Chlotar IV 48) Charles V 19) Chilperic 11 49) Charles VI 20) Theuderic IV 50) Charles Vll 21) Childeric 111

Because the author did not recognize louis III, he assigned all of the kings named Louis from louis IV d 'Outremer to louis X I lutin numbers one lower than those by which they are traditionally known, l or the sake of clarity, I have used the traditionai numbering in this table and all others which represent lists whose authors used the untraditional, lower numbering. Because the author included Philip, the son of louis VI, as "Philip II”, he assigned all of the kings named Philip from Philip II Augustus to Philip VI of Valois numbers one higher than those by which they are traditionally known. Por the sake of clarit) , I have referred to louis Vi's son simpiy as "Phiiip ", and used the traditional numbering, in this table and all others which represent iists whose authors used the untraditional, higher numbering. ‘ "S'ensuit les noms des roys de franco " is arranged in the form of a genealogical tree in which the name of each king, his relationship to the preceding monarch, the length of his reign, and the year of his death are inscribed within fifty circies. Whiie the inscription for louis X notes "Et Jehan son fiiz vesquit sept jours après luy" ( fol. I S(lv), the author did not intend to include John I in his iist. Had he, he wouid have done what he did for the other fifty monarchs included in his work, namely, devoted him his own circie and expiicitiy stated that he had "reigned". 416 While his work was intended to provide a short outline of the royal genealogy and chronology, it also constituted a list of the French kings. Its title conveyed its author's desire to name the kings of France. The physical presentation of his work, in which each of fifty circles contained information about kings from Pharamond to Charles Vll, made quite clear who he thought those kings to have been. Table 6 represents the fifty kings included in "S'ensuit les noms". It indicates that it was a less controversial list than the four previously considered. It contained only seven kings about whose inclusion the authors of the seven lists under scrutiny were not unanimous, and no monarchs not included by at least one of the other six.

"Les noms des rovs de france" In addition to the Rosier des Guerres and "S'ensuit les noms", B.N., fr. 1965 also contains another list of the French kings. It was composed under Charles Vlll, in 1498, and it is entitled "Les noms des roys de france" (B.N., fr. 1965, fols. 133v-135).i4 The list itself, which consists simply of the names of the French monarchs in the order in which they reigned, is preceded in the manuscript by several historical notes written by the same author. The notes are entitled "Les generacions des roys de france" (fols.

^ ^The date of composition is given by the last entry in the list: "Charles Vllle de ce nom a present 1498 regnant a qui dieu doint bonne vie, et longue, et paradis a la fin Amen" (B.N., fr. 1965, fol. 135). 417 133-133v), and they at once summarize and complement the list that follows. In his notes, the author indicated that the first four kings of France had been pagans, that Clovis was France's first Christian king, that two French kings were "canonized saints in paradise, namely.

Saint Charlemagne and Saint L ouis," ^ 5 and that there had been three royal races. The first of these began with Pharamond, ended with Childeric 111 (whom the author, having excluded Childeric II from his list of the French kings, called Childeric II), and comprised seventeen kings. The second began with Pepin, concluded with Louis V (whom the author, having excluded Louis 111 from his list, called Louis IV), and contained nine monarchs. The third began with Hugh Capet, continued to reign in the present, and had thus far produced twenty- one kings, for a grand total of forty-seven from Pharamond to Charles VIII. The author then went on to list their names. While he did not individually number the kings who figured in his list, he divided his list into three parts, by dynasty, and noted the total number of kings for each one as well as the grand total of forty- seven at the end of his work.

fr. 1965, fol. 133. This text is the only one of the seven in question, and one of the very few late-medieval historical treatments of the French kings of which 1 am aware, to affirm the sainthood of Charlemagne, who is, likewise, called "Saint Charlemagne" in the list of kings that follows these historical notes (fol. 134). On Charlemagne's sainthood, proclaimed by the anti-pope Pascal III in 1165 and recognized by Louis XI, who decreed that his feast be celebrated throughout France on 28 January, and on the devotion of late- medieval French kings to "saint" Charlemagne, see Regine Lambrech, "Charlemagne and his Influence on Late-Medieval French Kings," Tournai of Medieval Historv 14, number 4 (1988) 283-291. 418 "Les noms" is the shortest of the seven lists in question, both globally and by dynasty, since no other list named fewer Merovingians, Carolingians, or Capetians for the period for which they are comparable. While it is rather similar to "S'ensuit les noms", it is not identical to it; the author of "Les noms" omitted four Merovingians and one Capetian retained by the other, earlier list contained in the manuscript. While one can by no means prove that the author of "Les noms" had read "S'ensuit les noms", it seems likely that the former was composed by a possessor of the manuscript that contained the latter, and that he had at least glanced at the list of French kings already contained in the manuscript on the last, empty leaves of which he inscribed his own list, especially because the two lists, alone among the seven under consideration, enumerated the same nine Carolingians. In the event that this was so, one is in the presence of an interesting example of concrete disagreement between an author of a list of French kings and one of his sources. In this hypothesis, the author of "Les noms" employed his knowledge of French history and his judgment to reject Childebert 1, Childeric 11, Chlotar IV, Chilperic 11, and Philip, son of Louis VI, five kings who were not universally accepted and who presented particular problems for late-medieval historians of France. Even in the event that such was not the case it remains that, after 1498, the same manuscript presented two different lists of kings for the consideration of its readers, and that B.N. fr. 1965 stands as a good example of the diversity that characterized late-medieval lists of the French monarchs. 419 Table 7: The Kings of France according to "Les noms des roys de france" (B.N., fr. 1965)

1) Pharamond 18) Pepin 27) Hugh Capet 2) Clodion 19) Charlemagne 28) Robert 11 3) Merovech 20) Louis the Pious 29) Henry I 4) Childeric I 21) Charles the Bald 30) Philip 1 5) Clovis 22) Louis II 31) Louis VI 6) Chlotar 1 23) Charles the Simple 32) Louis VII 7) Chilperic 1 24) Louis IV^ 33) Philip II 8) Chlotar II 25) Lothaire 34) Louis VIII 9) Dagobert I 26) Louis V 35) Louis IX 10) Clovis II 36) Philip III 11) Chlotar III 37) Philip IV 12) Theuderic 111 38) Louis X 13) Clovis IV 39) Philip V 14) Childebert III 40) Charles IV 15) Dagobert III 41) Philip VI 16) Theuderic IV 42) John 11 17) Childeric III 43) Charles V 44) Charles VI 45) Charles VII 46) Louis XI 47) Charles Vlll

^ Due U) the exclusion of louis ill, this iist featured the untraditionai, lower numbcrinK of the kinijs named louis from lo u is IV d 'O u tre m e r o n w ard . 420 Table 7 indicates the forty-seven kings listed in "Les noms". In addition to being the shortest of the seven lists under consideration, it was also the least controversial. For the period for which they are comparable, it contained forty-two kings listed in all of the other works under consideration and only two about whom the seven authors in question were not unanimous.

"Le huvtiesme livre de ceste cronique est du resne des treschrestiens rovs de france" The latest of the seven lists under consideration is the one provided by the author of the untitled universal chronicle known to survive only in B.N., fr. 5709 (fols. l-79v). The chronicle was written during the reign of Louis XII, in 1504. It is divided into eight books, the last of which (fols. 71-79v) is devoted to the history of "the Most

Christian Kings o f France". 16 u is herein that one finds a numbered list of those monarchs. The book begins with nine fairly long chapters, the first on the Trojan origins and the others on the first eight kings of France, about whose reigns the author provided a good deal of information. However, the nature of the book changed after the ninth chapter. After having provided information on the reigns of the first eight monarchs, the author proceeded, with rare exceptions, simply to list the remaining forty-nine kings that he enumerated, along with their numbers in the order of succession. The tenth chapter, for example.

IGpor a full treatment of the universal chronicle in question, see section (W) of Chapter II, "The Sources", of which this paragraph is a summary. 421 said nothing other than that "Chlotar the second of this name was the ninth king of France". ‘ ^ Table 8 represents the fifty-seven monarchs from Pharamond to Louis XII enumerated by the author of this universal chronicle. He included ten kings about whom the authors of the seven lists under consideration were not unanimous, one of whom, for reasons that will be explained later, he named twice (Theuderic 111), and two of whom (a legendary "Louis de nulle mémoire" between Carloman and Charles the Simple, and the very real Charles of Lorraine) were included in none of the other six lists.

• ^With regard to the first eight kings, the author noted that Pharamond instituted the Salic Law; that Clodion conquered the Thuringians, Tournai, Cambrai, and, according to some, Burgundy, Toulouse, Angouleme, and Aquitaine; that Merovech's descendants ruled until the time of Pepin; that Childeric I was exiled for eight years on account of his vice; that Clovis converted to Christianity, was the recipient of the holy ampulla, the lilies, and the oriflamme, founded Sainte-Genevieve, and defeated Alaric; that Childebert I and Chlotar I won military victories; and that Chilperic I was murdered by his wife's lover. However, for the remaining monarchs in his list, he chose to include information above and beyond the name of the king and his number in the order of succession in only nineteen cases. While eighteen of these additional notes consist of very brief genealogical or chronological indications or historical remarks, one stands out by its length and by its originality. Namely, whereas all of the other chapters after the first eight Merovingians occupy between one and six Unes in the manuscript, the chapter on Robert the Pious occupies nineteen, and concludes by stating that "II est repute au nombre des sainctz" (B.N., fr. 5709, fol. 77v). While late- medieval historians of France generally held Robert 11 in high regard, this assertion of his sainthood is extremely unusual. 1 know of only one other late- medieval chronicle that suggested it, and that in a far more reserved manner: "11 fut tresbon catolique et en aucuns lieux est repute saint" (B.N., lat. 5195, fol. llv ). 422 Table 8: The Kings of France according to the eighth book of the universal chronicle contained in B.N., fr. 5709

1) Pharamond 21) Pepin 35 Hugh Capet 2) Clodion 22) Charlemagne 36 Robert 11 3) Merovech 23) Louis the Pious 37 Henry I 4) Childeric I 24) Charles the Bald 38 Philip I S) Clovis 25) Louis II 39 Louis VI 6) Childebert I® 26) Louis III 40 Louis VII 7) Chlotar I 27) Carloman 41 Philip 11 8) Chilperic 1 28) Louise 42 Louis VIII 9) Chlotar 11 29) Charles the Simple 43 Louis IX 10) Dagobert I 30) Raoul 44 Philip Hid 11) Clovis 11 31) Louis IV 45 Philip IV 12) Chlotar 111 32) Lothaire 46 Louis Xe 13) Theuderic III 33) Louis V 47 lohn I 14) Childeric II 34) Charles of Lorraine 48 Philip V 15) Theuderic 111^ 49 Charles IV 16) Clovis IV 50 Philip VI 17) Childebert III 51 John 11 18) Dagobert III 52 Charles V 19) Chilneric II 53 Charles VI 20) Theuderic IV 54 Charles Vll 55 Louis X 56 Charles Vlll 57 Louis Xll

^ I have oorrccled an error by the copyist who, after havint; written that Clovis was the fifth kinit, went on to write that Childebert I was the fifth, Chlotar I the sixth, and Chilperic I the seventh, before catching his mistake and writing that Chlotar II was the ninth. Theuderic 111 had in fact acceded to the Neustrian throne upon the death of his brother Chlotar III in 673, only to be deposed by his other brother, Childeric II, and subsequently restored after the assassination of the latter in 675. It was on this basis that the author counted him twice. ‘ The "louis de nulle mémoire" whom the author counted as the twenty-eighth Trench king was not an historical figure and, for the sake of clarity, I have not placed a number after his name. While the author did not include Philip, the son of louis VI, in his iist, and while he referred to Philip Augustus as "Philip il", the manuscript nevertheless lists Philip the Bold as "Philip IV" and Philip the Fair as "Philip V". For the sake of clarity, I have used the traditional numbering in the above table. It was clearly by a copying error that louis X did not figure in the list as it exists in the manuscript. The text named Philip the i air as the forty-fifth king and John I as the forty-seventh, which indicates that the intention of the author was to count iouis X as the forty-sixth, as I have in the tabic above. 423 Conclusion The seven texts presented above amply illustrate the diversity that characterized late-medieval lists of the French monarchs. Simply put, their authors did not list the same kings. No two of the lists under consideration were identical. Two of them named the same Merovingians, but not the same Carolingians or Capetians. Two of them listed the same Carolingians, but not the same Merovingians or Capetians. Two of them enumerated the same Capetians, but not the same Merovingians or Carolingians. Three of them gave a different list of the Capetians, but no two of the three named the same Merovingians or Carolingians. Two of them provided yet a third list of the Capetians, but likewise counted neither the same Merovingians nor Carolingians. The seven lists varied considerably in length for the period for which they were comparable. The shortest enumerated forty-four kings from Pharamond to Charles VI. Another gave Charles VI as the forty-ninth French monarch. Another had him as the fifty-first king, and two others asserted that he was the fifty-eighth. The longest considered him to have been the sixtieth king of France. Each of the seven lists included kings excluded from one or more of the others. "Les noms" included two monarchs who did not figure in each of the seven lists.is "S'ensuit les noms" included seven kings about whose inclusion the authors of the lists under

■SNamely, Theuderic III and Childeric III. 424 consideration were notu n a n im o u sJ 9 "Cy aprez fait mencion"

included nine such m o n a r c h s.20 The universal chronicle included ten.zi Both the Pit des Rovs^z and "Ce sont les noms fondée"23 included sixteen. Eighteen kings about whose inclusion the authors of the lists under scrutiny were not unanimous figured in "Ce sont les noms gaule".24 Thus, of the seventy-one monarchs from Pharamond to Charles VI collectively named by the seven lists, twenty-nine figured in one or more, but not all, of the lists under consideration.25

•^Namely, Childebert I, Childeric II, Theuderic 111, Chlotar IV, Chilperic II, Childeric III, and Philip, son of Louis VI.

20Namely, Gilles, Childeric II, Chilperic II, Childeric III, Carloman the son of Louis II, Eudes, Robert I, Raoul, and Philip, son of Louis VI.

2lNamely, Childebert I, Theuderic III, Childeric II, Chilperic II, Louis III, Carloman the son of Louis II, "Louis de nulle mémoire", Raoul, Charles of Lorraine, and John I,

22Namely, Chlodomer, Childebert 1, Guntram, Sigibert 1, Charibert, Childeric II, Theuderic III, Chlotar IV, Chilperic II, Childeric III, Charles Martel, Louis III, Carloman the son of Louis 11, Eudes, Raoul, and John 1.

23Namely, Chlodomer, Childebert 1, Guntram, Sigibert I, Charibert, Childeric II, Theuderic III, Chlotar IV, Chilperic II, Childeric III, Carloman the son of Louis II, Louis III, Charles the Fat, Eudes, Raoul, and Philip, the son of Louis VI.

2%amely, Theuderic I, Theudebert I, Theudebald, Chlodomer, Childebert 1, Charibert, Sigibert I, Guntram, Childebert II, Theuderic II, Sigibert III, Childeric II, Theuderic III, Chlotar IV, Chilperic II, Childeric III, Carloman the son of Pepin, and Raoul.

25The comparison of the seven previous notes indicates that the following twenty-nine monarchs figured in one or more, but not in all, of the seven lists under consideration: Gilles, Theuderic I, Theudebert I, Theudebald, Chlodomer, Childebert I, Charibert, Sigibert I, Guntram, Childebert II, Theuderic II, Sigibert III, Childeric II, Theuderic III, Chlotar IV, Chilperic II, Childeric III, Charles Martel, Carloman the son of Pepin, Louis III, Carloman the son of Louis II, "Louis de nulle mémoire", Charles the Fat, Eudes, Robert I, Raoul, Charles of Lorraine, Philip the son of Louis VI, and John I. 425 What is more, five of the lists named one or more kings who appeared in none of the other six lists. The author of "Ce sont les noms fondée" was alone in including Charles the Fat, as was the author of the Pit des Rovs in naming Charles Martel. The author of the universal chronicle was the only one to count Louis de nulle mémoire and Charles of Lorraine. Only the author of "Cy aprez fait mencion" listed Gilles and Robert I. Only the author of "Ce sont les noms gaule" counted Theuderic I, Theudebert I, Theudebald, Childebert II, Theuderic II, Sigibert III, and Charlemagne’s brother, Carloman. Thus, a total of thirteen kings appeared in only one of the seven lists under consideration. This diversity is considerable. What is more, it is not attributable solely to the fact that the authors under consideration used different sources in preparing their lists. The author of "Ce sont les noms gaule" excluded from his list four monarchs included in his s o u r c e .2 6 That source derived from the same chronicle that served as the basis for the Pit des Rovs. but the author of "Ce sont les noms gaule" included seven kings not counted in the Pit des Rovs^^ and the author of the Pit des Rovs counted five kings not included in

"Ce sont les noms g au le" .2S The author of "Ce sont les noms fondée" may have been familiar with the Pit des Rovs or with

26Namely, Louis III, Carloman the son of Louis II, Charles the Fat, and Eudes. See note 10 above.

27NameIy, Theuderic I, Theudebert I, Theudebald, Childebert II, Theuderic II, Sigibert III, and Carloman, the son of Pepin.

28NameIy, Charles Martel, Louis III, Carloman the son of Louis II, Eudes, and John I. 426 the latter's source, but he excluded two kings included by the Pit des Rovs and he included two kings excluded by the Pit des Rovs.29 The authors of "S'ensuit les noms" and "Les noms" were in all likelihood both familiar with the Rosier des Guerres, and the author of "Les noms" probably was familiar with "S'ensuit les noms", yet the author of "Les noms" excluded five monarchs who had been included by the author of "S'ensuit les noms".30 In sum, the full explanation of the diversity that characterized late-medieval lists of the French kings is not to be found through source criticism. It is, rather, to be found through a careful analysis of the ideas upon which late-medieval historians based their lists. As I noted at the outset, to list the French kings was not merely to ascertain the facts of the histoiy of the French monarchy and to summarize those facts in the form of a list. It was also to interpret those facts in the light of contemporary royal ideology and in the light of contemporary events which raised political questions about the nature of the French monarchy. To list the kings of France was necessarily to voice an opinion on important aspects of the nature of French kingship. In short, given that a list of the French kings was a political statement and that the inclusion or exclusion of a name from such a list was a political act, one may explain differences in lists of the

^^Respectively, Charles Martel and John 1; and Charles the Fat and Philip, son of Louis VI.

3*^Namely, Childebert I, Childeric n, Chlotar IV, Chilperic II, and Philip, son of Louis VL 427 French kings by differences of opinion as to what made a king of France. To do so will be the purpose of the next chapter. CHAPTER VII LISTS OF THE FRENCH KINGS, II

Introduction The previous chapter illustrated that there was no canon of the French kings in the late-fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. By analyzing the seven king-lists on a comparative basis, this chapter will explain the historical reasons for their diversity. For the sake of convenience, I shall divide the discussion into three sections, by dynasty.

The Merovingians Only two of the seven historians under consideration agreed on the number and identity of the kings who reigned in France between the accession of Pharamond and the deposition of Childeric III. The lowest enumeration was given by the author of "Les noms", who listed seventeen Merovingian monarchs. The highest was provided by the author of "Ce sont les noms gaule", who named thirty-one kings. The others fell somewhere in between: one enumerated nineteen, one listed twenty, one named twenty-one, and two provided the same list of twenty-five monarchs.

428 429 Collectively, the authors under scrutiny named a total of thirty- two Merovingian kings. Fifteen of those thirty-two figured in all seven lists, ^ but seventeen did not. Seven were included in only one list.2 Four were included only in three lists.3 One was named in four lists and one was named in five lists.4 Four were included in all but one of the seven lists under consideration.^ The striking dissimilarities in the number of Merovingian kings demand explanation, but that explanation is not to be found in the ignorance or carelessness of their authors. While it is true that even today many of the Merovingian monarchs remain obscure figures and that certain aspects of the Merovingian chronology and genealogy remain uncertain, the authors of the lists in question did not agree with the historian writing late in the reign of Charles VII who voiced the opinion that, after Childeric I, "in all these Merovingian kings there were only three who were notable," namely.

1 Namely, Pharamond, Clodion, Merovech, Childeric I, Clovis, Chlotar 1, Chilperic 1, Chlotar 11, Dagobert 1, Clovis n, Chlotar III, Clovis IV, Childebert 111, Dagobert 111, and Theuderic IV.

^Gilles was included only by the author of "Cy aprez fait mencion", and Theuderic I, Theudebert 1, Theudebald, Childebert II, Theuderic 11, and Sigibert 111 were included only by the author of "Ce sont les noms gaule".

^Chlodomer, Charibert, Guntram, and Sigibert 1 were included by the authors of the Dit des Rovs. "Ce sont les noms fondée", and "Ce sont les noms gaule".

^Chlotar IV was included by the authors of the Dit des Rovs. "Ce sont les noms fondée", "Ce sont les noms gaule", and "Sensuit les noms". Childebert 1 was included by those four authors and by the author of the universal chronicle.

^Childeric II and Chilperic II figured in all of the lists except "Les noms". Theuderic III figured in all except "Cy aprez fait mencion". Childeric III figured in all except the universal chronicle. 430 Clovis, Chilperic 1, and Dagobert 1.6 Quite to the contrary, they devoted a good deal of attention to the representatives of France's first royal dynasty. On average, the lengths of the chapters on the Merovingian Wngs in "Cy aprez fait mencion" did not differ appreciably from the lengths of the chapters devoted to Carolingian or Capetian monarchs.^ What is more, its author provided information beyond the length of the king's reign for all of the nineteen Merovingians he listed. He paid special attention to their genealogy, giving the filiation of all but two of the included Merovingians, Chilperic II and Childeric 111. He also provided historical notes on the reigns of sixteen of them, all except Chlotar III, Childebert III, and Theuderic IV. The author of the Dit des Rovs also devoted considerable attention to the Merovingians, both collectively and individually. Nearly half of his verses devoted to the French kings from Pharamond to Charles VI dealt with the Merovingians. On average, he dealt with those kings, about the reigns of roughly half of whom he provided historical information, at slightly greater length than the

6 b.N., n.a. fr. 4811, fol. 3: "Adoncques es tous ces roys merouvingiens il y en eust trois tant seulement qui feurent nostables ". The author, whose unwillingness to deal with the Merovingians was completely untypical of late- medieval historians of France, discussed only eight of them. After having made mention of the first four kings of France and having discussed the reigns of the three "notable" Merovingians - Clovis, Chilperic 1, and Dagobert 1 - as well as that of Childeric 111, he went on to provide complete lists of the Carolingians and Capetians.

^In B.N., fr. 4948, the average length of the chapters on the Merovingian monarchs is 2.0 lines. The chapters on the Carolingians average 2.3 lines, and those on the Capetians average 2.8 lines. 431 Carolingian or Capetianmonarchs.® Childeric 1 was the monarch with whom he dealt at the greatest length, and he devoted more space to Clovis II than to any of the Carolingians other than Charlemagne and Charles the Bald, more to Childebert I than to Hugh Capet, Philip the Fair, or Philip of Valois, and as much to Dagobert 111 and to Chlotar IV as to Robert the Pious, Louis VIII, and John the Good. The author of "Ce sont les noms fondée" devoted, on average, less space to the Merovingian kings than to those of the other two dynasties.9 But it is the case that he wrote, to give only a few striking examples, more on Theuderic IV than on each of eleven of the Carolingians, more on Chilperic II than on each of eleven of the Capetians, as much on Childeric II as on Hugh Capet (4 lines each), and as much on the rather obscure Childebert 111 as on Robert the Pious, Louis VI, or Louis Vlll (7 lines each). He provided his readers with the names of the wives of fourteen of the twenty-five Merovingians he enumerated, and he included historical information

®In B.N., fr. 1707, the Pit des Rovs occupies 422 lines, of which 361 enumerate the French kings from Pharamond to Charles VI. Of those 361 lines, 169 (47%) are devoted to the 25 Merovingians (44% of all the French monarchs) listed by the author, while 78 are devoted to the 14 Carolingians and 114 are devoted to the 18 Capetians [the author intended to include 19, but the copyist omitted the entry for Charles IV]. The average length of the entries for the Merovingians is 6.8 lines, as opposed to 5.6 for the Carolingians, 6.3 for the Capetians, and 6.3 for all monarchs combined.

^In B.N., fr. 1623, 135 lines of text are devoted to the 25 Merovingians included by the author of "Ce sont les noms fondée", while 91 lines are devoted to the 14 Carolingians and 165 are devoted to the 19 Capetians. The average entry for the Merovingians occupies 5.4 lines in the manuscript, while the corresponding figures for the Carolingian entries, the Capetian entries, and all 58 entries taken together are, respectively, 6.5, 8.9, and 6.7 lines. 432 beyond the lengths of their reigns for all but one of them (Chlotar IV). The author of "S'ensuit les noms", like the authors of "Ce sont les noms gaule" and "Les noms", presented the Merovingian kings in the same format as the Carolingians and Capetians and, if anything, his marked concern with genealogy caused him to work especially hard on the representatives of the first dynasty: "brother of Theuderic [III] and brother of Clovis [IV] and of Childeric [II], uncle of Dagobert [111]", he inscribed in his entry on Chlotar IV, thus providing evidence both of his desire to master the Merovingian genealogy and of his failure to do so.io The author of the universal chronicle wrote sizeable chapters only on nine monarchs, eight of whom were Merovingians. In sum, the authors of the seven lists under consideration were well-informed about, and even interested in, the Merovingian kings. Given their willingness to dive into their murky genealogy and chronology, to note the accomplishments not only of well-known figures such as Clovis and Dagobert I, but also of such lesser lights as Dagobert 111 and Theuderic IV, even, in the case of the author of "Ce sont les noms fondée", to search out the names of their wives, one has every reason to expect that the diversity that characterized their lists resulted not from carelessness or ignorance, but, rather, from conscious choices in the face of difficult problems. The differences

fr. 1965, fol. 129: "Clotaire Illle frere theodorich et frere clevis et de childerich oncle dagobert ". Chlotar IV was in fact the brother of Clovis IV and the uncle of Dagobert III, but was the nephew, not the brother, of Theuderic III. 433 in their lists reflect the fact that they resolved those problems differently.

The Reign of Gilles The first decision they faced was whether to include as king Gilles, the Roman who was reported to have been elected by the barons to rule the kingdom during the forced exile of Clovis's father, Childeric I. Gilles' nationality, his replacement of the legitimate king, and his election, made his reign a sensitive matter in late-medieval French historiography. The kingdom of France was supposed to be exempt from imperial authority, yet a Roman had acceded to the French throne. Harmony was supposed to have characterized relations between the kings of France and their subjects throughout history, yet Gilles had ruled during the forced exile of Childeric. The monarchy was supposed to be hereditary^ yet Gilles had been elected by the barons. These fifth-centuiy facts did not fit well a thousand years later into the dominant view of the French monarchy. What is more, historians who wrote during and after the reign of Charles VII may well have glimpsed a parallel between Gilles and Henry VI of England. If a foreigner who had held effective authority in France during the lifetime of Childeric was to be included in a list of French kings, then perhaps Henry VI ought also to be. For these reasons, the reign of Gilles posed problems for late- medieval historians of France. Many of them passed it over in complete silence. Those who mentioned it presented Gilles's 434 nationality, his position during the exile of Childeric, and the means by which he had acquired it, in significantly different ways.^ ' The authors of the seven lists were no exception, for they reached different conclusions about Gilles, for different reasons. Only one of them included Gilles in his list of the kings of France. Whereas most late-medieval historians who mentioned Gilles did so within their chapters on Childeric, the author of "Cy aprez fait mencion" devoted a separate chapter to Gilles and stated that "Gilles, who was Roman, was king as long as Childeric was driven out [of the

kingdom]." ^2 while he said nothing about the means by which Gilles had come to power, he would appear to have considered them to be secondary to the fact that he had effectively exercised royal authority. In the absence of Childeric, Gilles, quite simply, "was king". The mere fact of his having exercised that authority was not, however, enough to merit Gilles's inclusion in the eyes of the author of the universal chronicle. In his chapter on Childeric, he wrote that Clovis's father " was exiled, and a Roman king named Gilles was constituted, who reigned eight years, but was expelled, and Childeric [was] returned to his original condition." 13 However, he did

^ ipor a detailed discussion of the exile of Childeric and the reign of Gilles in late-medieval French historiography, see Chapter 111, "Clovis the Bastard".

^ 2b.N., fr. 4940, fol. 123v: "Gilles qui estoit rommain fu roy tant comme chilperic isicl fu chacie hors." The chapters on Gilles and Clovis having been conflated by the copyist of B.N., fr. 4948,1 have cited fr. 4940, wherein the full chapter on Gilles is given thus,

^^B.N., fr. 5709, fol. 73: "Childeric fut exille et fut constitue ung roy romain nomme giles, lequel régna huyt ans mays fut expelle et childeric retourne en son premier estât.... 435 not include Gilles in his enumeration of the kings of France, according to which Childeric was the fourth monarch and Clovis was the fifth. His information on Gilles was the same as the facts known to the author of "Cy aprez fait mencion", but, whereas the latter included Gilles because he "was king", the author of the universal chronicle excluded him despite the fact that he had "reigned". Gilles's effective exercise of royal authority was, therefore, a basis insufficient to warrant his inclusion. Despite his temporary absence, Childeric was the legitimate monarch, and it was on this basis that the author of the chronicle decided not to assign Gilles a number in the order of succession. A slightly different line of reasoning probably stood behind the exclusion of Gilles by the authors of the Dit des Rovs and "Ce sont les noms gaule". In his long account of the reign of Childeric 1, the author of the Dit des Rovs simply referred to Gilles as "he who held the place of the king who was driven out [of thek in g d o m ] ." ^4 "Ce sont les noms gaule" was based on the chronicle of the French kings that accompanied it in B.N., lat. 5027. In its chapter on Childeric, that chronicle stated that during his exile, "Gilles, duke of the Romans, was named for h im " .is in both cases, the authors took care not to call Gilles "king" or to state that he had "reigned", and this, 1 think,

14b,N., fr. 1707, fol. 31v: " cellui qui le lieu tenoit/Du roy qui chasse en estoit."

ISb.N., lat. 5027, fol. 67v: " il [Childeric] fu débouté du royaume par IX ans et fut ordonne pour lui giùez duc des rommains.... 436 indicates that their thought about Gilles differed slightly from the judgment of the author of the universal chronicle. For the author of the universal chronicle, the existence of one king (Childeric) did not preclude the existence of another (Gilles) who, if he was not to be included in a list of monarchs because he was not the legitimate king, nevertheless merited the royal title because of his effective exercise of royal authority. For the authors of the Pit des Rovs and "Ce sont les noms gaule", the legitimacy of Childeric meant not only that Gilles ought not to be included in a list of monarchs, but also that he could not really have been king in his own right: he had held Childeric's place, but that did not make him king of France. In sum, if the laconism of the other three lists under consideration makes it difficult to know precisely on what bases their authors excluded G ille s , what is clear is that the four authors in question judged him rather differently. One included him in his list on the basis of his effective reign. One recognized his effective reign but did not include him in his list. Two opted neither to

' •^Inasmuch as the author of "Les noms" may have used "S’ensuit les noms", whose author probably used the Rosier des Guerres as one of lois sources, it is likely that their reasoning about Gilles was the same as that of the authors of the Pit des Rovs and "Ce sont les noms gaule". The Rosier did not call Gilles "king", simply stated that he had been "established in his [Childeric's] place", and implied that Childeric was king even during his exile: " Childeric fut chasse hors du roiaume et les francois en son lieu establirent ung duc romain nomme gilles lequel gilles ilz chassèrent depuis et retourna leur dit rov Childeric " (B.N., fr. 1965, fol. 43v). As for the author of "Ce sont les noms fondée", his account of the reign of Childeric (B.N., fr. 1623, fol. 89v) made no mention of his exile or of Gilles, simply noting the length of Childeric's reign, the name of his wife, and his supposed construction of a castle in Paris. 437 recognize his effective reign nor to include him in their enumerations of the French kings.

The Sons of Clovis If the absence of a king was the problem that confronted the authors of the seven lists for the reign of Childeric, a superfluity of monarchs was the problem they faced after the death of Clovis. The kingdom of the Franks had been divided among Clovis's four sons, Theuderic 1 (511-524), Chlotar 1 (511-560/1), Childebert I (511- 558), and Chlodomer (511-524), and authors of lists of the French kings had to decide which of them to include in their works. As a comparison of the tables that represent the seven lists in question will indicate, they reached rather different conclusions. The one (and only) thing on which they agreed was the inclusion of the longest-lived of Clovis's sons, Chlotar 1, under whom the monarchy had eventually been reunified, and whose heirs had followed him on the throne. Indeed, the authors of "Cy aprez fait mencion" and "Les noms" included only him. Neither gave an explanation or mentioned the other sons of Clovis, but it is possible that they shared the opinion of Bernard Gui and those who based their own chronicles of the French kings on his works. Gui had held that Clovis was the fifth king in the direct line, that all of his sons had been kings, but that Chlotar was to be designated the sixth king in the direct line because it was by him, and not by his brothers, that the royal line had been continued. However, whatever their

lat. 14663, fol. 15: "Le Vie roy doncques en ladicte ügne fust clotaire, lequel tint sa court a soissons, et par luy est acoustumee la generacion, et non 438 opinion, what is clear is that the other authors under scrutiny did not share it, since two of them also named Childebert 1, two also named Childebert I and Chlodomer, and one named all four of Clovis's sons. It is difficult to say why the authors of the universal chronicle and "S'ensuit les noms" named only Childebert in addition to Chlotar. The fact that Paris had been the capital of Childebert's kingdom probably played into their decisions, for the Grandes Chroniques, even as they recognized that all four of Clovis's sons were kings, had explained that "we only place among the number of the kings of

France those who were kings of the seat ofP a r is" .is The author of the universal chronicle noted that Clovis had four sons, but assigned numbers in the order of succession only to Childebert and Chlotar. He wrote that "He [Childebert] died without descendance but his brother Chlotar was the survivor, and after the death of the three [Theuderic, Childebert, and Chlodomer] he had the

mie par ses freres qui mourerent sans enfans." Likewise, the author of the "Genealogie des Roys de France" contained in B.N., n.a. fr. 4209, noted (fol. Iv) in his chapter on Clovis that "De luy yssi clotaire [sic. This in an error for Chlodomer, who reigned at Orleans] roy dorleans, theodorich roy de mes, childerbert roy a paris et saint germain evesque de paris [sic]", and then devoted a separate chapter, and a number in the order of succession, only to "Clotaire son filz VI.e roy et premier de son nom". On these two chronicles, both of which adopted the numérotation system of Bernard Gui, see sections (C) and (O) of Chapter II, "The Sources".

iSviard (ed.), GCF 1, 95: "Li forz rois Clodovees out 1111 fiuz de la bone roine Crotilde, Theoderic, Clodomire, Childebert et Clothaire. Tuit ci quatre furent roi et deviserent le roiaume en IIII parties, Theodoris fist le siege de son roiaume a Mez, Clodomires a Orliens, Clothaires a Soisons, et Childeberz a Paris ausi corn h peres. Et jasoit ce que en France ait eu pluseurs rois en divers sieges et en diverses parties dou roiaume, nous ne metons ou nombre des rois de France fors cens tant seulement qui furent roi dou siege de Paris." 439 kingdom as Clovis had had,"i9 which indicates that, in his mind, and in opposition to those who adopted the system of Bernard Gui and possibly to the authors of the two lists under consideration that named only Chlotar, one could not exclude Childebert, who had reigned at Paris, simply because he had left no sons. The author of "S'ensuit les noms" simply noted that Childebert

"reigned with his brother Chlotar forty-five y e a r s ." 20 i f the author of "Les noms" did indeed use "S'ensuit les noms" as one of his sources, then he knowingly rejected this assertion, since Childebert was one of the five kings included in the latter list but not in the former. The authors of the Pit des Rovs and "Ce sont les noms fondée" provided no indication of the division of the kingdom and included all of Clovis's sons except Theuderic I, and the author of "Ce sont les noms gaule" counted all four of them in his enumeration. The chronicle on which the latter based his work described the partition of Clovis's kingdom and included separate chapters on each of his sons. The author of the list, following the order of the chapters in the chronicle and clearly in disagreement with those who counted only those monarchs who had reigned at Paris, designated "Theuderic king of Metz", "Chlodomer king of Orleans", and "Childebert king of Paris" as the sixth, ninth, and tenth kings of France before reaching Chlotar "of Soissons", the eleventh king, who "held after [the death of his

fr. 5709, fol. 74: "II morut sans lignee mais son frere clotaire fut le survivant, et après la mort des troys eut le royaume comme avoit eu Clovis."

20b.N., fr. 1965, fol. 128: "Childerich Fsicl régna avec son frere clotaire quarante cinq ans ". 440 brothers] the monarchy of the said kingdom of France alla l o n e " .21 He also included, once again following the chronicle, the son and grandson of Theuderic 1, Theudebert 1 (534-548) and Theudebald (548-555), whom he counted, after Theuderic and before Chlodomer, as France's seventh and eighth kings. In sum, the authors of the seven lists in question counted anywhere from zero to five kings between Clovis and Chlotar I. The solution authorized by the Grandes Chronia ues was to call all four of Clovis's sons as well as Theudebert I and Theudebald "kings", but to recognize only those who had ruled in Paris, that is, Childebert I and after him Chlotar 1, as "kings of France": "Those who read this history must not understand that all the kings that we name here were kings of France, except only those who held the seat of their kingdom in the city of Paris," wroteP r im a t.22 However, only two of the seven authors under consideration appear to have adopted that view. The solution authorized by Bernard Gui was to name only Chlotar I in the direct line of kings since it was by him that the royal line was continued, but only two of the seven did so. Both of these systems had considerable drawbacks of which late-medieval historians were doubtless aware. Gui's system, were it to be applied consistently, would necessitate the conclusion that the last three Capetians, and

21B.N., lat. 5027, fol. 109v, following the order of the chapters in the chronicle contained in the same manuscript, fol. 68.

22yiard (ed.), GCF I, 166: "Gil qui ceste estoire lisent ne doivent pas entendre que tuit h roi que nous nomons ci fussent roi de France, fors cil seulement qui tenoient le siege de leur roiaume en la cite de Paris ". This passage follows the death of Theudebald in the narrative. 441 later Charles Vlll, all of whom left no sons, were not to be included in the direct line of kings.23 The solution of the Grandes Chroniques. were it to be applied consistently, could result in the unpleasant conclusion that Charles VII had not been king of France between 1422 and 1436, when the seat of his kingdom had not been English- occupied Paris. Neither system, nor any other, was dominant in the later Middle Ages. While such issues as by whom the royal line was continued and who had ruled in Paris probably entered into the calculations of the authors of the seven lists, the fundamental issue that underpinned the diversity of their conclusions was a broader one, namely, the extent to which they were willing to admit that the kingdom was divisible. In the later Middle Ages, it was generally believed that the kingdom devolved upon the defunct monarch's closest legitimate male heir in its insoluble and inalienable entirety. Indeed, after 1420 the proponents of Charles VII even argued that this principle was so fundamental that Charles VI had not been free to arrange the succession as he pleased.24 How, then, could Clovis's kingdom have

23indeed, Bernard Gui himself did not apply it consistently, for he included in his enumeration of kings in the direct line not only Louis X, Philip V, and Charles IV, but also Carloman, the son of Louis II, and Louis V, by none of whom the royal line was continued.

24Nicole Pons, "La propagande de guerre française avant l'apparition de Jeanne d'Arc," Tournai des Savants. April-June 1982,197-198, explained how, especially after the promulgation of the Treaty of Troyes in 1420, the theme of the inalienability of the sovereignty attached to the French crown gave way the theme of the inalienability of the crown and the kingdom themselves, and cited, as two examples, the Contra rebelles suorum regum of Jean de Terre- Vermeille ( 1419) and the Traite comnendieux of Jean Juvenal des Ursins ( 1444). According to the former, the king had less rights than the heir to an ordinary patrimony, for the latter could dispose of his goods as he pleased whereas the former could not. Likewise, the latter argued that the king, being bound by 442 been divided among his four sons, and how could more than one of them have been king simultaneously? In a number of small but significant ways, the texts under consideration reveal that late- medieval royal ideology affected their authors' presentations of early Merovingian reality. If two authors obscured the partition completely by naming only Chlotar 1, three others also obscured it despite the fact that they named additional kings. The author of "S'ensuit les noms " wrote that Childebert 1 "reigned with his brother Chlotar forty-five years", and then went on to state that Chlotar I "reigned with Childebert his brother forty-five years, and after Childebert his brother, five years" ,25 thus leaving the impression not that they had ruled separate kingdoms but that, together, they had ruled a unified one. The author of the Pit des Rovs. by noting neither the filiation nor the locations of the capitals of the three of Clovis's sons whom he enumerated, provided no indication of the partition or of their simultaneous reigns, and the author of "Ce sont les noms fondée" did the same. The author of the universal chronicle did admit the partition (Chlotar eventually "had the kingdom as Clovis had had it"), but still included only Childebert and Chlotar in his enumeration. Only the author of "Ce sont les noms gaule", by indicating that Theuderic, Chlodomer, Childebert, and Chlotar were all sons of Clovis, the laws of hereditary succession, enjoyed only the use of the kingdom, which he was obliged to transmit in its entirety to his legitimate heir.

25b.N., fr. 1965, fol. 128: Childebert I "regna avec son frere clotaire quarante cinq ans"; Chlotar I "regna avec childerich fsicl son frere IV fsicl ans Et depuis childerich son frere .V. ans". 443 including all of them in his enumeration, naming the seats of their kingdoms, and stating that the monarchy was eventually reunited under Chlotar, fully exposed the facts in their entirety. Clovis's realm had in fact been partitioned, and while some late-medieval historians were prepared to accept what had been a normal and accepted practice in the sixth century, others were less willing to admit the sixth-century reality of what had become unthinkable by the fifteenth century.

The Sons of Chlotar 1 Whatever their exact lines of reasoning, the authors under consideration adhered to them with a good deal of consistency in dealing with subsequent Merovingian partitions of the kingdom, which had been united under Chlotar I only to be divided among his four sons, Charibert (561-567), Guntram (561-593), Sigibert I (561- 575), and Chilperic 1 (561-584). The authors of "Les noms" and "Cy aprez fait mencion", who had included only Chlotar 1, likewise included only Chilperic I, under whom many late-medieval historians erroneously believed the kingdom to have been unified, from whom the subsequent kings had descended, and who was the only of Chlotar's sons named by all seven of the authors under consideration. The author of "Cy aprez fait mencion" did note the partition by writing in his chapter on Chlotar I that he "left four sons who divided the kingdom amongst themselves, that is, Chilperic held his seat at Soissons, Charibert at 444 Paris, Guntram at Orléans, and Sigibert at M e tz ," 26 but went on to include a separate chapter only on Chilperic. The author of the universal chronicle did the same for, once again recognizing the partition and once again opting not to include all of its beneficiaries in his enumeration, he noted that Chilperic "remained sole king" after the death of his three brothers and

included only him in his lis t .27 Similarly, the author of "S'ensuit les noms", who had included Childebert I and Chlotar 1 but had presented them as co-rulers of a unified kingdom, continued to obscure the fact of partition by naming only Chilperic. The authors of the Pit des Rovs and "Ce sont les noms fondée", who had named three of Clovis's sons, named all four of Chlotar's, but again in ways that obscured the partition and the fact of their simultaneous reigns. The former noted neither the filiation of the four nor the sites of their capitals. The latter did state, somewhat cryptically, that Guntram was "born of Orleans", Sigibert "born of Reims", and Charibert "born of Paris", but because his work said nothing explicit about the partition and indicated neither their filiation nor the simultaneity of their reigns, it presented them as successive kings of F ra n c e .2 8

26 b.N., fr. 4948, fol. 96: "Clotaire lessa 1111. filz qui deviserent le royaume entreulx cest assavoir chilperic tint son siege a soissons. Karibert a paris. Contran a Orleans et sigilbert a mes."

27 b.N., fr. 5709, fol. 74v. The author noted that Chlotar I, the seventh king of France, "laissa successeurs quatre enfans" and that Chilperic I, the eighth king of France, "demeura seul roy" after the death of his three brothers.

28b.N., fr. 1623, fol. 90: "Le .IX.e roy de france ot nom gontrans et fut nez dorliens Le X.e roy de france ot nom childebert Fsic: the monarch in 445 Finally, the author of "Ce sont les noms gaule", who had recognized the full facts of the partition of 511, did likewise for that of 561. Following the order of the chapters in the chronicle on which he based his work, he listed "Chilperic king of Soissons", "Charibert king of Paris", "Sigibert king of Metz" and "Guntram king of Orleans", all of whom he identified as sons of Chlotar 1, as the twelfth through fifteenth monarchs.29 Alone among the authors under consideration, he also listed Childebert II (575-595), the son of Sigibert 1 who had ruled the kingdom of his father and that of his uncle Guntram, and Childebert's son Theuderic II (596-613), who had done likewise. He again manifested his willingness to admit the divisibility of the kingdom by identifying the former as "king of Metz" and the latter as "king of Orleans".30 While it is likely that some of the other authors under scrutiny were simply ignorant of the historical existence of Childebert II and Theuderic II, it is also likely that at least one of them opted deliberately not to include them. The author of "Cy aprez fait mencion", after having noted the partition of 561, included a separate chapter only on Chilperic I, in which he noted that Chilperic's capital was at Soissons. In his subsequent chapter, on question, whose wife is identified as Brunechildis, is Sigibert I] et fut nez de Reins Le .Xl.e roy de france ot nom charembers et fut nez de paris.....

29b.N., lat. 5027, fol. 109v, following the order of the chapters in the chronicle that precedes "Ce sont les noms gaule" in the manuscript, fols. 68v-69.

^%.N., lat. 5027, fol. 109v, following the order of the chapters in the chronicle that precedes the list in the manuscript, fol. 69. 446 Chlotar II, he wrote that "Chlotar his son [reigned] forty-four years and he held the whole kingdom entirely".3i Thus, unlike the author of the universal chronicle and many other late-medieval historians of France, he knew the kingdom to have been reunited not by Chilperic I, but by his son, Chlotar II. The elements signalled above therefore suggest that he knew that other individuals had ruled parts of France not only during Chilperic's lifetime, but also in the interval between his death and the unification of the kingdom by Chlotar, and that he decided not to include them in his list. The Merovingian realm had in fact been reunited under Chlotar II and his son Dagobert I, both of whom were included in all seven lists. A final division, that between the two sons of Dagobert, Sigibert III (who reigned in Austrasia from 634 to 656) and Clovis II (who reigned in Neustria and Burgundy from the death of Dagobert in 638 to 657) was recognized only by the author of "Ce sont les noms gaule". Whereas all seven authors named Clovis II, he alone included Sigibert III, recognizing the partition by describing him as

"king of M etz" .32 Neither he nor any of the others mentioned the successors of Sigibert III in Austrasia, and all of them presented a unified succession from Clovis II on, listing those who had reigned in

fr. 4948, fols. 96-96v: "Clotaire son filz XLUll. ans et tint tout le royaume entièrement ".

lat. 5027, fol. 109v, again following the order of the chapters in the chronicle that precedes the list in tlie manuscript (Dagobert, Sigibert, Clovis), fols. 69-69v. It is extremely difficult to say whether the other six authors excluded Sigibert III deliberately or through ignorance of his existence. 447 Neustria as the rulers of a united kingdom, which, by and large, they had been for the remainder of the Merovingian period.

The Sons of Clovis II The unification of the kingdom did not, however, produce unanimity in their enumerations of the remaining Merovingians. Clovis II had left three sons, and if all seven of the authors under consideration included one of them (Chlotar 111), one omitted a second (Childeric II), and a third (Theuderic III) was named twice by one author and not at all by another. In order to understand why, it will be useful to review both the facts and the variety of ways in which late-medieval historians of France presented them. Upon the death of Clovis II, his eldest son Chlotar III succeeded him and reigned in Neustria and Burgundy from 657 to 67333. Chlotar's brother, Childeric II, became king in Austrasia in 662, following a series of events between the death of Sigibert III in 656 and 662 that remain mysterious to modem scholars and with which we need not, for the present purpose, concernourselves.34 Upon the

33The following summary is based on J.M. Wallace-Hadrill, "The Long-Haired BCings," in his The Long-Haired Kings and Other Studies in Frankish History. New York 1962, 233-237; Edward Tames. The Origins of France. From Clovis to the Caoetians. 500-1000. London 1982, 147-148; and Patrick Geary, Before France and Germany. The Creation and Transformation of the Merovingian World. New York 1988,182-195.

34on the succession and the sequence of events in Austrasia between the death of Sigibert HI and the accession of Childeric II, which, in the opinion of J.M. Wallace-Hadrill, "must always remain a matter of conjecture", see Wallace- Hadrill, The Long-Haired Kings. 234-235: Tames. The Origins of France. 147; and Geary, Before France and Germany. 190-194. They need not concern us because Dagobert H, the son of Sigibert 111, who may or may not have succeeded his father in 656 only to be exiled to Ireland after an uncertain length of time, and Childebert, the son of the mayor of the Austrasian palace 448 death of Chlotar III, his brother Theuderic III was installed as king in Neustria and Burgundy by Ebroin, the mayor of the Neustrian palace. He did not, however, hold the throne very long. In 673, his brother Childeric II, at the invitation of Ebroin's enemies, invaded Neustria, had both Ebroin and Theuderic tonsured, and went on to rule a united Frankish kingdom until his assassination in 675, at which time Theuderic III was restored to the Neustrian th r o n e ^ s. The full sequence of events in 673-675, that is, the accession of Theuderic III, his deposition, the reign of Childeric II, and the restoration of Theuderic, was reported by the Grandes Chroniaues.^^

Grimoald, who may or may not have mounted the Austrasian throne for an uncertain length of time before his death in 661, were, despite their presence in the Grandes Chroniques (ed. Viard, II, 195-196), mentioned only with extreme rarity by the authors of late-medieval histories of France, including those who did mention Sigibert III: they followed, rather, the Neustrian succession.

35Subsequent events in Austrasia, on which see Wallace-Hadrill, The Long- Haired Kings. 238; James, The Origins of France. 148; and Geary, Before France and Germanv. 194-195, need not concern us for the same reason that the events of 656-662 need not: the fact that Dagobert 11, the son of Sigibert HI, had returned from his exile in Ireland and ruled in Austrasia from 676 until his own assassination in 679 was not mentioned in the Grandes Chroniques and was unknown to late-medieval historians of France. Austrasia and Neustria were eventually unified under Theuderic 111 after the victory of Pepin 11 at Tertry in 687.

^^Viard, ed., GCF 11, 200-203. After the death of Chlotar 111, "coronerent li Francois le mainz ne, qui avoit non Theoderis. Childeric, le tierz, envoierent en Austrasie pour le roiaume recevoir Ebroins, mal tres du palais, fist tant que li Francois le cuUlirent en trop grant haine pour son orguel et pour la cruauté et le roi Theoderic ausi, pour ce que il les grevoit par son conseil Ebroin tondirent en une abbaie de Borgoigne qui a non Luxovion, le roi Theoderic chacierent de France, et aucunes croniques dient que il le tondirent ausi en Tabbaie de Saint Denis. Lors mandèrent son frere Childeric, le roi d'Austrasie et le coronerent et firent roi sor iaus [after the assassination of Childeric, the French] rapelerent eu roiaume le roi Theoderi que il en avoient chacie." 449 by some late-medieval histories of the French kings,^7 and, in an abbreviated form, by one of the authors of the seven lists of French kings under consideration. The author of the universal chronicle listed Theuderic as the thirteenth French monarch, Childeric as the fourteenth, and, once again, Theuderic, "who was pulled out of the monastery to be king", as the fifteenth.38 However, other late-medieval historians of the French kings did not present the facts as they had actually occurred and as they were recorded in the Grandes Chroniques. A brief examination of the other ways in which the reigns of Theuderic 111 and Childeric II were represented in late-medieval historiography will shed light on the reasons for which none of the other six authors presently under consideration took note of the first reign of Theuderic III, why one of them omitted him from his list, and why one opted to include him, but not his brother Childeric. Some late-medieval historians were willing to acknowledge Theuderic Ill's deposition and subsequent return. Others took note of the former, but not the latter, stating that after the death of Chlotar III, "Childeric his brother reigned because Theuderic was

87por example, the version of the chronicle known by the incioit "A tous nobles" contained in B.N., fr. 4990, fols. 1-39, and B.N., n.a. fr. 7519, fols. 15-85v, which reported that, after the death of Chlotar III, " regna Thierry son frere ung an, puis fut deppose et fait moyne en labbaie de sainct denis Qpant le roy thierri fut desmis si fut mande son frere childeric qui regnoit en eustrasie. Et commanca a regner en france Apres que le roy childeric fut ainsi occis, estably fut de rechieff le roy thierry en son royaume, et commanca a regner la seconde foiz " (B.N., n.a. fr. 7519, fols. 23v-24).

38B.N.,fr. 5709, fol. 75. 450 driven off and he reigned in the place of the said Theuderic"39 and that Childeric was succeeded by Clovis IV. This was the position of the author of "Cy aprez fait mencion", who did not include a chapter on Theuderic 111 but who noted, in his chapter on Childeric, that the latter "reigned in the place of Theuderic his brother who was driven off."40 He recognized Theuderic as the legitimate successor to Chlotar 111, but perhaps did not know and in any event did not explicitly state that Theuderic had reigned prior to being driven away, appears to have been unaware of his return, and probably included Childeric and not him in his list because, to his knowledge, it was he who had in fact reigned despite the legitimacy of Theuderic.^i His exclusion of Theuderic 111 was, then, based on a misunderstanding of the actual

fr. 1233, fol. 92a-b (Noël de Fribois): "Chilperic Isicl son frere regna dix neuf ans pource que theodoric fut débouté et regna ou lieu du dit theodoric." Likewise, B.N., lat. 5195, fol. 9: "Chilperic Isicl son frere regna après lui XIX ans, en lieu de theodoric qui avoit este débouté du royaume ".

'^Og.N., fr. 4948, fol. 96v: "Childerich frere clotaire III. ans et regna en lieu de thierry son frere qui estoit débouté".

^l'The author of "Cy aprez fait mencion" probably did not know that Theuderic had reigned prior to being "driven off", if one is to judge from a comparison of the ways in which he presented Theuderic and other monarchs who had been deposed. For one thing, he included separate entries on Childeric I (who "the barons drove out but ^ter was recalled") and Gilles (who "was king as long as Childeric was driven out"). For another, he included separate entries on Chilperic 11 and Theuderic IV even as he noted, in the former, that "Charles Martel removed him from the kingdom by force and instituted Theuderic". In both cases, then, he included separate entries on all the kings that he believed actually to have exercised royal authority, regardless of their legitimacy, and one would therefore expect him to have included an entry on Theuderic III had he known that he actually had reigned either before or after he was "driven o ff. His procedure of listing as kings those whom he believed actually to have exercised royal authority, regardless of their legitimacy, is indicated not only by the two foregoing examples, but also by his treatment of Eudes, Robert I, and Raoul (to be dealt with later in this chapter). His decision to include Childeric II but not Theuderic III was, given what he believed the facts about the latter to be, another instance of this procedure. 451 sequence of events. Nevertheless, it indicates that he, like the author of the universal chronicle, was willing to admit the irregularity in the succession by including in his list a monarch (Childeric II) who, although he was not the legitimate heir, had exercised effective royal authority. Many late-medieval historians of France were, however, not so willing to accept Childeric. Some of them, apparently on the basis of their belief that Theuderic was the rightful heir to Chlotar III, simply omitted the reign of Childeric II from their w o r k s.4 2 in all likelihood, it was on this basis that the author of "Les noms" listed Theuderic III immediately after Chlotar III. On the one hand, that author inscribed his list in a manuscript wherein one could read, in the Rosier des Guerres, that after the death of Chlotar, "his brother Theuderic reigned after him, whom they later deposed; and they made him a monk; and in his place they made king of France Childeric, his younger brother, who reigned in Austrasia And [after the death of Childeric] the French took back as king his said brother Theuderic, whom they had made a m o n k ." 4 3 On the other hand, the same

42por example, the author of a history of the French kings written under Louis XII and contained in B.N., fr. 4954, omitted all mention of Childeric II despite his very probable knowledge of his existence. For one thing, his work reveals his familiarity with the Grandes Chroniques. For another, he noted, in his chapter on Theuderic III, that the kingdom of Austrasia was governed by mayors of the palace "after the death of the kings of the said country" (fol. 7), the last one of which kings late-medieval historians were aware being Childeric II.

fr. 1965, fol. 47: "Lan Vic LXVl trespassa ledit roy clotaire Et regna après lui son frere theoderic lequel après on déposa Et le fist on moyne Et ou lieu de lui firent roy de france childeric son puisne frere qui regnoit en austrasie lequel depuis fut occis Et les francois reprindrent a roy sondit frere theodoric quüz avoient fait moyne." 452 manuscript also contained a list of the French kings ("S'ensuit les noms") that named Childeric and Theuderic, in that order. The author of "Les noms" adopted neither the solution suggested by the Rosier (to name Theuderic, Childeric, and Theuderic again) nor the solution of "S'ensuit les noms". Instead, probably because he believed Theuderic, as the second of Clovis ll's three sons^^, to have been the legitimate monarch regardless of his deposition, he excluded Childeric from his list. In this solution, based on the legitimacy of Theuderic and the notion that only legitimate monarchs ought to be considered to have been kings, Theuderic 111 had only one reign. It started after the death of Chlotar 111, it continued even during the time of Childeric II, when Theuderic was still the only legitimate monarch, and it ended only with his death and the accession of his son, Clovis IV.^s

^"^Late-medieval historians all considered Chlotar III to be the eldest son of Clovis II, but disagreed about the order in which Theuderic and Childeric had been born. In the Rosier des Guerres (see the preceding note), in the Grandes Chroniques (Viard, éd., 11, 200-201: "Cil rois Clothaires morut quant il ot 1111 anz regne. Lors coronerent li Francois le mainz ne, qui avoit non Theoderis. Childeric, le tierz, envoierent en Austrasie "), and in many late-medieval chronicles of the French kings, Theuderic was the second son and Childeric the third. For those with this information at their disposal, the irregularity in the succession was therefore, in the light of their late-medieval outlook, the reign on Childeric II. On the other hand, some late-medieval historians (for example, the authors of the various versions of the chronicle known by the incipit "A tous nobles" and the author of the abbreviation of the Grandes Chroniques contained in B.N., fr. 10137) considered Childeric to have been the second son and Theuderic to have been the third. For those with strong late- medieval sensibilities about the succession and this information at their disposal, the irregularity was, rather, the first reign of Theuderic.

“^^That such was indeed the thought of the author of "Les noms" is further indicated by a second instance in which, confronted with the simultaneous existence of a monarch whom he considered to be legitimate and other individuals who had actually held effective royal power during his lifetime, he named only the former. Namely, as we shall see later in this chapter, he 453 While some late-medieval historians excluded Childeric because they believed that only the legitimate heir (Theuderic) counted as king, others, on the same basis but with the converse result, excluded the first reign of Theuderic because they believed that the legitimate heir had been Childeric. Believing Childeric 11 to have been the second son of Clovis11^6 and, therefore, the rightful successor to Chlotar111, several historians obscured the first reign of Theuderic in a rather imaginative way. After the death of Chlotar 111, "the kingdom fell to Childeric his brother who was king of Austrasia, and because he did not come soon enough, Theuderic held the kingdom for one year before Childeric," to whom he then handed it oven Theuderic 111 had not reigned during his first "reign", for he was not the legitimate heir, the kingdom having escheated to Childeric after the death of Chlotar.^? excluded all of those who had reigned during the lifetimes of Charles the Simple and Louis IV, that is, Louis HI, Carloman, Charles the Fat, Eudes, Robert 1, and Raoul, from his list: no one other than the legitimate heir had ought, in his opinion, to be considered king of France.

^•^See note 44 above.

4?For example, B.N., fr. 9688, fol. 34: after the death of Chlotar HI, "eschey le regne a childeric son frere qui estoit roy de austrasie. Et pour ce quil ne vint ases tost tyerry son frere tint le reaume 1 an avant que childeric [Childeric] fut roy quant il fut venu et luy quicta tyerry son frere le reaume Et commença a regner lan Vie LXVII. Et se fist tyerry moigne [after the death of Childeric, Theuderic] fut fait roy Et commença a regner lan Vic IIIlxx et I". In this account, Theuderic did not reign after Chlotar and before Childeric: the author chose his words carefully, employing "tint le reaume" for the first tenure of Theuderic and" regner" in reference to Childeric II as well as to Theuderic III after Childeric's death. Note also the voluntary surrender of the kingdom by Theuderic, who "se fist moigne." In a similar vein, another late- medieval historian of die French kings for whom Childeric was the second son of Clovis II and thus the legitimate successor to Chlotar explained the irregularity in the succession by writing that the French made Theuderic king because Childeric "was far away": "Apres la mort clotaire son frere, pour ce quil estoit loing les francoys ne le firent pas roy, mais theodoric son frere 454 The accounts of the reigns of Childeric and Theuderic in the four lists that named them in that order are too brief to permit sure knowledge of why their authors did not note Theuderic's first reign. They may have acted out of simple ignorance, but one cannot dismiss the possibility that they opted not to consider Theuderic to have been king in 673 because of the existence of a legitimate monarch, in this case Childeric. In sum, while the seven authors under scrutiny reached their conclusions about Childeric and Theuderic on the basis of different sets of facts, it remains that, beyond their factual knowledge, they decided how to deal with the period 673-675 on two different bases. On the one hand, the authors of the universal chronicle and "Cy aprez fait mencion" privileged the effective exercise of royal power over legitimacy. The former, in full possession of the facts, obscured none of them. The latter, believing Theuderic to have been the legitimate heir but never effectively to have reigned, included only Childeric. On the other hand, the author of "Les noms" privileged legitimacy over the effective exercise of royal power. Believing Theuderic to have been the legitimate successor to Chlotar III, he omitted Childeric from his list. Other late-medieval historians, and perhaps the authors of the four remaining lists, operating on the same principle but in the belief that Childeric had been the rightful mainsne. Ung tandis boutèrent hors theodoric, et fut roy ledit childeric" (B.N., fr. 10137, fols. 8-8v). This explanation of the accession of Theuderic to the throne is not contained in the Grandes Chroniques, upon a copy of which the author based his own chronicle. It is of the author's invention, and the fact that he felt the need to provide it indicates that he viewed the first reign of Theuderic as an embarrassing irregularity in the succession. 455 successor to Chlotar, neglected the first reign of Theuderic and considered him to have been king only after the assassination of his brother.

The Last Merovingians Listing the French kings became easier after the assassination of Childeric II. Theuderic III regained the throne and was succeeded by, in order, his first son, Clovis IV, his second son, Childebert III, and the latter's son, Dagobert III, all three of whom the seven authors under consideration included in their lists. A new problem, however, presented itself with the death of Dagobert III, a problem reflected in the different ways in which those authors dealt with the period between his death, in 715, and the accession in 721 of the next monarch on whose inclusion they were unanimous, Theuderic rv. While four of them filled the interim with Chlotar IV and Chilperic II, two named only the latter, and one named neither. The problem was that Theuderic IV, the son of Dagobert III, had not in fact become king upon the death of his father. According to the Grandes Chroniques. Dagobert had been succeeded by Chilperic II (715-721), whom we now know to have been the son of Childeric II but whom the Grandes Chroniques tentatively identified as Dagobert's brother and whom some late-medieval historians identified as Dagobert's brother and some as his son.48 What is more.

48viard, ed., GCF II, 218: "Lors eslurent li Francois I clerc qui avoit non Daniel; mais aucunes hystoires dient que il fu freres ce roi Dagobert qui devant ot regne, ses cheveus li lessierent croistre et puis le coronerent; son non II changierent et I'apelerent Chilperic." 456 the Grandes Chroniques also reported that Chlotar IV (717-719/20) had been made king by Charles Martel during the reign of Chilperic 11. The Grandes Chroniques did not indicate Chlotar's place in the Merovingian genealogy, but many late-medieval historians accurately identified him as Dagobert Ill's u n c le .4 9 Finally, after the death of Chilperic, who had outlived Chlotar, Theuderic IV had acceded to the throne. He was, said the Grandes Chroniques, "the rightful heir, for he was the son of the second Dagobert li.e.. Dagobert 111]."50 Four of the seven authors in question opted to include both Chlotar IV and Chilperic 11. On the one hand, it is impossible to know what the authors of the Dit des Rovs and "Ce sont les noms fondée" knew about the facts of the succession in the period 715-721, for they said nothing about these two monarchs' places in the Merovingian genealogy. On the other hand, the authors of "Ce sont les noms gaule" and "S'ensuit les noms" included them in their lists despite their knowledge that the succession had been irregular by late-medieval standards. The author of "Ce sont les noms gaule" based his work on a chronicle according to which Chlotar IV was Dagobert's uncle and

49viard, ed., GCF II, 220: "Si [Martel] fist un roi par desus soi qui avoit non Clotaires." The account goes on, in the very next sentence, to refer to Chilperic, who was still alive, as "king".

50viard, ed., GCF II, 221: "Apres lui [Chilperic II] eslurent li Francois I autre Theoderis avoit non, droiz hoirs estoit, car il avoit este fiuz le secont Dagobert ". It was in ignorance of both the first and second reigns of Dagobert n that the Grandes Chroniques and nearly all late-medieval histories of France called Dagobert III "Dagobert IT (see notes 34 and 35 above). 457 Childeric III, the last Merovingian, was Dagobert's brother.si For those with strong late-medieval sensibilities about the succession, such a genealogy could have cast doubt on the legitimacy of Chlotar and Chilperic as well as on that of Theuderic IV (whose filiation the chronicle did not provide), for the legitimate successor to Dagobert would have seemed to be Childeric. If Childebert III had two sons, Dagobert 111 and Childeric 111, why had three others (Chlotar TV, Chilperic II, and Theuderic IV) ascended the throne after the former and before the latter? Such thoughts may well have crossed the mind of the author of "Ce sont les noms gaule", but they clearly did not prompt him to exclude either Chlotar or Chilperic on the basis of late-medieval ideas of legitimacy. Whereas, as one will see presently, another author with similar information at his disposal excluded Chlotar and Chilperic on the grounds that only the legitimate monarch ought to be included in a list of the kings, the author of "Ce sont les noms gaule" included them both, despite the irregularity and apparently on the grounds that they had, all questions of genealogy and legitimacy aside, in fact effectively reigned. The same held true for the author of "S'ensuit les noms" who identified Chlotar IV as Dagobert's uncle, Chilperic II as his brother,

51b.N., lat. 5027, fol. 70. The chronicle upon which the author of "Ce sont les noms gaule" based his work provided the following late-Merovingian genealogy: Theuderic 111, Clovis FV (son of Theuderic III), Childebert 111 (son of Theuderic III), Dagobert III (son of Childebert III), Chlotar FV (son of Theuderic 111 and, therefore, Dagobert's uncle), Chilperic 11 (no filiation provided), Theuderic IV (no filiation provided), Childeric III (brother of Dagobert III). 458 and Theuderic IV as his so n .5 2 Such a genealogy could and did give rise to the exclusion of Chlotar and Chilperic, but not in the case of "S'ensuit les noms". Its author, either because he was not troubled by this divergence between late-Merovingian reality and late- medieval expectations and/or because he opted to include monarchs on the basis of their effective reigns, included both kings in his list. Finally, one can add to the group of authors who viewed the late-Merovingian succession in this light the author of "Cy aprez fait mencion", whose exclusion of Chlotar IV resulted in all probability not from scruples about the succession but from an error in his factual knowledge. He named Chilperic 11, whose filiation he did not provide, after Dagobert 111, noted that Charles Martel unseated Chilperic and replaced him with Theuderic IV, Dagobert's son, and

devoted his next chapter to Theuderic.53 He d id not, therefore, hesitate to include Chilperic between Dagobert and Theuderic despite the irregularity in the succession his reign represented. Following the principle of including those who had effectively reigned, he would no doubt have named Chlotar IV had not his sources mistakenly identified Theuderic as the king instituted by Martel in opposition to Chilperic. Scruples about the succession did, however, influence the decision of the author of "Les noms" to exclude both Chlotar and

52B.N.,fr. 1965, fol. 129.

33b.N., fr. 4948, fol. 96v: "Dagombert son [Childebert Ill's] filz V. ans Daniel nomme chilperic VI ans. mais Charles martel losta du royaume par force et institua thierry filz dagombert. Thierry filz dagombert XV. ans ". 459 Chilperic, just as they had prompted him not to name Childeric II. While the extreme brevity of his enumeration makes it impossible to know with certitude what his exact information on Chlotar and Chilperic was, accounts that could give rise to their exclusion by an historian operating on the principle that only legitimate heirs ought to be considered kings were plentiful in the later Middle Ages. The Grandes Chroniques could be read in this way, for they tentatively identified Chilperic as Dagobert's brother, did not indicate Chlotar's place in the genealogy, and termed Theuderic "the rightful heir". Late-medieval historians most commonly identified Chilperic as Dagobert's brother and Chlotar as his uncle, and the author of "Les noms" probably read "S'ensuit les noms", which said just that. However, whereas the author of "S'ensuit les noms" included them on account of their effective reigns, the author of "Les noms" excluded them, no doubt because he saw their reigns as illegitimate, thus agreeing with those late-medieval historians for whom Theuderic IV became king "after the death of Chilperic whom some had made king to the prejudice of the said Theuderic."54

54b.N., fr. 4954. The author of this chronicle of the French kings noted, in his chapter on Dagobert III, that that monarch died in 719 (fol. 8). He then went on, in the succeeding chapter, which is on Theuderic IV, to note that Dagobert's son became king in 726, "après le deces de chilperic que aucuns avoient fait roy au preiudice dudit thierry" (fol. 8v). Treating Theuderic as the legitimate heir, he included separate chapters neither on Chlotar, whom he never mentioned by name, nor on Chilperic. A similar treatment of those two monarchs characterized the works of Bernard Gui and of those who used them as the basis for their own chronicles of the French kings. Gui assigned numbers in the order of succession in the "direct line" to Dagobert III (the 13th king in the "direct line") and to Theuderic IV (the 14th), but not to Chlotar or to Chilperic, of whose reigns he did nevertheless take note. It is clear, inasmuch as he noted that Theuderic died without heirs but included him in his enumeration of kings in the "direct line", that his decision not to include Chlotar (whom he identified as Dagobert's uncle) and Chilperic (whom 460 Finally, it is difficult to know why the author of the universal chronicle included Chilperic but not Chlotar. He does appear to have been aware that the succession in the period 715-721 was irregular and to have made an effort to look into the matter, for one of his rare genealogical notes came in his chapter on Chilperic, who "was, being a near heir, made the ninteenth king of F r a n c e ."ss Like the author of "Cy aprez fait mencion", he may simply have been unaware of Chlotar's existence. Indeed, his qualification of Chilperic as a "near heir" would seem to indicate that he knew him not to have been the nearest heir but included him on the basis of his effective reign, and that he would have done the same for Chlotar had he been aware of his reign. The laconism of his list also makes it impossible to know why, alone among the seven authors under consideration, he did not include Childeric III, the last Merovingian and the last of the seventeen representatives of that dynasty to figure in some but not all of their works.56 he identified as Dagobert’s brother) in the "direct line" was based on something more than the fact that the royal line had not been continued by them. A final example of a conscious decision to disregard Chlotar and Chilperic is their treatment by the author of the abbreviation of the Grandes Chroniques contained in B.N., fr. 10137, who followed his chapter on Dagobert III with a chapter on Theuderic IV wherein, without having previously mentioned either Chlotar or Chilperic, he noted that Theuderic, son of Dagobert, " après la mort chilperic fut par Charles martel et autres francois esleu en roy" (fol. 9). Inasmuch as he had before him a copy of the Grandes Chroniques, there can be little doubt that, on the basis of the information contained therein, he opted not to consider as legitimate the reigns of Chlotar and Chilperic.

SSg.N., fr. 5709, fol.75v: "Childeric fsid davant nomme daniel fut estant pres hor fait roy XIXe de france."

^%is exclusion of Childeric III is, given the importance attached to his deposition by late-medieval historians, surprising, and may be the result of an 461 The Carolingians While somewhat more uniform than for the Merovingians, the seven lists nevertheless revealed a good deal of diversity with regard to the kings who reigned between the deposition of Childeric 111 and the accession of Hugh Capet. Two of them enumerated the same nine Carolingian monarchs, one listed eleven, one named thirteen, and three provided unidentical lists of fourteen kings. Taken together, they named a total of nineteen monarchs. On the one hand, nine of the nineteen appeared in all seven lists: their authors were unanimous on the inclusion of Pepin, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Charles the Bald, Louis II the Stammerer, Charles the Simple, Louis IV d'Outremer, Lothar, and Louis V. On the other hand, the remaining ten monarchs did not appear in all of the lists. Charles Martel, Carloman (the son of Pepin), Louis III, Carloman (the son of Louis II), a mythical "Louis de nulle mémoire", Charles the Fat, Eudes, Robert 1, Raoul, and Charles of Lorraine were included by some but not all of the seven authors. As was the case for the Merovingians, a comparison of their lists thus reveals the existence of two sets of Carolingian kings, a core group whose inclusion was beyond question and other, "disputable" monarchs whose inclusion depended upon the judgment of the lists' authors. error. It is, however, worth noting that enumerations of the French kings wherein the last Merovingian was not assigned a number were in circulation in the late-medieval period, namely, in the works of Bernard Gui and those who based their own chronicles on his. Gui noted the reign of Childeric, but did not assign him a number in the "direct line" of kings because he did not continue the royal line since the descendance of Pharamond and Clovis failed with him, and those who followed his system did the same (B.N., n.a. fr. 6776, fol. X; n.a. fr. 4209, fol. 3v; lat. 14663, fol. 16v). 462 On the one hand, one need not dally over three of the latter. It was, no doubt, due to simple confusion or to errors in their sources that the author of the Pit des Rovs qualified Charles Martel as the twenty-sixth king of France and that the author of the universal chronicle named a non-existent "Louis de nulle mémoire" as the twenty-eighth.57 The simultaneous reigns of Charlemagne and his brother Carloman (768-771) reposed a problem with which our authors had already dealt several times. Just as the author of "Ce sont les noms gaule" was the only author who recognized all of the Merovingian partitions, so was he the only one to name Carloman and thus to recognize the Carolingian partition. On the other hand, new problems explain the fact that seven other kings figured in some but not all of the lists.

From the Death of Louis II to the Accession of Louis IV Six of the seven Carolingians who figured in some but not all of the lists reigned between 879 and 936, a period for which the seven lists in question provide a striking illustration of disagreement about the order of succession. In order to understand the confusion it will

^^The laconism of the author of the universal chronicle contained in B.N., fr. 5709 makes it difficult to know exactly who he imagined this individual to be. He simply stated, after his entry on Louis III and Carloman, that "Loys de nulle mémoire fut XXVlIIe roy de france" (fol. 76v). He might have believed him to be a son of Carloman, for the authors of late-mediev^ histories of the French kings, in an apparent confusion with Louis V, who was at times called Louis Fainéant, not uncommonly identified a certain "Louis Faineant" as Carloman's son and successor: " lequel [Carloman] eut ung filz legitime nomme loys que len sumommoit fait neant lequel fut roy après son pere" (B.N., fr. 5704, fol. 32), and "Apres mourut Charles fi e.. Carloman]. et délaissa ung sien filz. qui avoit nom loys faynoient. Mais quant il trespassa. combien il régna ne autre chose ne dit listoire dudit Charles" (B.N., fr. 10137, fol. 17v), to give only two examples. 463 be useful to review the relevant political developments of the period from the death of Louis II the Stammerer in 879 to the accession of Louis IV d'Outremer in 936.58 The death of Louis II in 879 precipitated a succession crisis in the West Frankish kingdom. On the one hand, a faction of the nobility invited Louis the Younger, a son of Louis the German and the ruler of part of his father’s former kingdom, to rule the West Frankish kingdom. On the other, the two sons of Louis II by his concubine and first wife Ansgard, Louis 111 and Carloman (the legitimacy of whose birth was questioned at the time and who were believed to have been bastards by nearly all late-medieval French historians), were crowned and anointed at Ferrieres in 879, the same year in which their father's second wife gave birth to an indisputably legitimate son, namely, the future Charles the Simple. An accomodation having been reached with Louis the Younger in 880, Louis III (d. 882), who was included in the order of succession by three of the authors of the seven lists of French kings under consideration, reigned jointly with Carloman (d. 884), who was included by four of them. Upon the death of Carloman in 884, the West Frankish nobility passed over the five-year-old Charles the Simple and invited Charles the Fat, king of Italy, king of Germany, and Emperor, to rule the West Frankish kingdom, which he did until his abdication in December

58i have drawn the following narrative from Jean Dunbabin, France in the Making. 843-1180. Oxford 1985, 27-30, and Pierre Riche, The Carolingians: A Familv Who Forged Europe, trans. Michael Idomir Allen, Philadelphia 1993, 211-221,232-238,246-256. 464 887. After the abdication and death (January 888) of Charles the Fat, who was included in only one of the seven lists under scrutiny, the nobles once again declined to crown the young Charles the Simple. They opted instead for Eudes, count of Paris, who was elected and anointed at Compiegne in February 888. Charles the Simple was, however, crowned and anointed at Reims in 893, and the following years saw civil war between the two kings. They made peace in 897, on the understanding that Eudes would remain king and that Charles would succeed him. This came to pass upon the death of Eudes (898), who was recognized as king by three of the authors of our seven lists. Charles the Simple, whom all seven of the list-makers included in their lists, ruled unchallenged until 922, but not thereafter. In that year, a group of rebellious nobles elected as king Robert, brother of Eudes (and grandfather of Hugh Capet), whom they had anointed by the archbishop of Sens. Robert I, who was included in the order of succession by one of the list-makers under consideration, died in battle in 923, at which time the nobles elevated his son-in-law, Raoul of Burgundy, to the throne. In the meantime, Charles the Simple was seized and imprisoned by Herbert II of Vermandois, and spent the last years of his life (922-929) a prisoner in the citadel of Peronne. Raoul, whom five of the seven list-makers chose to include in their lists, died in 936. When Raoul died, Louis IV, the son of Charles the Simple, was recalled from England, where his mother had taken him after the imprisonment of his father, and was anointed at Laon. 465 The authors of the seven lists reached very different conclusions about these confusing events. They were not unanimous about the inclusion of Louis III, Carloman, Eudes, Charles the Fat, Robert I, and Raoul, and the only fact on which they all agreed was that Charles the Simple had been king of France. Around that constant, they arrayed the other monarchs in varying numbers, agreeing neither on how many to place prior to Charles the Simple nor on how many to place after him. According to the authors of "Ce sont les noms gaule", "S'ensuit les noms", and "Les noms", no kings were to be included between Louis II and Charles the Simple. However, the authors of the other four lists inserted two, four, and even five kings between those two monarchs. According to the author of "Cy aprez fait mencion", Carloman and Eudes were to be counted at this point. In addition to the mythical "Louis de nulle mémoire", the author of the universal chronicle also retained two kings, in his case Louis III and Carloman. The author of the Pit des Rovs named four (Louis111, Carloman. Eudes, and Raoul), and the author of "Ce sont les noms fondée" named five by including, in addition to these four. Charles the Fat. They further disagreed as to whom to name after Charles the Simple and before Louis IV. On the one hand, the authors of the 1% des Rovs. "Ce sont les noms fondée", "S’ensuit les noms", and "les noms" named those two monarchs consecutive!) . Onthe other, tfx authors of "Ce sont les noms gaule" and the universal chronk k inserted Raoul between them, and the author of "( \ aprtv Lot mencion" inserted both Raoul and Robert I. 466 In all, the list-makers named anywhere from one to six monarchs for the period 879-936, and only two of them provided the same list for that period. This diversity resulted not from confusion, but from the fact that they resolved the difficult problems inherent in the dynastic history of the late-ninth and early-tenth centuries differently. The overwhelming problem with which they were confronted was the lack of dynastic continuity that characterized the period. For the authors of lists of the French kings, the intellectual difficulties involved here were far greater than those presented by the transitions between the Merovingians and the Carolingians and between the Carolingians and the Capetians. Since no one in the later Middle Ages denied that Pepin had succeeded Childeric IÏÏ and that Hugh Capet had been king after Louis V, they could simply list those kings in the proper order, leaving it to the authors of narrative histories of France to account for the discontinuities. However, since the order of succession in the interval between the death of Louis 11 and the accession of Louis IV was not universally agreed upon, to list any kings other than Charles the Simple, the legitimate son of Louis 11, and Louis IV, the legitimate son of Charles the Simple, was in and of itself to make a judgment on, and an admission of, the degree of discontinuity in the royal succession in the later Carolingian period. Some resolved the problem by refusing to admit it: the authors of "S'ensuit les noms" and "Les noms" named only Charles the Simple and Louis IV. While the laconism of these two lists makes it impossible to discern with complete certitude the basis on which 467 they did so, other late-medieval historical texts shed light on their probable line of reasoning. To give a first example, the Rosier des Guerres, which was written on the command of Louis XI and which was at pains to stress dynastic continuity throughout French history,s9 indicated that one ought to exclude most of the kings under consideration. It took note of the reigns of Louis111, Carloman, Charles the Fat, and Eudes, only to dismiss them. The Rosier explained that "it seems that those who reigned between his [Charles the Simple's] father and him must not be counted among the number of kings descended by the direct line."60 It provided a clear explanation of why such was the case for Louis 111 and Carloman, who "are not counted because they were [born] of his [Louis II's] concubine" A chronicle of the French kings written during the reign of Charles VIII was even clearer. Its author noted the reigns of Louis III, Carloman, an imaginary Louis said to be Carloman's son, Eudes, Robert I, and Raoul, but then dismissed and virulently denounced each of them. Louis 111 "usurped the seigneurie of the crown of France". Carloman "also usurped the crown". His unhistorical son Louis "also usurped the crown". These three as well as Eudes and

S^The stress on dynastic continuity in the historical section of the Rosier was signalled by Stegmann, "Le Rosier des Guerres: Testament politique de Louis XI," 315.

fr, 1965, fol. 51v; "Et semble que ceulx qui regnerent entre son pere et luy ne doivent estre comptez du nombre des roys yssus par droicte ligne....

fr. 1965, fol. 127: "En ceste cronique ne sont point mis en compte loys et karloman fUz du roy loys le baube pource quilz estoient de sa concubine.... 468 Robert I "are not at all considered kings of France for they usurped the crown and held it by force without right or valid title during the childhood of the said Charles [the Simple] who was the true and legitimate king". Raoul, likewise, "is not at all named among the number of the kings of France".62 Finally, some late-medieval historians went a step further. Rather than mentioning and then dismissing the reigns of the kings other than Charles the Simple and Louis IV, they simply passed them over in silence despite their knowledge of their existence. Such was the approach of the author of a chronicle of the French kings written under Louis XII. He made no mention of Louis111, Carloman, Charles the Fat, and Eudes, despite his awareness of the fact that Charles the Simple did not begin to reign upon the death of Louis II. He resolved the problem by stating, rather disingenuously, that "Charles called the Simple, son of king Louis the Stammerer, was born in the above said year 880 [sic]. And he only began to reign in the year 899, during which time several of his guardians governed on account of

^2b.N., fr. 5704, fois. 32-32v: " mais pource quil [Charles the Simple] estoit si jeune loys ie bastard usurpa la seigneurie de la coronne de france Et après son frere calaman usurpa aussi la coronne. lequel eut ung fiiz legitime nomme loys lequel fut roy après son pere: aussi usurpa la coronne et lors ung conte danjou [Eudes] se mist en son lieu et tint le royaulme. Et après luy et son fUz Fsicl Robert [I] led. Charles [the Simple] demoura seul et paisible roy. Et ne sont poinct comptes roys de france tous les dessusditz qui furent depuis loys de baube jusques au roy Charles le simple. Car ilz usurpèrent la coronne et tindrent par force, sans force sans droit ne tiltre vaillable durant lenfance dudit Charles qui estoit vray et legitime roy ". Fol. 33: " Raoul filz du duc de bourgougne occupa la coronne du roy de france Et nest point nomme au nombre des roys de france ". 469 his minority".63 As for Raoul, the same author squeezed him out of existence by the use of what one might term selective chronology: Charles the Simple, he informed his readers, died in 928; Louis IV became king that same year; Louis IV returned from England "after the death of his father" (no date g iv e n ) .64 a reader of his work would come away with the impression that no irregularities troubled the succession in the period 879-936, and to leave such an impression was, it seems to me, precisely his purpose. That same impression was provided by the the authors of "S'ensuit les noms" and "Les noms", the two lists that mentioned only Charles the Simple and Louis IV. Their authors may have believed the kings they omitted to have been guardians of Charles the Simple, or they may have believed them to be outright usurpers, but in either case the idea that underpinned their exclusion was that as long as there was a legitimate heir, there could be no other legitimate kings. A similar line of reasoning characterized the thought of the author of "Ce sont les noms gaule", the only one of the seven lists for which we have the advantage of knowing upon what particular copy of what particular text it was based. The author of this list followed the order of the French kings in the chronicle contained in

63 b,N., fr. 4954, fol. 12: "Charles dit le simple filz du roy loys le baube fut ne Ian dessusdit VIII.c IIILxx Et ne commença a regner que Ian VIll.c IlII.xx XIX. durant lequel temps aucuns ses tuteurs gouvernèrent pour sa minorité daage."

64 b .N., fr. 4954, fols.12-13: Charles the Simple "deceda lan IXc. vingt huit"; Louis IV "fut roy lan IX.c XXVHI"; "Et convint [after the imprisonment of his father] au roy loys sen aller en angleterre et après le deces son pere revint ". 470 B.N., lat. 5027, with but four exceptions. Those exceptions were Louis III, Carloman, Charles the Fat, and Eudes, and a close reading of the chronicle reveals the basis on which they were omitted from the list. The author of the chronicle used the verb "to reign" in describing the tenure of every king about whom he wrote, with the sole exceptions of the four kings at hand. After the death of Louis the Stammerer, Louis III and Carloman "held the government of France for five years"; Charles the Fat "had and took the government of the said kingdom of France" and "governed the kingdom of France five years"; Eudes "had the government of the kingdom of France" for nine years; Charles the Simple, "for the youth of whom the kingdom had been governed by several above-stated" was coronated and "reigned for twenty-seven years"; Raoul was, so the author said, "coronated by the will and order of king Charles the Simple" during the latter's imprisonment, and "reigned" until the accession of Louis IV.65 The author of the chronicle chose his words with care, and the author of the list based his work on a careful reading of those words. The latter's work differed from "S'ensuit les noms" and "Les noms" in

lat. 5027. Louis III and Carloman: the copyist, after having written that "les dis loys et charlemant regnerent et aurent le gouvemment de france par V. ans", crossed out "regnerent et aurent" and replaced those words with "tenirent" (fol. 71); Charles the Fat: "ot et print le gouvemment dudit royaume de france" (foi. 71) and "gouverna le royaume de france V. ans” (fol. 71v); Eudes: "ot le gouvemment du royaume de france" (fol. 71v); Charles the Simple: "Charles le simple filz du roy loys le begue pour la jeunesse duquel le royaume avoit este gouverne par aucuns dessusdiz. lui estant en laage XIX ans fut couronne et ordonne en roy de france il régna XXVII ans " (fols. 71v- 72); Raoul: " couronne par la volente et ordonnance du roy Charles le simple estant en son vivant" and "régna" (fol. 72). 471 that he included Raoul in the belief that it was with the assent of Charles the Simple that he replaced that king during his imprisonment, but, for the others, he shared their line of reasoning. Only Charles the Simple could have reigned, because only Charles the Simple was the legitimate heir in the direct line. The authors of the other four lists did not, however, reason in the same way. For one thing, three of them included Louis III and Carloman and one named the latter but not the former. Whereas the author of "Ce sont les noms gaule" excluded them on the basis of their bastardy^G and the authors of "S'ensuit les noms" and "Les noms" probably did the s a m e ,6 7 it would be too hasty to conclude that the others included Louis III and/or Carloman in the belief that they had not been bastards. Indeed, if the authors of the Pit des Rovs and "Cy aprez fait mencion" said nothing about their b ir th ,6 8 the authors of the other two lists who included them

G&The chronicle upon which this list was based, in addition to specifying that Louis III and Carloman "held the government of France" (as opposed to having "reigned"), explicitly noted their bastardy: "Loys et charlemant filz du roy loys le begue non légitimez " (B.N., lat. 5027, fol. 71).

67inasmuch as "Les noms" was probably based in part on "S'ensuit les noms", and inasmuch as the author of the latter probably used the Rosier des Guerres. it is likely that the exclusion of Louis III and Carloman from the two lists derived from the Hosier's insistence (see note 61 above) that they were not to be counted on account of their bastardy.

"^^The Pit des Rovs said nothing about the parentage of Louis III and Carloman, simply stating that "Du XXXIIe souviengne/Loys ot nom chincq ans regna/Les francois oncques ne greva" and that "Le XXXIIIe charlon/VI. ans régna bien le scet on" (B.N., ff. 1707, fol. 34v). The author of "Cy aprez fait mencion", who included Carloman but not Louis in, stated simply that the former was the son of Louis n: "Charles filz dudit loys. cinq ans" (B.N., fr. 4948, fol. 96v). Whether their silence about the illegitimacy of the two monarchs resulted from ignorance or from deliberate attempts to obscure the discontinuity in the legitimate succession represented by their reigns is difficult to say, but one suspects, especially in the case of the Pit des Rovs. the rather royalist flavor of 472 explicitly stated that it was not legitimate. "The thirty-first king was named Carloman, and Louis his brother reigned with him, and they were the children of Charles the Bald Fsid and of his concubine," explained the author of "Ce sont les noms fondee".^^ "Louis the twenty-sixth [king] and Charles the twenty-seventh were bastard children of Louis the Stammerer," said, more directly, the author of the universal chronicle.^o These two authors, then, did not share the opinion of those who excluded Louis III and Carloman on the basis of their bastardy: they were illegitimate sons, but they were legitimate kings. The issue of whether to include Louis III and Carloman was an important one. For one thing, the notion that no bastard had ever sat on the French throne was a well-developed theme in the dominant late-medieval interpretation of French history, and the authors of lists of the French kings were thus forced to weigh the historical fact

which was signalled by Bossuar, "Le Pit des Rovs". 58, that it was the latter. Indeed, it is interesting, and indicative of the diversity that characterizes late- medieval lists of French kings, to note how the authors of the Pit des Rovs. "Ce sont les noms fondée", and "Ce sont les noms gaule", ail of whom appear to have used continuations of Guillaume de Nangis's Chronique abrégée, dealt with Louis III and Carloman. The first included them and did not mention their bastardy, the second included them and mentioned their bastardy (see the next note), the third excluded them on the basis of their bastardy (see note 66 above).

•^^B.N., fr. 1623, fol. 92: "Le XXXI.e roy ot nom charlemans et régna avec lui loys son frere Et estoient enfans de Charles le chauve et de sa concubine."

^^B.N., fr. 5709, fol. 76v: "Loys XXVIe et Charles XXVIIe furent enfans bastars de Loys balbe dessusdit." 473 of their reigns against a propaganda theme that made those reigns impossible Furthermore, their decisions had practical effects on the rest of their lists. Whereas no French king posterior to Louis II's second son was named Carloman, seven, eight, or nine of them, depending on the moment at which the lists under consideration were composed, had been named Louis, and the authors of those lists were faced with the problem of how to number those kings. Three of the four authors under consideration who excluded Louis III consistently designated each subsequent Louis by a number one lower than that by which they are known in the traditional numbering, calling Louis d'Outremer "Louis III", Saint Louis "Louis VIII", and so forth, while one, the author of "Cy aprez fait mencion", referred to kings not by their numbers but as the sons of their fathers. As for the three who included Louis 111, one, the author of the universal chronicle, used the traditional numbering (Louis IV d'Outremer, Saint Louis IX), while the others referred to them as the sons of their fathers, by their sobriquets, or simply as "Louis". While to assert that those who did not use a numbering system did so deliberately to avoid the issue would be to go too far, what is clear is that these different systems, which rivaled one another throughout the late-medieval period, reveal the extent of late-medieval controversy and disagreement over Louis 111.

^^For a discussion of the theme according to which France's dynastic past had been free of bastardy, and for a more detailed discussion of Louis III and Carloman in late-medieval French historiography, see Chapter III, "Clovis the Bastard". 474 The laconism of their texts makes it impossible to know on what bases the author of the Pit des Rovs included Eudes and Raoul and the author of the universal chronicle included the latter monarch72. However, the presence of Charles the Fat, Eudes, and Raoul in "Ce sont les noms fondée" and the inclusion of Eudes, Raoul, and Robert 1 in "Cy aprez fait mencion" further indicate that not all list-makers believed that only legitimate heirs should figure in lists of the French kings. The author of "Ce sont les noms fondée", who included Charles the Fat, Eudes, and Raoul, stated that each "reigned for Charles the

Simple," a phrase that implies that Charles was the legitimate k in g .^ 3 His stance would, therefore, appear to have been the same as that of the author of "Ce sont les noms gaule". However, doser examination reveals an important difference. Whereas the author of the latter work, on the basis of a chronicle that stated that Charles the Fat and Eudes had governed the kingdom during the minority of

22xhe author of the Pit des Rovs wrote simply that "Le XXXIIIIe [roy] Ludo [sic]/filz robert le conte danjo/Dix ans régna " and that "Le X)ülVe ot a nom/Raoul cil vesquit com preudon/Et fut filz au duc de bourg,ne/Ne régna lescript le tesmongne/Que deux ans " (B.N., fr. 1707, fol. 34v). The author of the universal chronicle simply designated Raoul as the thirtieth French king. Both implicitly recognized irregularities in the succession, the former by providing the filiation of Eudes and Raoul, the latter by including Raoul after Charles the Simple and before Louis IV, whom he identified as the son of Charles the Simple (B.N., fr. 5709, fol. 76v), but neither commented on the relationships between the reigns of Eudes and Raoul and that of Charles the Simple.

^3b.N., fr. 1623, fol. 92v: "Le [X]XXni.e roy de france ot nom charlemaigne [i.e.. Charles the Fat] Et fu empereres et régna pour Charles le Simple .V. ans Le XXXlIII.e roy de france ot nom Audes filz Robert danjou, et régna pour Charles le simple IX ans Le XXXV.e roy de france ot nom Raoul filz au duc de bourg.ne Et régna pour Charles le simple XIII ans ". 475 Charles the Simple, excluded those two individuals from his list of kings, the author of "Ce sont les noms fondée" included them, as well as Raoul, despite his belief that they had "reigned for" the legitimate Charles the Simple. The reasoning of the author of "Ce sont les noms fondée" was more realistic, and less constrained by the ideological neccessity of unbroken continuity in the succession, than that of the author of "Ce sont les noms gaule". Charles the Simple may have been the legitimate heir, but the others had in fact exercised effective royal authority and had, therefore, to be included in a list of "all the kings". A similar line of reasoning informed the inclusion of Eudes, Robert I, and Raoul by the author of "Cy aprez fait mencion". He stated that the first of these monarchs reigned "for Louis son of the said Carloman who was tooy o u n g " .7 4 The factual error is patent - the Louis in question, whom the author mentioned only in his chapter on Eudes and did not include in his enumeration, was the same unhistorical Louis who was included in the enumeration of the author of the universal chronicle - but the reasoning is the same as that of the author of "Ce sont les noms fondée". Eudes had to be included because it was he who had exercised effective royal authority. The same held true for Raoul, who "was king [for] thirteen

^4b.N., fr. 4948, fol. 96v; "Eudes duc de bourg.ne fsicl IX ans pour loys filz dudit Charles [that is, Carloman] qui estoit trop joine." This entry comes between those for Carloman and Charles the Simple, and indicates the inclusion of Eudes, and not that of Louis the supposed son of Carloman, who, while he may have been the legitimate heir, did not effectively reign and therefore was neither said to have reigned nor devoted a separate entry in the list. 476 years because the said Charles [the Simple] was in prison".^5 As for Robert 1, whom the author was the only of the seven under consideration to include, he expressly recognized the illegitimacy of his reign - "Robert, brother of the said Eudes, was king by force [for] seven years Fsicl of the time of the said Charles the Simple" - but he neverthless included him, because the fact remained that he "was king", and possibly because he had been coronated.^G

Charles of Lorraine The task confronting the makers of lists of the French kings became easier after the coronation of Louis IV. He was succeeded by his son Lothar, Lothar was succeeded by his son Louis V, and all of the authors under consideration listed these three monarchs. However, matters once again became difficult with the death of Louis V in 987. The list-makers now had to decide whether to include his uncle and legitimate heir, Charles of Lorraine, who had waged an unsuccessful battle to assert his right against Hugh Capet between

fr. 4948, fol. 97: "Raoul fu roy XIII ans Car ledit Charles estoit en p rison ."

fr. 4948, fol. 97: "Robert frere dudit eude fu roy par force VH an. du temps dudit Charles le simple, et fu couronne a sens. Mais ledit Charles se combati a luy a soissons et loccist." It is possible that the fact of his having been coronated played into the author’s decision to include Robert I. For one thing, he only rarely took note of royal coronations, mentioning only those of Robert I, Louis IV, Robert the Pious and Philip 1 (two cases of association to the throne), and Charles VI, and it is possible that he included that of Robert 1 to underscore the assertion that he was in fact king. For another, he included in his list Philip, the son of Louis VI who had been crowned during the lifetime of his father but who had preceded him to the grave, which indicates the belief that the coronation made the king. 477 987 and his death, as the latter's prisoner, in 991. While it is difficult to know on what bases the author of the universal chronicle opted to include him and the other six opted not to^?, it will be useful to outline the wide variety of ways in which late-medieval historians presented the last Carolingian. The most common approach was to indicate that Charles of Lorraine was the legitimate heir to Louis V and that Hugh Capet usurped his right, but not to consider Charles to have reigned as king of France. Many late-medieval historians made the third of these points only implicitly, in one of two ways. In a presentation relatively less favorable to Hugh Capet, some indicated that Charles vied for the throne but failed to obtain it. For example, an historian writing under Charles VII stated that "After the death of king Louis, Hugh Capet, count of Paris, was crowned by force but first he had many battles and the kingdom was greatly damaged, for Charles, brother of king Lothar, was still living and by right the kingdom belonged to him, and in the end Charles was completely defeated and the kingdom remained to him [Hugh Capet]."78 The

77The six authors in question who did not include Charles of Lorraine made no mention of him, although the author of the chronicle on which "Ce sont les noms gaule" was based did, a fact of use in determining why the author of that list excluded him (see note 79 below). As for the author of the universal chronicle, he very tersely included "Charles XXXIIIIe roy de france" in his list between Louis V and Hugh Capet (B.N., fr. 5709, fol. 77),

^%.N., fr. 10139 (a variant of the chronicle of the French kings known by the incipit "A tous nobles"), fol. 9: "Apres la mort du roy louys fut couronne par force hue cappet conte de paris mes il eult ainzoys mainte bataille et fut le royaume moult endommage. Car Charles le frere du roy lothaire estoit encore vivant et luy appartenoit le royaume de droit et en la fin fut Charles du tout desconfit et luy fi.e.. Capet] demoura le royaume ". 478 authors of this and similar accounts did not state that Charles "reigned" or in any way "held" or "governed" the kingdom, apparently on the basis that, having been opposed and defeated by Hugh Capet, he had never in fact exercised royal authority in France. In a presentation relatively more favorable to Hugh Capet, others stated that Charles was called upon to rule in France, but that he never came. For example, the chronicle upon which the author of "Ce sont les noms gaule" based his list stated that "the barons of France sent [for] Charles to reign in France, which Charles responded that he would take counsel; and he prolonged too long his answer, for which reason the barons of France made and elected Hugh Capet king of France." Consequently, the author of "Ce sont les noms gaule" excluded Charles of Lorraine on the grounds that, although he was the legitimate heir, he had never in fact reigned in France.79 Other late-medieval historians did provide explicit grounds for Charles's exclusion. Bernard Gui wrote that Charles "is not at all placed in the direct line of the [genealogical] tree [of the French kings], for he was never anointed king nor crowned, by the prevention of Hugh Capet," and his view was perpetuated by late-

lat. 5027, fol. 72v: "Apres la mart dudit roy loys le quart pour ce quil ne avoit aucuns enfans les beu’ons de france evoirent Charles due de lorraine oncle dudit loys et frere de lothaire son pere pour regner en france lequel Charles respondi quil se conseilleroit; et prolongea trop la responce pour laquelle cause les barons de france firent et eslurent en roy de france huet capet It was probably on the same basis that the authors of "S'ensuit les noms" and "Les noms" excluded Charles of Lorraine, for the Rosier des Guerres presented him in the same way, stating that " les francoys voulurent faire roy Charles Mais pource quil tarda a venir, ilz prindrent hue cappet conte de paris lequel ilz firent roy" (B.N., fr. 1965, fol. 53). 479 medieval historians who based their chronicles of the French kings

on his w o r k s.8 0 Noël de Fribois wrote that Charles "is not named king because by the power of the said Hugh Capet, the said Charles could not be crowned."8i Another fifteenth-century historian of France stated that "Charles, brother of the said Lothar was not at all crowned king and thus ended the line of king Pepin and Charles the

G rea t" 82 The fact that Charles of Lorraine was not crowned was the basis on which several late-medieval historians explicitly specified that he was not to be included in the order of succession, and it was probably on this basis that some of the authors of the seven lists , and most particularly that of "Cy aprez fait mencion", chose not to

name h im .8 3 However, not all late-medieval Frenchmen - and certainly not partisans of Charles Vll, whose father died in 1422 but who was crowned only in 1429 - agreed that one ought not to consider the

80cui had stated that "Cestui Charles nest point mis en la droite ligne de larbre, car il ne fu mie oint en roy ne corone par lempeschement dudit hue chapet" (B.N., n.a. fr. 6776, fol. XlVv, Arbor eenealoeiae reeum Francorum. translated by Jean Golein in 1369), and later historians who relied on his works echoed his words, for example, B.N., n.a. fr. 4209, fol. 7: "Cestuy Charles nest point mis en la droicte ligne de larbre, car il ne fut mie dit en roy ne couronne par lempeschement de hue capet."

8^B.N., fr. 1233, fol. 98b: " et nest pas nomme roy pource que par la puissance dud. hue capeth, ledit Charles ne peut estre couronne ".

82b.N., lat. 5195, fol. llv : ".....Charles frere dudit lothaire ne fut point couronne roy por lempeschement que lui fist hue cappet et ainsy faillit la lignie du roy pépin et Charles le grant ".

88as noted earlier (see note 76 above), the author of "Cy aprez fait mencion" would seem to have based his inclusion of Robert 1 and his exclusion of Philip, the son of Louis VI, at least in part on the facts that the former had been coronated whereas the latter had not, a pattern with which the exclusion of Charles on the grounds that he had not been coronated would be consistent. 480 legitimate heir to be king simply because he hadn’t been crowned. For one thing, many of the accounts that excluded Charles of Lorraine on that basis were ambiguous or, at least, open to different interpretations. Bernard Gui and those who relied on his works had, even as they specified that Charles was not to counted in the "direct line", called him "Charles IV ".84 Noël de Fribois and the third author previously cited had, even as they excluded him on the basis of his not having been crowned, said, respectively, that he "reigned"8s and that he "governed the kingdom for nine Fsicl y e a r s " .86 Readers of their works who believed that it was blood or the fact of having ruled, and not the coronation, that made the king, could find in their words a basis for including Charles of Lorraine. Other late-medieval historians explicitly stated that Charles had been king, despite the fact that he hadn't been crowned. One made it clear that it was Hugh and not Charles who had been crowned after the death of Louis V, writing that "the French asked him [Charles] if he wanted to take the crown and the kingdom of France, and he responded that he would take counsel, by which [delay], in the meantime, Hugh Capet took the crown and seized the kingdom for himself." Nevertheless, he called Charles "king" twice in an account that didn't state that he had in fact governed or held the

84b.N., n.a. fr. 6776, fol. XIVv; B.N., n.a. fr. 4209, fol. 7.

85b.N., fr. 1233, fol. 98b: "Charles frere dudit roy lothaire regna après luy pource quil estoit trespasse sans hoir de son corps."

86 b.N., lat. 5195, fol. llv : "Apres la mort duquel [Louis V] Charles frere dudit lothaire gouverna le royaume IX ans ". 481 kingdom, which may indicate that, for this author, his legitimacy alone merited his inclusion.^? Another historian was even clearer. He stated that "Charles, brother of Lothar, held the kingdom after Louis, but was never anointed or crowned." However, whereas others excluded him on preciselv this basis, he went on to specify that Charles was king before Hugh by indicating that "Hugh Capet had himself crowned king of France when he saw that he held king Charles prisoner", and to refer to Charles as "king" six more times in his work.88 The author of the universal chronicle shared their

87b.N., fr. 24976, fols. 24-25. The relevant péissage reads as follows: "Hue cappel commença a regner lan IX.c IIIlxx et huit. Il tollit le royaulme a Charles de lorainie qui estoit frere du roy lohier et oncle du roy loys du roy trespasse a qui il appartenoit de droit. Et lut demanderont les franscoys quil voulsist prandre la couronne et le royaulme de france et il respondit qui sen conseilleroit, par quoy se pendant hue cappel qui estoit maire du palais print la couronne et saisit le royaulme pour luy, du consentement des barons. Et quant ledit Charles le sceut il vint a grant ost en france et y eut grant guerre et moult de batailles et fut le royaulme moult domaige. Mais en la fin fut le roy Charles du tout desconfit par le roy hue a laide de ceulx de paris. Et par la mallice de levesque de laaon le roy hu hue Fsicl print le roy Charles et ses enffans et les mist en prison a Orleans et la moururent et ainsi demoura le royaulme paisiblement au roy hue cappel et a ses hers ". This account is interesting because whereas most late-medieval historians stated either that Charles had been called upon but had failed to come or that he had unsuccessfully sought to assert his right, its author said both. He would appear to have considered either the coronation of Capet and/or the fact that he exercised royal authority to have made Capet king during the lifetime of Charles of Lorraine. As for the latter, it seems that his legitimacy alone justified, in the eyes of this historian, his status as "king": his account makes it clear that Charles wasn't coronated and does not state that he "reigned", "governed", or "held the kingdom", but, nevertheless, refers to him as "king".

88b.N., fr. 10137, fols. 20-20v: "Charles frere Lothaire tint le royaulme après loys, mais oncques sacre ne couronne ne fut Contre luy hue le grant [i.e.. Capet] se rebella et lassiega a laon sur le siege saillit le roy et y feist grant dommaige. Et pour ce feist tant hue que levesque par trayson le bouta en la cite, et print le roy et sa femme prisonniers. Les tint longuement a Orleans ou le roy ot deux filz Cest ceUuy [Capet] qui print le roy a laon le roy Charles dessusdit Hue cappel se fist couronner roy de france a Reins quant il vit quil tenoit le roy Charles prisonnier ". 482 reasoning: "Charles [was the] thirty-fourth king of France", although whether such was the case simply because he was the legitimate heir or because, in addition, he had in the author's opinion exercised the royal power, is impossible to say. In sum, late-medieval historians of the French kings reached very different conclusions about Charles of Lorraine. Some excluded him because they believed that he had not actually ruled, while others believed that he had actually ruled, but excluded him because he hadn't been crowned. Yet others included him, some on the basis that he hadn't been crowned but was the legitimate heir and had exercised royal authority, others because, while he hadn't been crowned and hadn't, to their knowledge, actually ruled, he was the legitimate h e ir .8 9 If the brevity of the seven lists of kings under consideration masks the reasoning of their individual authors, what is clear, given the variety of ways in which late-medieval historians judged Charles of Lorraine, is that they faced a difficult question and that they reached different conclusions, for different reasons.

The Caoetians The diversity that characterized the seven lists for the first two dynasties gave way to near uniformity for the third. The list-makers named either eighteen or nineteen Capetians from, inclusively, Hugh Capet to Charles VI, and eighteen of the twenty monarchs whose names figured in their lists appeared in all seven of them. Only two

89por a more complete discussion of Charles of Lorraine in late-medieval French historiography, see Chapter IV, "The French Kill Their Kings". 483 kings - Philip, the son of Louis VI who was crowned during the lifetime of his father but who preceded him to the grave, and John I, the posthumous son of Louis X who died within a week of his birth - figured in some but not all of their works. Three of the seven list-makers chose to include Philip, who died in 1131, only two years after his association to the throne. While none of them specified the basis on which they did so, there can be little doubt that it was the fact of his having been coronated that prompted the authors of "Cy aprez fait mencion", "Ce sont les noms fondée", and "S'ensuit les noms" to state that he reigned for two years, to include him in their enumerations, and, consequently, to designate the subsequent kings named Philip by numbers one higher than those by which they are traditionally known ("Philip III" for Philip Augustus, "Philip VII" for Philip of Valois, etc.). None of these three authors chose to include John 1, who had not been coronated, and one can say with assurance that at least one of them, in so doing, adhered consistently to the position that one had to have been crowned in order to have been king. The authors of "Cy aprez fait mencion" and "Ce sont les noms fondée" appear to have believed that John died before Louis X, but the author of "S'ensuit les noms" excluded John in full knowledge of the actual sequence of events in 1316.90

90xhe author of "Cy aprez fait mencion" noted that "Loys nomme hutin son [Philip IV's] filz [regna] an et demi. Il morut sans hoir masle Car Jehan son filz morut en son enfance" (B.N., fr. 4948, fol. 97v). His account is somewhat ambiguous, because one could, strictly speaking, say that Louis X died (June 1316) without a male heir whUe realizing that John was born (November 1316) after his death, but it nonetheless seems to express the mistaken belief that John died during Louis' lifetime. Likewise, the author of "Ce sont les noms fondée" noted, in his entry on Louis X, simply that he and Clemence of 484 The notion that the coronation was necessary to make the king was not, however, shared by two of the other list-makers. The authors of the universal chronicle and the Pit des Rovs included John, but not Philip, in their enumerations of the French kings. While neither mentioned Philip nor explained why he was not to be counted, they probably reasoned that he ought not to be included because, having died before his father, he hadn't effectively reigned in his own right.9i Assuming that they knew of his coronation, his

Hungary had "ung filz qui fut appeliez Jehan, et ne vesquit que trois jours", but went on, in his entry on Philip V, to state that "son frere [Louis X] mourut sans hoir masle" (B.N., fr. 1623, fol. 95). The author of "S'ensuit les noms", on the other hand, knew that John had died after Louis. He noted, in his entry on Louis X, that "Et Jehan son filz vesquit sept jours après luy" (B.N., fr. 1965, fol. ISOv). He did not, however, consider him to have reigned, for neither noted that he "regna" nor devoted him his own entry, as he did for all of the other monarchs included in his list. He appears, in not including John, to have followed the Rosier des Guerres, which, even as it noted that Philip V did not become king until after the death of John, stated not the latter "regna" but simply that he "ne vesquit que VIIII jours" (B.N., fr. 1965, fol. 72v). The fact that the author of "S'ensuit les noms" referred, later in his list, to John the Good as "John 11" does not necessarily indicate, and, for the reasons stated above, does not in this case indicate, that he considered John I to have reigned as king. Late-medieval historians at times used such numbers simply to identify different individuals, and it was thus, for example, that the author of the universal chronicle, who definitely did not include Philip, son of Louis VI, in his list, nevertheless referred to Philip the Bold as "Philip IV" and to Philip the Fair as "Philip V" (B.N., fr. 5709, fol. 78v).

Bernard Gui recognized the reign of Philip but did not assign him a number in the order of the "direct line" of kings because the subsequent succession had not proceeded from him: " Philippus iste non ponitur in recta linea arboris genealogiae regalis, quia per ipsum non fuit, sicut patet, regalis successio in posteros propaganda" (Gui, Reees Francorum. in RHF XU. 231). On the other hand, several late-medieval historians who followed Gui's numérotation system gave the fact that Philip died before his father as the reason for this exclusion: "Phelippe le second ainsi nomme filz dudit loys le gros au vivant de son pere fut couronne Mais il not mie regne deux ans que en chevauchant par paris, par ung porc qui se bouta entre les pies de son cheval qui icelluy fist cheoir fut mort Et pour ceste cause nest il pas mie en la droicte ligne mais collateralement au coste" (B.N., n.a. fr. 4209, fol. 8v), and, more directly: "Phelippe le second vivant son pere fut couronne a rains [but he died] avant qui eut regne deux ans Et pource quil mourut devant le pere, il nest pas mis en la droicte ligne" (B.N., lat. 14663, fols. 18v-19). One would 485 exclusion indicates that they did not share the opinion of the role of the coronation in making the king held by those who did include Philip in their lists. Both did include John, despite the fact that he hadn't been coronated. The author of the universal chronicle, who presumably knew that the infant had not been crowned, wrote that "John the first of this name was the forty-seventh king of France and reigned only eight days".92 The author of the Pit des Rovs explicitly noted that he had not been coronated - "John his [Louis X's] son reigned so little that he never returned to Reims; it did not please God that he take his anointing"93 - but nevertheless wrote that he

like, in order better to understand the attitudes of the authors of the seven lists of French kings under consideration towards anticipatory association to the throne, to compare their treatments of situations analagous to that of Philip, but one lacks the opportunity to do so. Six of the eight Capetians crowned during the lifetime of their fathers survived to reign in their own right, and very few late-medieval historians appear to have known that Hugh, the son of Robert the Pious, who was crowned in 1017 and who died in 1025, and who was the only associated monarch other than Philip not to have done so, had in fact been crowned: none of the seven texts presently under consideration mentioned Hugh, and very few of the late-medieval histories of France that did mention him noted the fact of his coronation. As for those authors of enumerations of French kings who were aware of Hugh's coronation, Bernard Gui and one of his late-medieval followers did not count Hugh in the "direct line" because the succession had not been continued by him ("Hue filz dudit robert fut couronne roy au vivant de son pere. Et après VIII ans qui eut este couronne il mourut jeune, et pour ce nest il point mis en la droicte ligne de larbre pour ce que par luy ne fut pas continuée la generacion royal ne nul ne descendy de luy" (B.N., n.a. fr. 4209, fol. 7v)), while another chronicler who employai Gui's Reees Francorum did not assign him a number in "direct line" because he died before his father ("Hue le filz dudit Robert, combien quil fust roy et eut [este] couronne a compiengne toutesvoiez pource quil mourut avant que son pere, il nest pas en la droicte ligne, mais a coste" (B.N., lat. 14663, fol. 18v)).

^2b,N., fr. 5709, fol. 78v: "Jehan premier de ce nom fut XLVIle roy de france et regna VIII jours seuUement".

93R.N., fr. 1707, fols. 36-36v: "Jehan son filz si poy regna/Que mie a Rains ne retouma/Prendre son sacre a dieu ne plot." 486 reigned and included him in his enumeration. For both of them, the coronation was not what made the king. Philip had been coronated but hadn't effectively reigned on his own, and was therefore excluded. John, who hadn't been crowned, had become king by blood, automatically, after the death of the monarch to whom he was the legitimate male heir, and was therefore included. Finally, two of the lists-makers included neither Philip nor John. The chronicle on which the author of "Ce sont les noms gaule" based his list did note, in its chapter on Louis VI, that Philip "reigned two years". It also correctly indicated, in its chapter on Philip V, that the latter was "regent of the kingdoms of France and of Navarre" until the death of John and "king" only thereafter.94 However, the author of the list chose to include neither Philip nor John. One could argue that these omissions resulted from a sort of carelessness on his part for, seeing that the chronicle devoted independent chapters to Louis VI and Louis VII but not to Philip and to Louis X and Philip V but not to John, he could possibly have excluded them simply on that basis, but such, I think, was not the case. As one will recall, the author of the list did read the chronicle. Indeed, he read it carefully enough to find within it grounds for excluding from his list Louis III and Carloman, Charles the Fat, and Eudes, kings to whom the

his chapter on Louis VI, the author of the chronicle in B.N., lat. 5027 stated that Philip "regna II ans" (foi. 74). He began his chapter on Philip V by stating that "Apres le trespassement de loys [X] dessusdit phelippe conte de poitiers eut le gouvernement des II royaumes", he went on to refer to Philip V as "regent de royaulmes de france et de navarre", and he referred to Philip as king and stated that Philip "regna" only after having chronicled the birth and death of John I (fol. 86). 487 chronicle did devote independent chapters. Consequently, it is more plausible that he excluded Philip and John on the coherent basis that, in order to be included one had, in addition to being the legitimate heir, both to have been crowned and effectively to have reigned. Possibly for the same reason and possibly for others that the brevity of his work makes it impossible to discern, the author of "Les noms" likewise excluded both Philip and John, the former being the last of the five monarchs about whom the readers of B.N. fr. 1965 could see different judgments expressed by the two lists contained in that volume. In short, while enumerating the Capetians was easier than listing the Merovingians or the Carolingians, the authors of late- medieval lists of the French kings failed to reach a complete consensus even on the representatives of France's third dynasty. The Capetian practice of association to the throne and the unusual events of 1316 forced them to confront the question of the role of the coronation in making the king - a question of more than purely academic interest for those who wrote under Charles VII - and their treatments of Philip and John I reflect the fact that they resolved it differently. Some, in the belief that the coronation made the king, included Philip but not John. Others, emphasizing the effective reign of the legitimate heir over the coronation, included John but not Philip. Yet others, emphasizing both, included neither. 488 Conclusion The seven king-Iists demonstrate that there was no fixed canon of the French kings in the late-fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Collectively, they named a total of seventy-one monarchs from Pharamond to Charles VI. Forty-two of those kings appeared in all seven lists, but twenty-nine did not. Seventeen Merovingians, ten Carolingians, and two Capetians appeared in some but not all of them. These numbers could be increased by the addition of monarchs who, while not mentioned in these particular seven lists, appeared in other late-medieval historical w o r k s .^ s Five of the lists named at least one monarch not included by any of the others. According to the varying opinions of their authors, Charles VI was the forty- fourth, forty-ninth, fifty-first, flfty-third, fifty-eighth, and sixtieth king of France. In the later Middle Ages, historians did not agree about whom to include in simple lists of the French kings. While some of the inclusions and exclusions can be attributed to errors on the part of the authors, many can be attributed to their conscious and informed choices. In the later Middle Ages, it was not

striking, though rare, example is the inclusion of Henry VI of England by the author of the chronicle of the French kings contained in B.N., fr. 10468 (fol. 11 Ov). More prosaically, and restricting these observations simply to different versions of the history of the French kings known by the incipit "A tous nobles", it is the case that the author of one of them considered Merovech, son of CMlperic I, to have reigned after his father and before his brother Chlotar 11 (B.N., fr. 4991, fol. 4B); that the authors of two of them, despite their ignorance of his first and second reigns, took note of Dagobert II as the rightful successor to Sigibert III in Austrasia (B.N., fr. 4991, fol. 4vB; fr. 5697, fol. 12v); and that the authors of four of them, in an apparent misunderstanding of the late Capetian genealogy, included a Louis, son of Philip III, and a John, son of this Louis, between Philip 111 and Philip IV, despite their inclusion, at their proper places, of Louis X and, sometimes, his son John I (B.N., fr. 4991, fol. 16B; fr. 5696, fol. 41; fr. 5697, fol. 29v; fr. 23019, fol. 32A). 489 easy to compile a list of the French kings. Those who undertook the task confronted compelling contemporary political issues that inflated the inclusion or exclusion of certain monarchs into political and ideological statements. In the dominant late-medieval views, the kingdom of France was supposed always to have been exempt from imperial authority, the French monarchs were supposed always to have lived in harmony with their subjects, and the monarchy was supposed always to have been hereditary. Against this backdrop, the list- makers had to decide what to do about Gilles, the Roman who ruled during the forced exile of Childeric I. Six of them either completely obscured it or opted not to count Gilles as a king of France even as they noted his effective exercise of royal power. However, one of them considered Gilles to have been the fifth king of F r a n c e .9 6 At a time when partisans of Charles VII argued that the kingdom devolved upon the defunct monarch's closest legitimate male heir in its insoluble and inalienable entirety, the list-makers had to decide how to handle the Merovingian partitions of 511 and 561. Four of them obscured the fact that the kingdom had ever been partitioned. One recognized as king only one son of Clovis and only one son of Chlotar 1.^7 One recognized the simultaneous reigns of two sons of Clovis, but not the fact that they had ruled separate kingdoms, and continued not to recognize the fact of partition by

^^Namely, the author of "Cy aprez fait mencion".

^^Namely, the author of "Les noms". 490 naming as king only one son ofChlotar.^s Two acknowledged three sons of Clovis and all four sons of Chlotar as kings, but indicated neither the simultaneity of their reigns nor the fact that they had

ruled separate kingdoms.99 However, three of the list-makers acknowledged that the kingdom had not always been an indivisible entity ruled by one manjoo At a time when royal practice and ideology dictated that the closest legitimate male heir acceded to the throne automatically upon the death of the reigning monarch, and when it was popularly supposed that such had always been the case, the list-makers had to decide how to deal with periods like 673-675, 715-721, and 879- 936, when Merovingian and Carolingian facts did not fit late- medieval expectations. Two of them consistently found ways to bring the past into line with the present. One hid the irregularities in the succession associated with these three periods by considering Theuderic III to have been the only king during the first one, Theuderic IV to have been the only king during the second one, and Charles the Simple and Louis IV to have been the only kings during the third one.io^ A second listed kings whose reigns represented

^^Namely, the author of "S'ensuit les noms".

^^Namely, the authors of the Pit des Rovs and "Ce sont les noms fondée". lOQphe author of "Cy aprez fait mencion" obscured the partition of 511, but did note that of 561 even as he listed only Chilperic I as king. The author of the universal chronicle admitted that two sons of Clovis had simultaneously ruled separate kingdoms. The author of "Ce sont les noms gaule" obscured none of the facts of the two partitions.

I Namely, the author of "Les noms". 491 irregularities in all three periods, but provided no overt indications of those irregularities to hisr e a d e r s . 102 However, five of the list- makers admitted that the king of France had not always been the closest legitimate male heir of his predecessor. One admitted such an irregularity in the second p e r i o d , one admitted it in the t h ir d , one admitted it in the second and the third,^05 and two admitted it in all three. 106 At a time when France's dynastic history was held to have been free of bastardy, the list-makers had to decide whether or not to include Louis III and Carloman in their lists of the French kings. Three of them excluded Louis 111 and Carloman on the grounds of their bastardy,i07 and two included them without noting their illegitimate b ir th . 1 os However, two of the list-makers considered Louis III and Carloman to have been both bastards and kings of France. 109

102Namely, the author of the Pit des Rovs. l03Namely, the author of "S'ensuit les noms".

104Namely, the author of "Ce sont les noms fondée". lOSNamely, the author of "Ce sont les noms gaule", lOôNamely, the authors of "Cy aprez fait mencion" and the universal chronicle. lO^Namely, the authors of "Ce sont les noms gaule", "S'ensuit les noms", and "Les noms", lO^Namely, the authors of the Dit des Rovs and "Cy aprez fait mencion", lO^Namely, the authors of "Ce sont les noms fondée" and the universal chronicle. 492 At a time when a French king was crowned seven years after the death of his father, the list-makers had to decide whether or not to include in their lists the legitimate but uncrowned Charles of Lorraine, Louis Vi's son Philip, who was crowned but never effectively reigned, and Louis X's son John, who effectively reigned but was never crowned. While six of them opted not to include Charles of Lorraine, one considered him to have been the thirty- fourth king of France. 110 While three of them weighed the coronation more heavily than the fact of an effective reign by including Philip but not John,i 11 two weighed the fact of an effective reign more heavily than the coronation by naming John but not Philip,ii2 and two appear to have weighed the two factors equally by excluding both monarchs.n3 In sum, to list the kings of France was necessarily to confront and to answer politically-charged questions about the nature of French kingship and the history of the French monarchy. Had the kingdom always been indivisible? Had contemporary successoral practices always characterized the monarchy? Had they always been adhered to? Had there ever been bastards on the throne? Was it the fact of being the closest legitimate male heir that made one king of France, or was it the fact of an effective reign, or was it the ll^Namely, the author of the universal chronicle.

111 Namely, the authors of "Cy aprez fait mencion", "Ce sont les noms....fondee", and "S'ensuit les noms".

^ ^^Namely, the authors of the Dit des Rovs and the universal chronicle. ll^Namely, the authors of "Ce sont les noms gaule" and "Les noms". 493 coronation, or was it some combination of these elements? As we have seen, the authors of late-medieval lists of the French kings were not unanimous in their answers to these questions. In answering them differently, they provided very different lists of the French kings. In providing different lists of the French kings, they provided very different interpretations of the history of the French monarchy. CHAPTER VIII CONCLUSION

The official history of France written by the monks of Saint- Denis attained the peak of its popularity in the period between the accession of Charles VI (1380) and the death of Louis XII (1515). Indeed, the wide social and geographic diffusion of the official history, the conviction with which late-medieval Frenchmen believed it to contain an accurate account of their national past, and the extent to which it informed the dominant late-medieval interpretation of French history led Bernard Guenee to describe the Grandes Chroniques as "the Bible of France".' However, not all late-medieval Frenchmen read this holy book, and not all accepted the authority of these scriptures. The sheer length of the Grandes Chroniques, and the consequent expense of the manuscripts in which they circulated, prompted a demand for shorter, more convenient, and less expensive

'The phrase is that of Jules Viard, the editor of the standard modem edition of the Grandes Chroniques. Guenee adopted it in Histoire et culture historique dans TOccident medieval. Paris 1980, 339: "Les Français crurent aux Grandes Chroniques de France comme à la Bible", and in "Histoire d'un succès," in François Avril, Marie-Thêrèse Gousset, and Bernard Guenèe, Les Grandes Chroniques de France. Reproduction intégrale en fac-similé^ des miniatures de FouQuet. Manuscrit français 6465 de la Bibhothèaue nationale de Paris. Paris 1987,138: "Elles fthe Grandes Chroniauesl furent bien 'comme la bible de France'." 494 495 histories of France. That demand was met by historians who abridged the Grandes Chroniques, as well as other lengthy historical works, in order to satisfy the interest in national history expressed by Frenchmen who lacked the wealth to purchase them or the time or inclination to read them. Like the authors of the Grandes Chroniques, these historians recounted French history, by royal reign, from the supposed Trojan origins of the Franks to contemporary or near-contemporary times. Unlike the authors of the Grandes Chroniques, they were not part of the royalist historical school of Saint-Denis, and their undertakings were neither encouraged nor sanctioned by the French monarchy. They were unofficial historians, and they wrote unofficial histories of France. The unofficial historians were numerous, and their works circulated in more manuscripts than the Grandes Chroniques, which survive in 107 manuscripts, of which eighty-seven date to the period 1380-1515. Collectively, the twenty-three unofficial histories examined in this study survive in at least seventy-one manuscripts and possibly in as many as 108. There are many additional manuscripts which contain additional unofficial histories which I did not s tu d y . 2 Without considering the surviving manuscripts of other unofficial histories, the collective diffusion of the twenty-three in question approximated or surpassed the diffusion of the official history. Furthermore, their diffusion in social and geographic terms roughly mirrored that of the Grandes Chroniques. Like the Grandes

2 For examples of unofficial histories of France not included in this study, see Chapter 1, "Introduction," note 61. 496 Chroniques, the unofficial histories of France appealed primarily to laymen. As in the case of the Grandes Chroniques, noblemen dominated the lay public of the unofficial histories, and royal officials figured prominently in it. Like the official history, the unofficial ones circulated most densely in the Ile-de-France and the North, less densely throughout the rest of the northern half of the kingdom, and least frequently south of the Loire. These facts speak to the usefulness of unofficial histories as guides to the French past. In the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, they were most in demand among the social groups most interested in the history of France. They were most in demand in the parts of the kingdom where interest in the French past was liveliest. In short, the traditional audiences of the Grandes Chroniques welcomed the unofficial histories as acceptable alternatives to the bulky and expensive official one. So did at least some Frenchmen who did not belong to the traditional audiences of the Grandes Chroniques. The unofficial histories were the preferred alternatives of minor noblemen, who figured more prominently in their collective public than in the audience of the Grandes Chroniques. The unofficial histories represented the only alternatives for non-noble laymen unassociated with the royal government, the only social group to figure prominently in the collective audience of the unofficial histories but not in the public of the Grandes Chroniques. In sum, late-medieval Frenchmen did not disdain the unofficial histories as "unoriginal" works composed by "mere compilers". They 497 turned to them in large numbers to leam the history of their country. By studying their diffusion in manuscripts, their dispersion in space, and their distribution among different segments of the French population, this study has indicated that the unofficial histories played an important role in shaping the historical culture of late-medieval Frenchmen. Late-medieval French historical culture was marked by considerable diversity. Indeed, the most important contribution of this study has been to reveal the significant extent to which unofficial historians articulated views of the French past which differed both from one another and from the views endorsed by the Grandes Chroniques and other late-medieval royal historical propaganda. Because unofficial historians offerred a variety of interpretations of the French past, because their interpretations of the French past did not always accord with the official one, and because many Frenchmen relied upon their works for knowledge of French history, late-medieval French historical culture was anything but monolithic. The unofficial historians of France knew that French dynastic history was supposed never to have been marred by bastardy, because royal propagandists repeatedly asserted as much throughout the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. They were also aware that this notion about the French past served a compelling contemporary political purpose. The unofficial historians wrote at a time when attitudes toward the illegitimate hardened. They composed their works in a kingdom where rumors of queenly adultery provoked 498 scandals. At a time when the official history of France advanced dynastic continuity as proof of political legitimacy, and when many found this historical argument persuasive, the unofficial historians knew that to assert that bastards had sat on the French throne was to tarnish the reputation of the current kings of France. In short, they approached the question of royal illegitimacy in full knowledge of its contemporary implications. That is why to assess their willingness to suppress the fact of bastardy in French dynastic history is to measure the success of the official interpretation of French history in shaping a late-medieval belief about the French past. With regard to royal illegitimacy, that success was impressive, but far from complete. Most unofficial historians took steps to safeguard a legitimate birth for Clovis. Eighteen of them did not relate the full circumstances of Childeric I's marriage, and one of the four who did relate them went on to deny that Clovis had issued from Childeric's union with Basina. Furthermore, by failing to mention Louis 111 and Carloman, or by presenting them as kings but not as bastards, or by presenting them as bastards but not as kings, twelve of the unofficial historians suppressed the reigns of the two illegitimate Carolingians. In all, twelve of the unofficial historians cleansed the French past of royal illegitimacy. However, ten did not. Four of them let stand the traditional account of the reign of Childeric I, an account which could and did give rise to the conclusion that Clovis was a bastard. One of those four openly asserted that the founder of the Most Christian 499 monarchy was of illegitimate birth. That unofficial historian and nine others informed their readers that Louis 111 and Carloman had been both bastards and kings of France. The unofficial historians who did not expunge illegitimacy from France's dynastic past were unmoved by the historical propaganda theme which shaped the omissions and revisions carried out by those who did expunge it. The works of the unofficial historians were informed by different sensibiliUes, and their different sensibilities in turn marked late-medieval French historical culture with variety. The readers of some of the unofficial histories "knew" what the French kings wanted them to know about the age-old purity of the royal line. The readers of others "knew" that the notion that France's dynastic past was unsullied by bastardy was false. In sum, different answers to the question of royal illegitimacy circulated in late- medieval France. The official answer did not submerge those which dissented from it. The issue was not resolved in a final way. Nor was the issue of regicide in the French past. Like the question of royal bastardy, it resounded with contemporary ideological implications. In the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, official historiographers and other propagandists strove to prove that the French monarchy was unlike all others. Indeed, the events of the Hundred Years' War lent immediacy to their attempts to underline the superiority of the French crown. In order to accomplish the urgent task of persuading Frenchmen that it was preferable to be governed by French kings than by English ones, royal propagandists made unfavorable historical comparisons with the latter. By 500 repeatedly contrasting the supposed absence of regicide in French history to its alleged prevalence in English history, they sought to convince Frenchmen that the French kings were better governors than the kings of England and that the harmonious relationship between the French monarchs and their subjects had never been (and, therefore, should never be) ruptured by violence. Because the unofficial historians were people of their times, they knew that the French were supposed never to have killed their kings, and they knew that the absence of regicide in French history represented a weighty proof of the superiority of the French monarchy relative to its greatest enemy. Consequently, the fact that most of them reported that the French had killed their kings represents the failure of the propaganda theme according to which they had not. Indeed, one contribution of this study has been to indicate that different elements of the official interpretation of French history did not achieve equal levels of success in shaping the historical beliefs of late-medieval Frenchmen. Thus, while the supposed absence of bastardy in French dynastic history achieved moderate success, the supposed absence of regicide achieved very little. Twenty of the unofficial historians reported at least one instance of regicide, and fourteen of them reported three or more. Furthermore, in telling their readers that Childeric II was killed by a victim of his own injustice, thirteen of the unofficial historians related the facts of a form of regicide that belied the ideological purposes of the official view. In sum, most unofficial historians did 501 not accept the notion that the French past had been free of regicide, and the diffusion of their works ensured that many late-medieval Frenchmen learned that the French had killed their kings. The unofficial historians' treatments of regicide revealed not only dissent from a propaganda theme, but also marked differences of opinion among the unofficial historians themselves. The twenty who reported that at least one French king had been murdered did not share the sensibilities of the two who went to extreme lengths to cleanse the French past of regicide. The thirteen unofficial historians who reported that Childeric II had been assassinated by a victim of his own injustice did not share the concerns of the seven who, while reporting other regicides, either omitted all mention of Childeric's murder or revised the traditional narrative of that event so as to transform the king into the innocent victim of a deranged assassin. Because so many unofficial historians dissented from the official view and because they disagreed among themselves, their works at once reflected and contributed to the varied nature of late- medieval beliefs about the French past. Some late-medieval Frenchmen "knew" that the French had never killed their kings. Others "knew" that they had. In a view relatively more favorable to the monarchy, some of the latter "knew" that French kings had been killed only by malevolent individuals acting alone. In a view relatively less favorable to the monarchy, others "knew" that the harmonious bond between the French kings and their subjects had been ruptured when Childeric II had provoked his unlamentable death at the hands of an innocent victim of his misrule. In sum, to 502 reveal the extent to which different views of the question of regicide in the French past coexisted in late-medieval France and competed for acceptance by late-medieval Frenchmen is to appreciate the diversity of late-medieval French historical culture. The coexistence and competition of varied beliefs about the history of France in the late-fourteenth and fifteenth centuries is further revealed by the late-medieval controversy over Saint Louis IX. The belief that Louis' crusades had been unprecedented and unnecessary undertakings, the conviction that their cost had impoverished his kingdom, and the notion that the payment of the king's ransom had resulted in the issuing of leather money and the imposition of burdensome new taxes originated in Paris. However, these views were diffused beyond the capital. The allegations against Saint Louis came to be known in Normandy, in the North, and even south of the Loire. Likewise, while the allegations originated among the humbler classes of urban society, they came to the attention of cathedral clergy, royal officials, noblemen, and even members of the royal family. The charges against Louis DC originated at the end of the fourteenth century. However, they were sustained and even expanded during the fifteenth century and the first decades of the sixteenth century. Those charges represented a negative assessment of the reign of Louis IX which ran directly counter to the positive image of the Capetian saint assiduously cultivated by official historians and royal ordonnances in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. Therefore, the diffusion of this negative view of Louis IX in space, its circulation among different 503 segments of French society, and its persistence in time have significant implications for our understanding of late-medieval French historical culture. They indicate not only that it harbored views which dissented from the dominant, officially-sanctioned ones, but also that it was possible for such dissenting views to survive and to spread. Indeed, the controversy over Louis DC represented an historical debate in which unofficial historians and other late-medieval Frenchmen participated and took sides. The two unofficial historians who told their readers that the payment of Louis' ransom had a negative impact on his kingdom were in effect detractors of Louis IX. The two unofficial historians who reported that Louis had been captured and ransomed during the course of his first crusade made no attempt to protect his memory from the charges which circulated against him. The unofficial historian who chose to relate neither that Louis had been captured nor that he had been ransomed was a defender of Louis IX who sought to shield his memory from those allegations. So were the three unofficial historians who informed their readers that Louis had been captured but proceeded to omit mention of his ransom. Louis Le Blanc and his son Etienne wrote historical treatises in defense of Saint Louis to respond to tlie accusations leveled orally against Louis IX by his anonymous Parisian detractors. In sum, late-medieval Frenchmen interested in their national past not only held different opinions about the reign of one of the most illustrious representatives of the French royal line, but also argued about Saint Louis himself. Late-medieval French 504 historical culture embraced not only disagreement, but also active (and unresolved) debate. Indeed, the fact that fundamental interpretive matters in the history of France remained unresolved in the late-medieval period is best illustrated by the absence of a canonical list of the French kings. The seven lists of the French kings examined in this study enumerated anywhere from seventeen to thirty-one Merovingian monarchs. Their authors listed anywhere from nine to fourteen Carolingian kings, and they named either eighteen or nineteen Capetians up to and including Charles VI. They told their readers that the latter was anywhere from the forty-fourth to the sixtieth king of France. Their lists collectively named seventy-one monarchs from Pharamond to Charles VI, but only forty-two of those seventy- one figured in all seven of them. Relatively little of the variety which characterized these late-medieval king-lists resulted from the use of different sources by their authors. Indeed, list-makers who based their works on the same sources produced dissimilar enumerations of the French monarchs. The diversity of their lists stemmed from the fact that the seemingly elementary task of naming the French monarchs from Pharamond to the current king was actually a difficult one which entailed much more than ascertaining the facts of French dynastic history and summarizing them in the form of a list. Because many of those facts contradicted both late-medieval royal succession practices and historically-based ideas about the monarchy popularized by late-medieval royal propaganda, anyone who made a list necessarily 505 had to interpret it in the light of contemporary practices and beliefs. Because many inclusions and exclusions of kings found analogues in controversial fourteenth and fifteenth-century events, list-makers necessarily had to interpret them in the light of contemporary events and the compelling political questions about the nature of the French monarchy raised by those events. In short, unofficial historians and other list-makers had to decide which individuals to include in their lists, and they had to make their decisions against a backdrop of current practices, beliefs, and events which bestowed contemporary political significance upon their conclusions. To list the French kings was necessarily to voice an opinion on important aspects of the nature and history of French kingship. Had the French monarchy always been hereditary, and had the kingdom of France always been exempt from imperial authority? Contemporary practice, which derived its authority from its supposed antiquity and immutability, assumed that the answers were yes. Fourteenth and fifteenth-century royal propagandists answered in the affirmative. So did the six of the seven list-makers examined in this study who excluded the Roman Gilles from their enumerations of the French kings. However, the list-maker who included Gilles in his enumeration answered in the negative. Had the kingdom of France always constituted one indivisible and inalienable entity? Late-medieval practice assumed, and Charles VH's partisans and propagandists vigorously asserted, that tlie answer was yes. The four list-makers whose enumerations obscured the partitions of 511 and 561 also answered affirmatively. However, 506 three list-makers, by composing lists which recognized that the sons of Clovis and the sons of Chlotar I had simultaneously ruled separate kingdoms, answered negatively. Had the closest legitimate male heir always acceded to the throne upon the death of the reigning French monarch? Such was the contemporary practice, and propagandists eager to underline continuity in French dynastic history held that it had characterized the past as well. The two list-makers whose enumerations obscured irregularities in the succession in the periods 673-675, 715-721, and 879-936 shared their opinion. However, the five list-makers who composed lists according to which individuals other than Theuderic 111, Theuderic IV, and Charles the Simple and Louis IV had sat on the French throne during those periods did not share their opinion. Had bastards ever mounted the French throne? Contemporary practice dictated that they could not, a royal propaganda theme asserted that they never had, and the five list-makers who either excluded Louis 111 and Carloman or included them while failing to mention their illegitimate birth answered negatively. However, the two list-makers who noted their bastardy and included them in their enumerations answered positively. In sum, late-medieval Frenchmen could not enumerate the French kings without confronting important questions about the history of the French monarchy. The authors of king-lists were far from unanimous in their answers to those questions, and their responses often differed from the answers provided by royal propagandists. Late-medieval Frenchmen simply did not agree about 507 the interpretation of numerous events in French dynastic history. That is why there was no canon of the French kings in the Late Middle Ages. The diversity of late-medieval king-lists is a reflection of, and a testimony to, the extent to which late-medieval French historical culture was marked by different and dissenting interpretations of the French past. The major contribution of this study was to reveal something of the variety which characterized late-medieval beliefs about French history. To be sure, it was a study marked by certain inevitable limitations. It examined unofficial histories of France, but other types of literature at once informed and reflected late-medieval Frenchmen's beliefs about their national history. It examined twenty-three unofficial histories, but there were others. It examined the extent to which unofficial historians accepted the propositions of royal propaganda relative to bastardy and regicide in French history, but there were additional elements of the official interpretation of French history whose success in shaping the historical beliefs of the unofficial historians and their readers it did not investigate. It examined the late-medieval controversy over Saint Louis IX, but it did not consider the late-medieval reputations of other important figures in French history. It examined seven late-medieval lists of the French kings, but there were additional lists of the French monarchs which it did not consider and there were other unresolved interpretive matters in French history upon which it did not focus. Nevertheless, these limitations signal directions for future studies rather than impugnations of the value of the present one. In 508 the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, the question of bastardy in French dynastic history, the issue of regicide in the French past, the reputation of the Capetian saint, and the names of the French kings and the order in which they had reigned were not obscure matters. They were important historical issues to which late- medieval Frenchmen attached great significance. Consequently, they represent valuable case studies in late-medieval French historical culture. Through these case studies, my work sought to enhance our understanding of late-medieval French historical culture by pursuing three objectives. It has done so. The first objective of my work was to measure the success of the French monarchy's historical propaganda by examing the extent to which the officially-sanctioned interpretation of French history dominated the historically-based beliefs of late-medieval Frenchmen. While it did not examine the extent to which every element of the official interpretation of French history gained acceptance, and while it did not examine the historically-based beliefs of all Frenchmen, it did demonstrate in case studies that the official interpretation of French history did not monopolize late-medieval beliefs about the French past to the extent that some have thought. The second objective of this study was to examine the extent to which a variety of interpretations of French kingship and French history circulated in late-medieval France. Because unofficial historians frequently dissented from officially-sanctioned views and disagreed with one another, this study revealed that late-medieval Frenchmen had access to diverse notions about their national history. 509 Because the unofficial histories were widely diffused in space and time, it revealed that contemporaries could be exposed to diverse beliefs about the French past. The case studies which I have undertaken revealed that late-medieval beliefs about the French past were varied. They demonstrated that late-medieval French historical culture was marked by dissent, by disagreement, and even by debate. The third objective of this study was to allow the voices of the unofficial historians to be heard. It has done so by bringing to light their works, none of which have been published in full and few of which have been subject to modern scholarly examinations. In doing so, it has indicated that future considerations of late-medieval French historiography and French historical culture will need to take the unofficial histories of France into account. They represent an impressive and coherent body of historical literature authored not by mindless plagiarists but by thoughtful Frenchmen interested in their national history. They also played an important role in shaping late- medieval beliefs about the French past. To study the Grandes Chroniques and other historical propaganda sponsored or inspired by the French monarchy is to learn what the French kings wanted their subjects to believe about French history. To study the contents of the unofficial histories is to gain insight into what the late-medieval Frenchmen who wrote them actually ^ believe about their nation's past. To compare tiieir beliefs both to one another and to the officially-sanctioned ones is to appreciate the varied views of French history that coexisted and 510 competed in late-medieval France. To examine the diffusion of their works is to understand that late-medieval French historical culture was marked by diverse interpretations of the national past. BIBLIOGRAPHY

I. MANUSCRIPT SOURCES

Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale ms. fr. 1233 Noël de Fribois, Abrégé des Chroniques de France, first recension ms. fr. 1623 "Ce sont les noms de tous les roys qui ont este en France puis quelle fu fondée" ms. fr. 1707 Le Dit des Rovs ms. fr. 1965 Le Rosier des Guerres: "S'ensuit les noms des roys de France"; "Les noms des roys de France" ms. fr. 4940 "Cy aprez fait mencion de tous les roys de France combien ilz regnerent" ms. fr. 4943 Noël de Fribois, Abrégé des Chroniques de France, second recension ms. fr. 4948 "Cy aprez fait mencion de tous les roys de France combien ilz regnerent" ms. fr. 4954 "Les Roys de France" 511 512 ms. fr. 4990 "A tous nobles" ms. fr. 4991 "A tous nobles" ms. fr. 5059 "A tous nobles" ms. fr. 5696 "A tous nobles" “ ms. fr. 5697 "A tous nobles" ms. fr. 5704 "Cy sensuyt la generation de la bible qui comptent dadam jusques au deluge " ms. fr. 5709 "Le premier jour dieu créa les Anges le second créa les cieulx....." ms. fr. 5719 Etienne Le Blanc, Généalogie de Bourbon ms. fr. 5721 Louis Le Blanc, La saincte vie et haultz faictz. dignes de mémoire, de monseigneur sainct lovs. rov de france ms. fr. 5734 "A tous nobles" ms. fr. 9688 "Chronologie universelle jusqu'à la mort de Charles VI" ms. ff. 10137 "Le narre des faiz et gestes des francoys selon les croniques de france qui sont a saint dénis en france, extraict en brief du contenu en icelles" 513 ms. fr. 10139 "A tous nobles" ms. fr. 10141 Noël de Fribois, Abrégé des Chroniques de France, first recension ms. ff. 10468 "Apres la destruction de troye la grant de ceubc qui en eschapperent une grant multitude " ms. fr. 19561 "A tous nobles" ms. fr. 20145 "A tous nobles" ms. fr. 23019 "Les croniques des papes et des empereurs et des roys de france et d'engleterre" ms. fr. 24976 "Il est assavoir que Jupiter ancien chef de noblesse " ms. fr. 25012 Louis Le Blanc, Chronique abregee de monseigneur saint lovs rov de france. et d'autres rovs de france ses oredecesseurs ms. n.a. fr. 4209 "La genealogie des roys de france" ms. n.a. fr. 4811 "les Chroniques de france especialement icelles advenues en cettuy temps" ms. n.a. fr. 6776 Translation of Bernard Gui, Nomina regum Francorum. Arbor genealogie regum Francorum. and Reges Francorum. by Jean Golein ms. n.a. fr. 7519 "A tous nobles" 514 ms, lat. 5027 Chronique anonyme finissant en 1383: "Ce sont les noms des roys de france anciennement nommes gaule" ms. lat. 5195 "La genealogie des roys de france et ducz de normendie" ms. lat. 5659 "La genealogie des roys de france et ducz de normendie" ms. lat. 14663 "Comment valentiniain empereur fist regner avecques luy gracian "

II. PRINTED SOURCES

Aimoin of Fleury. De Gestis Regum Francorum. Edited by Dom Martin Bouquet. In Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France. 3: 21-143. 2nd edition. Paris, 1869.

Basin, Thomas. Histoire de Louis XI. Edited and translated by Charles Samaran. In Les Classiques de l'histoire de France au moyen âge, vols. 26, 29, 30. Paris, 1963-72.

Cochon, Pierre. Chronique normande de Pierre Cochon, notaire apostolique à Rouen. Edited by Charles de Beaurepaire. Rouen, 1870.

Coffey, Thomas F., and Terrence J. McGovem, eds. A Middle French Translation of Bernard Gui's Shorter Historical Works bv Jean Golein. Lewiston, New York, 1993.

Delachanel, Roland, ed. Chronique des règnes de lean II et de Charles V. 4 vols. Paris, 1910-20.

Gregory of Tours. Gresorii Eoiscopi Turonenis Historiarum Libri X. Edited by Wilhelm Arndt and Bruno Krusch. In Monumenta Germaniae Historica. ScriPtores Rerum Merovingicarum. 1: 31-450. Hanover, 1884. 515 Gui, Bernard. Reees Francorum. Edited by Natalis de Wailly. In Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France. 21: 691-734. Paris, 1855.

Guillaume de Nangis. Chronique Abrégée. Edited by M. Danou. In Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France. 20: 649-53. Paris, 1840.

Joinville, Jean, sire de. Histoire de Saint Louis. Edited by Natalis de Wailly. Paris, 1868.

Krusch, Bruno, ed. Liber Historiae Francorum. In Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriotores Rerum Merovingicarum. 2: 215-328. Hanover, 1884.

Lefranc, Abel, and Jacques Boulenger, eds. Comptes de Louise de Savoie (1515. 15221 et de Marguerite d'Aneoulême (1512. 1517.1524.1529.1539L Paris, 1905.

Levine, Robert, trans. France Before Charlemagne. A Translation from Les Grandes Chroniques. Lewiston, New York, 1990.

Luce, Simeon, ed. Chronique du Mont-Saint-Michel (1343-1468). 2 vols. Paris, 1879.

Masselin, Jean, journal des États Généraux de France tenus à Tours en 1484. Edited by Adhelm Bemier. Paris, 1835.

Pons, Nicole, ed. "L'honneur de la couronne de France": Quatre libelles contre les Anglais (vers 1418-vers 1429). Paris, 1990.

Pseudo-Fredegarius. Chronicarum quae dicuntur Fredegarii Scholastici libri IV. cum Continuationibus. Edited by Bruno Krusch. In Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Scriotores Rerum Merovingicarum. 2:1-193. Hanover, 1884.

Viard, Jules, ed. Les Grandes Chroniques de France. 10 vols. Paris, 1920-53.

Vincent of Beauvais. Speculum Quadruplex Sive Speculum Maius. Vol. 4, Speculum Historiale. Douai, 1624; reprint, Graz, 1965. 516 Wailly, Natalis de, ed. Chronique anonyme finissant en 1383. In Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France. 21: 142-5. Paris, 1855.

______. Manuel d'histoire de Philippe VI de Valois. In Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France. 21: 146-58. Paris, 1855.

III. SECONDARY SOURCES

Bazin, Germain. Le Mont Saint-Michel: histoire et archéologie de l'origine à nos iours. 2nd ed. New York, 1968.

Beaune, Colette. "Saint Clovis: histoire, religion royale et sentiment national en France à la fin du Moyen Age." In Le métier d'historien au Moven Age. Études sur l'historiographie médiévale, ed. Bernard Guenée, 139-56. Paris, 1977.

"L'Historiographie de Charles VII: un thème de l'opposition à Louis XI." In La France de la fin du XVe siècle. Renouveau et Apogée, ed. Bernard Chevalier and Philippe Contamine, 265-81. Paris, 1985.

"L'utilisation politique du mythe troyen à la fin du Moyen Age." In Lectures Medievales de Virgile (Actes du Colloque organisé par l'Ecole Française de Rome. Rome. 25-28 Octobre. 1982). 331-55. Rome, 1985.

Le miroir du pouvoir. Paris, 1989.

______The Birth of an Ideology. Mvths and Svmbols of Nation in Late-Medieval France. Translated by Susan Ross Huston. Edited by Frederic L. Cheyette. Berkeley, 1991.

Beaurepaire, Charles de. "Notice sur Pierre Cochon, auteur de la Chronique normande." Precis analvtique des travaux de l'Académie des Sciences. Belles Lettres et Arts de Rouen 62 (1859-60): 299-331. 517 Bernier, Adhelm. "Notice sur Jehan Masselin". In Jean Masselin, Tournai des États Généraux tenus à Tours en 1484. ed. Adhelm Bemier, i-xix. Paris, 1835.

Bloch, Marc. The Roval Touch. Monarchy and Miracles in France and England. Translated by J.E. Anderson. New York, 1989.

Bossuat, André. "Jean Castel, chroniqueur de France." Le Moven Age. 4th series, 13 (1958): 285-304, 499-538.

______"Les origines troyennes: leur rôle dans la littérature historique du XVe siecle." Annales de Normandie 8 (1958): 187-97.

Bossuat, Robert. "Le Dit des Rovs. Chronique rimée du XlVe siècle." In Mélanges de Linguistique romane et Philologie médiévale offerts à M. Maurice Delbouille. 2: 49-58. Gembloux, 1964.

Bühler, Cuit F. "The Rosier des Guerres and the Dits moraulx des philosophes." Speculum 34 (1959): 625-8.

Carozzi, Claude. "Le dernier des Carolingiens: de l'histoire au mythe." Le Moven Age. 4th series, 31 (1976): 453-76.

Carpentier, Elisabeth. "L'historiographie de la bataille de Poitiers au quatorzième siecle." Revue historique 263 ( 1980): 21-58.

Cazelles, Raymond. "Une exigence de l'opinion depuis Saint Louis: la réformation du royaume." Annuaire-Bulletin de la Société de l'Histoire de France ( 1962-63 ): 91-9.

______"Quelques réflexions à propos des mutations de la monnaie royale française (1295-1360)." Le Moven Age. 4th series, 21 (1966): 83-105, 251-78.

Chalon, Louis. "Comment travaillaient les compilateurs de la Primera Cronica General de Espana." Le Moven Age. 4th series, 31 (1976): 289-300.

Cochet, L'abbé. Le tombeau de Childéric 1er, roi des Francs, restitué à l'aide de l'archéologie. Paris, 1859. 518 Contamine, Philippe. "Une interpolation de la 'Chronique Martienne': le 'Brevis Tractatus’ d'Etienne de Conty, official de Corbie." Annales de Bretagne et des navs de l'Ouest 87 Q98Qi: 367-86.

Couderc, Camille. "Le Manuel d'histoire de Philippe VI de Valois." In Études d'histoire du Moven Age dédiées à Gabriel Monod. 415-44. Paris, 1896; reprint, Geneva, 1975.

Constant d'Yanville, H. Chambre des Comptes de Paris. Essais historiques et chronologiques. Privilèges et attributions nobiliaires et armorial. 2 vols. Paris, 1866-75.

Daly, Kathleen. "The 'Miroir Historial Abrégé de France' and 'C'est chose profitable': a Study of Two Fifteenth-Century French Historical Texts and their Context." Ph.D. thesis, Oxford, 1983.

______. "A Rare Iconographie Theme in a Bodleian Library Manuscript: An Illustration of the Reditus Resni ad Stimem Karoli Masni in MS. Bodley 968." Bodleian Library Record 11 (1982-85): 371-81.

______"Histoire et politique à la fin de la Guerre de Cent Ans: 'l'Abrégé des Chroniques' de Noël de Fribois. " In La 'France Anglaise' au Moven Age (Actes du 111e Congrès National des Sociétés Savantes. Poitiers. 1986L 1: 91-101. Paris, 1988.

______. "Mixing Business with Leisure: Some French Royal Notaries and Secretaries and their Histories of France." In Power. Culture, and Religion in France. c.l350-c.l550. ed. Christopher Allmand, 99-115. Woodbridge, 1989.

Davies, Katherine. "Late Fifteenth Century French Historiography as exemplified in the Compendium of Robert Gaguin and the De Rebus Gestis of Paulus Aemilius." Ph.D. thesis, Edinburgh, 1954.

Delisle, Leopold. "Note sur le manuscrit latin 5027 de la Bibliothèque impériale." Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des Chartes 30 (18691: 212-15.

"Mémoire sur les ouvrages de Guillaume de Nangis." Mémoires de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 27. Part 2 (1873): 287-372. 519 "Notice sur les manuscrits de Bernard Gui." Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale et autres bibliothèques 27, Part 2 (1879): 170-455.

_. "Traductions d'auteurs grecs et latins offertes à François 1er et Anne de Montmorency par Etienne Leblanc et Antoine Macault." Tournai des Savants (19001: 476-92.

Catalogue des manuscrits des fonds Libri et Barrois. Reprint, Paris, 1988.

Deloison-Joanno, Simone. "Robert Jolivet et la guerre du Mont-Saint- Michel." Bulletin de la Société d'archéologie et d'histoire de Saint-Valèrv-sur-Somme Q978T: 19-28.

Demurger, Alain. "L'histoire au secours de la chicane: la place de l'histoire dans les procès au parlement au debut du quinzième siècle (1419-1436)." Tournai des Savants (1985): 231-312.

Diamantberger, Maurice. "Un essai de rehabilitation. Nouvelles recherches sur le Rosier des Guerres de Louis XI." Mercure de France. 15 July 1925, 513-21.

Duby, Georges. The Knight, the Ladv. and the Priest. Translated by Barbara Bray. New York, 1983.

Dunbabin, Jean. France in the Making. 843-1180. Oxford, 1985.

Dupont, Etienne, and Jacques Fauchon. "L'abbé Robert Jolivet." Revue de I'Avranchin et du pavs de Granville 67 (1989): 125-60.

Favier, Jean, ed. Histoire de France. Vol. 1, Les origines (avant l'an mil), by Karl Ferdinand Wemer. Paris, 1984.

Flutre, L.-F. "Mathieu Grenet de Bethune, religieux, chroniqueur, et pèlerin de Rome en l'an 1500." In Mélanges de philologie romane et de littérature médiévale offerts à Ernest Hoeoffner. 371-9. Paris, 1949. 520 Fossier, François. "Chroniques universelles en forme de rouleau à la fin du Moyen Age." Bulletin de la Société Nationale des Antiquaires de France (1980-81): 163-83.

François, Michel. "Les rois de France et les traditions de l'abbaye de Saint-Denis à la fin du XVe siècle." In Mélanges dédiés à la mémoire de Félix Grat. 1: 367-82. Paris, 1946.

Gauvard, Claude, and Gilette Labory. "Une chronique rimée parisienne écrite en 1409: 'Les aventures depujs deux cents ans'." In Le métier d'historien au Moven Age. Études sur l'historiographie médiévale, ed. Bernard Guenée, 183-231. Paris, 1977.

Geary, Patrick. Before France and Germanv. The Creation and Transformation of the Merovingian World. New York, 1988.

Grévy-Pons, Nicole. "Propagande et sentiment national pendant le règne de Charles VI: L'exemple de Jean de Montreuil." Francia 8 (1980): 127-45.

Guenée, Bernard. "L'histoire de l'Etat en France à la fin du Moyen Age vue par les historiens français depuis cents ans." Revue historique 232 (1964): 331-60.

______"Etat et Nation en France au Moyen Age." Revue historique 237 (1967): 17-30.

"L'enquête historique ordonée par Edouard 1er, Roi d'Angleterre, en 1291." Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (1975): 572-84.

"La culture historique des nobles: le succès des Faits des Romains (XllIe-XVe siècles)." In La Noblesse au Moven Age Xle-XVe siècles. Essais à la mémoire de Robert Boutruche. ed. Philippe Contamine, 261-88. Paris, 1976.

"Y a-t-il une historiographie médiévale?." Revue historique 258 (1977): 261-75. 521 "Les généalogies entre l'histoire et la politique: la fierté d'etre Capetien, en France, au Moyen Age." Annales: Economies Sociétés Civilisations 33 (1978): 450-77.

.. "'Avant-Propos' and 'Conclusion' to the Actes du Congrès de la société des historiens médiévistes de l'enseignement supérieur (1977)." Annales de Bretagne et des oavs de l'Ouest 87 (19801: 167-8,415-17.

. Histoire et culture historique dans l'Occident médiéval. Paris, 1980.

"L'historien et la compilation au Xllle siècle." Tournai des Savants (1985): 119-35.

_. States and Rulers in Later Medieval Europe. Translated by Juliet Vale. Oxford, 1985.

_. "Les Grandes Chroniques de France. Le Roman aux roys (1274-1518)." In Les Lieux de mémoire. 11. La nation, ed. Pierre Nora, 1: 189-214. Paris, 1986.

______"Histoire d'un succès." In François Avril, Marie-Thérèse Gousset, and Bernard Guenée, Les Grandes Chroniques de France. Réoroduction intégrale en fac-similé des miniatures de FouQuet. Manuscrit français 6454 de la Bibliothèque nationale de Paris. 81-138, 286-9. Paris, 1987.

Guy, Henry. "La chronique française de maistre Guillaume Crétin. " Revue des langues romanes 47 (19041: 385-417.

Hayez, M. "Un exemple de culture historique au XVe siècle: la Geste des nobles français." Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire de l'Ecole française de Rome 75 ( 1963): 127-78.

Hedeman, Anne D. "Valois Legitimacy: Editorial Changes in Charles V's Grandes Chroniques de France." The Art Bulletin 66 (1984): 97-117.

-. The Roval Image. Illustrations of the Grandes Chroniques de France. 1274-1422. Berkeley, 1991. 522 Hellot, A. "Etude critique sur les sources du Rosier des Guerres." Revue historique 29 (1885): 75-81.

Henneman, John Bell. Roval Taxation in Fourteenth-Centurv France: The Development of War Financing 1322-1356. Princeton, 1971.

Hindman, Sandra, and Gabrielle M. Spiegel. "The Fleur-de-lis Frontispieces to Guillaume de Nangis's Chronique Abreeee: Political Iconography in Late Fifteenth-Centuiy France." Viator 12 (1981): 381-407.

Hoareau-Dodinau, Jacqueline. "Les fondements des prëf&ences dynastiques au XlVe siècle d'après quelques lettres de rémission." In La 'France Anglaise' au Moven Age (Actes du 111e Congrès national des sociétés savantes. Poitiers. 19861. 1: 113-21. Paris, 1988.

Hurel-Genin, Nathalie. "Les Chroniques universelles en rouleau: un exemple d'oeuvre historique enluminée de la fin du Moyen Age." Bulletin de l'Association des Amis du Centre Teanne d'Arc 15 (1991): 29-33.

"Le fragment de parchemin anonyme du Centre Jeanne d'Arc d'Orleans." Bulletin de l'Association des Amis du Centre Teanne d'Arc 15 (1991): 39-44.

James, Edward. The Origins of France. From Clovis to the Canetians. 500-1000. London, 1982.

______The Franks. Oxford, 1988.

Jouanna, Arlette. "La quête des origines dans l'historiographie française de la fin du XVe et du début du XVle siècle." In La France de la fin du XVe siècle. Renouveau et Apogée, ed. Bernard Chevalier and Philippe Contamine, 301-11. Paris, 1985.

Kaeppeli, Thomas. Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum Medii Aevi. 3 vols. Rome, 1970-80. 523 Kaulek, Jean. "Louis XI est-il l'auteur du Rosier des Guerres?." Revue historique 21 (18831: 312-22.

Kurth, Godefroid. Histoire poétique des Mérovingiens. Paris, 1893.

______Clovis. 2nd edition. 2 vols. Paris, 1901.

Lamarrigue, Anne-Marie. "La méthode historique de Bernard Gui, d'après la chronique des rois de France." Cahiers de Fanieaux 16(1981): 205-19.

Lambrech, Regine. "Charlemagne and his Influence on Late-Medieval French Kings." loum al of Medieval Historv 14 (1988): 283-91.

Lapeyre, André, and Rémy Scheurer. Les Notaires et Secretaires du roi sous les règnes de Louis XL Charles Vlll et Louis Xll. 2 vols. Paris, 1978.

Lecoq, Anne-Marie. François 1er imaginaire. Svmboliaue et politique à l'aube de la Renaissance française. Paris, 1987.

Lewis, P.S. "Jean Juvenal des Ursins and the Common Literary Attitude Towards Tyranny in Fifteenth-Century France." In P.S. Lewis, Essavs in Later Medieval French Historv. 169-87. London, 1985.

"Two Pieces of Fifteenth-Century Political Iconography: (a) Clovis Touches for the King's Evil; (b) The English Kill Their Kings." In P.S. Lewis, Essavs in Later Medieval French Historv. 189-92. London, 1985.

"War Propaganda and Historiography in Fifteenth-Century France and England." In P.S. Lewis, Essavs in Later Medieval French Historv. 193-213. London, 1985.

McKenna, J.W. "Henry VI of England and the Dual Monarchy: Aspects of Royal Political Propaganda, 1422-1432." loumal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 28 119651: 145-62.

Medeiros, Marie-Thérèse de. lacaues et Chroniqueurs. Une étude comparée de récits contemporains relatant la îacquerie de 1358. Paris, 1979. 524 Mirot, Leon. "Notes sur Etienne Le Blanc et ses compilations historiques." Bulletin de la Société de l'histoire de Paris et de rile de France 36 (1909): 38-45.

Molinier, Auguste. Les sources de l'histoire de France des origines aux guerres d'Italie (1494). 6 vols. Paris, 1901-6.

Paris, Paulin. Les manuscrits François de la Bibliothèque du Roi. Paris, 1836-48.

Pons, Nicole. "La propagande de guerre française avant l'apparition de Jeanne d'Arc." Tournai des Savants (1982): 191-214.

Raynaud, Christiane. "Mythologie politique et histoire dans la chronologie universelle d'Orléans (ms. 470)." Cahiers du Centre d'Etudes Médiévales de Nice 12 (1992): 113-45.

Riché, Jacques. "L'historien Nicole Gilles (14--? - 1503)." Ecole des Chartes. Positions des thèses T19301: 136-40.

Riché, Pierre. The Carolingians: A Familv Who Forged Europe. Translated by Michael Idomir Allen. Philadelphia, 1993.

Runciman, Steven. A Historv of the Crusades. 3 vols. Cambridge, 1951-4.

Samaran, Charles. "Pierre Choisnet, le Rosier des Guerres et le Livre des Trois Eases." Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des Chartes 87 (1926): 372-80.

Scheurer, Remy. "Nicole Gilles et Antoine Vérard." Bibliothèque de l'Ecole des Chartes 128 (19701: 415-19.

Schmidt-Chazan, Mireille. "Histoire et sentiment national chez Robert Gaguin." In Le métier d'historien au Moven Age. Études sur l'historiographie médiévale, ed. Bernard Guenée, 233-300. Paris, 1977.

______"Les traductions de la 'Guerre des Gaules' et le sentiment national au Moyen Age." Annales de Bretagne et des pavs de l'Ouest 87 (1980): 387-407. 525 Spiegel, Gabrielle M. "The Reditus Reeni ad Stiroem Karoli Masni: A New Look." French Historical Studies 7 11971): 145-74.

"The Cult ofSaint Denis and Capetian Kingship." Journal of Medieval Historv 1 (1975): 43-69.

"Political Utility in Medieval Historiography: A Sketch." Historv and Theory 14 (1975): 314-25.

"'Defense of the Realm': Evolution of a Capetian Propaganda Slogan. " Journal of Medieval Historv 3 (1977): 115-34.

The Chronicle Tradition of Saint-Denis: A Survey. Brookline, 1978.

"Genealogy: Form and Function in Medieval Historical Narrative." Historv and Theory 22 (1983 J: 43-53.

"Pseudo-Turpin, the Crisis of the Aristocracy, and the Beginnings of Vernacular Historiography in France." Journal of Medieval Historv 12 J19861: 207-23.

"Social Change and Literary Language: the Textualization of the Past in Thirteenth-Century Old French Historiography." Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 17 (1987): 129-48.

.. "History, Historicism, and the Social Logic of the Text in the Middle Ages." Speculum 65 (1990): 59-86.

Romancing the Past: The Rise of Vernacular Prose Historiography in Thirteenth-Centurv France. Berkeley, 1992.

Stegmann, André. "Le Rosier des Guerres: Testament politique de Louis XL" In La France de la fin du XVe siecle. Renouveau et Apogée, ed. Bernard Chevalier and Philippe Contamine, 313-23. Paris, 1985.

Stein, Henri. "La mort de Childéric II." Le Moven Age. 2nd series, 12 (1908): 297-309. 526 Strayer, Joseph R. "The Crusades of Louis IX." In A Historv of the Crusades, ed. Kenneth M. Setton, 2: 487-518. Madison, 1969.

______. "France, the Holy Land, the Chosen People, the Most Christian King." In Action and Conviction in Early Modem Europe, ed. T.R. Rabb and J.E. Spiegel, 3-16. Princeton, 1969.

Thomas, Antoine. "Bernard Gui, frère Prêcheur." Histoire littéraire de la France 35 (19211: 140-232.

Tyson, Diana B. "Patronage of French Vernacular History Writers in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries." Romania 100 (1979): 180-222.

Vale, M.G.A. Charles VII. London, 1974.

Vernet, Andre. "La diffusion de l'oeuvre de Bernard Gui, d'après la tradition manuscrite." Cahiers de Fanieaux 16 119811: 221-42.

Wallace-Hadrill, J.M. The Long-Haired Kings and Other Studies in Frankish Historv. New York, 1962.

Wemer, Karl Ferdinand. "Die Legitimitat der Kapetinger und die Entstehung des 'Reditus regni Francorum ad stirpem Karoli'." In Karl Ferdinand Werner, Structures politiques du monde franc (VIe-XIIe siècles). Etudes sur les origines de la France et de l'Allemagne. 203-25. London, 1979.

Wood, Charles T. "Queens, Queans, and Kingship: An Inquiry into Theories of Royal Legitimacy in Late Medieval England and France." In Order and Innovation in the Middle Ages. Essavs in Honor of Toseoh R. Straver. ed. W.C. Jordan, B. McNab, and T.F. Ruiz, 387-400, 562-6. Princeton, 1975.

Wright, Georgia Sommers. "A Royal Tomb Program in the Reign of Saint Louis." The Art Bulletin 56 (1974): 224-43.