Journal of Interdisciplinary History, xli:2 (Autumn, 2010), 209–225.

THE PROBLEM OF KING LOUIS Jennifer R. Davis The Problem of King Louis IX of : Biography, Sanctity, and Kingship

The Making of Louis: Kingship, Sanctity, and in the Later Mid- dle Ages. By M. Cecilia Gaposchkin (Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 2008) 352 pp. $45.00 Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/jinh/article-pdf/41/2/209/1710275/jinh_a_00050.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 Saint Louis. By (trans. Gareth E. Gollrad) (Notre Dame, University of Notre Dame Press, 2009) 952 pp. $75.00

The reading public has always enjoyed biographies, a genre about which academic historians are frequently skeptical. Recently, however, professional historians have been more willing to em- brace biography as a valid form of historical writing.1 Yet, biogra- phy poses challenges for historians, in particular for the medieval historian. As Prestwich recently noted in these pages, writing bi- ographies is especially difªcult for medievalists who almost en- tirely lack the kind of personal sources often exploited by those studying later periods.2 Moreover, whereas most biographers worry about veering too close to hagiography, medieval historians frequently must reckon with hagiographies as their primary source material, with all of the issues of formulaic language and edifying purposes that such texts present. According to Prestwich, scholars

Jennifer R. Davis is Assistant Professor of History, Catholic University of America. She is the editor of, with Michael McCormick, The Long Morning of Medieval Europe: New Directions in Early Medieval Studies (Aldershot, 2008); author of, in the same volume, “A Pattern for Power: ’s Delegation of Judicial Responsibilities,” 235–246, and, with McCormick, “The Early : Europe’s Long Morning,” 1–10. The author thanks Thomas Bisson and Katherine L. Jansen for reading and commenting on an earlier version of this essay and Elizabeth Mellyn for patiently providing copies of many articles. © 2010 by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and The Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Inc. 1 See the recent roundtables: “Historians and Biography,” American Historical Review, CXIV (2009), 573–661; “Biography and History,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, XL (2010), 305– 435. 2 Michael Prestwich, “Medieval Biography,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, XL (2010), 325–346. See also David Bates, Julia Crick, and Sarah Hamilton (eds.), Writing Medieval Biog- raphy 750–1250: Essays in Honour of Professor Frank Barlow (Woodbridge, 2006). 210 | JENNIFER R. DAVIS can avoid some of these problems by writing about kings whose reigns produced sources that permit a study of rulership. Louis IX of France provides an interesting test case for con- sidering the potential beneªts, as well as the limits, of medieval bi- ography, because in many ways current research subverts the ex- pected results: Historians have been more successful in portraying Louis as a man and as a saint (areas usually considered problemati-

cal in the medieval context) than as a king (which ordinarily Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/jinh/article-pdf/41/2/209/1710275/jinh_a_00050.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 would seem to be an area more readily amenable to historical in- vestigation). One explanation for this historiographical situation might be that Louis himself was an exceptional ªgure. The Euro- pean Middle Ages produced many powerful kings and many nota- ble , but few men who combined kingship and sanctity. The duties and circumstances of medieval kingship were hardly condu- cive to saintly behavior, by any measure. Even though some medi- eval kings claimed the power of the “,” or the ability to heal scrofula, few kings were actually understood to be saints by their contemporaries.3 Most of those who managed to be both king and saint were martyrs, or involved in the conversion of their lands to .4 This pairing of royal ofªce and saintly con- duct without a missionary context makes Louis IX (ruled 1226– 1270)—the Capetian king of France and a saint canonized in 1297 by Pope Boniface VIII—so remarkable. Louis, however, is important not just for his unusual combi- nation of attributes but also for his signiªcance as both a saint (par- ticularly a lay saint) and as a king reputed to have been one of the most important rulers of medieval France.5 Yet, despite Louis’ rel- evance for numerous realms of historical inquiry, historians have struggled to analyze him. Recent research has advanced our un- derstanding of him as an actual historical ªgure and as a saint, but his status as a king is still in need of further investigation. A closer

3 Marc Bloch, Les rois thaumaturges: étude sur le caractère surnaturel attribué à la puissance royale, particulièrement en France et en Angleterre (Strasbourg, 1924); idem (trans. J. E. Anderson), The Royal Touch: Sacred Monarchy and Scrofula in England and France (London, 1973). 4 The classic study of the saint-kings of the Middle Ages is Robert Folz, Les saints rois du Moyen Âge en Occident (VIe–XIIIe siècles) (Brussels, 1984). See also the recent synthesis by Gábor Klaniczay (trans. Éva Pálmai), Holy Rulers and Blessed Princesses: Dynastic Cults in Medieval Cen- tral Europe (New York, 2002), with its extensive bibliography. 5 On the complicated understanding of Louis as king and saint in later medieval France, see Colette Beaune (ed. Frederic L. Cheyette; trans. Susan Ross Huston), The Birth of an Ideology: Myths and Symbols of Nation in Late-Medieval France (Berkeley, 1991), 90–125. THE PROBLEM OF KING LOUIS | 211 look at two new books about him, by Gaposchkin and Le Goff, as well as other relevant literature, reveals important trends in the study of medieval sanctity and medieval kingship, as well as broader methodological points about medieval biography. the challenge of the crusade: william chester jordan’s saint louis Discussion of the historiography of Saint Louis must

begin with Jordan’s highly inºuential Louis IX and the Challenge of Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/jinh/article-pdf/41/2/209/1710275/jinh_a_00050.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 the Crusade: A Study in Rulership (Princeton, 1979), an examina- tion of how the disastrous crusade undertaken by Louis from 1248 to 1254 structured his reign. The crusade, according to Jordan, led Louis to a series of reforms meant to prepare the kingdom for the king’s absence. The most spectacular of these reforms was the in- stitution of enquêteurs, royal agents, who were usually mendicant friars, charged with investigating and remedying any ills perpe- trated by Louis’ ofªcials.6 After his unsuccessful crusade, including his capture in Egypt and his ransom, Louis felt the need to pu- rify the realm and to atone for his failure, even undertaking a sec- ond crusade in 1270, which, in Jordan’s words, “provided him with the setting most appropriate for his death.”7 For Jordan, the crusade—as the impetus for governmental reform and as the proj- ect that Louis would not abandon despite the cost to himself and to France—deªned the reign, revealing Louis to have been torn between his sanctity and his kingly duties. Gaposchkin and Le Goff respond, in different ways, to Jordan’s vision of Louis as caught between two incompatible models of conduct. did saint louis exist? louis the man Whereas Jordan’s work was not intended as a biography, Le Goff’s was.8 Although it might be surprising at ªrst glance to ªnd an annalist historian writ- ing a biography, Le Goff insists on the importance of the individ- ual and notes a similar interest on the part of Marc Bloch and Lucien Febvre, the founders of the Annales school.9 Because the task that Le Goff set himself was to recover Louis the man, his book raises important methodological concerns, which are evi-

6 Jordan, Louis IX and the Challenge of the Crusade, 51–63. 7 Ibid., 220. 8 Ibid., xii. 9 Le Goff, “The Whys and Ways of Writing a Biography: The Case of Saint Louis,” Exemplaria, I (1989), 207–225. 212 | JENNIFER R. DAVIS dent in its very structure. The ªrst part of Saint Louis is a tradi- tional narrative of Louis’ life from his birth in 1214 to his canon- ization in 1297. The second part—entitled “The Production of Royal Memory: Did Saint Louis Exist?”—seeks to extricate Louis from the biases and particular interests that governed his presenta- tion in the sources. The ªnal part of the book attempts to ap- proach the “real” Saint Louis, by considering him as both a unique 10 king and an incarnation of models of sanctity and kingship. Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/jinh/article-pdf/41/2/209/1710275/jinh_a_00050.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 Le Goff is not especially interested in chronological develop- ment (even the narrative part of the book is largely thematic); however, the ground that he covers is still enormous. Given the organization of the book, several topics are treated repeatedly from various perspectives. Le Goff has, in essence, written three biographies of Louis from different methodological standpoints. The tripartite structure allows Le Goff to examine Louis from dif- ferent angles, in an effort to present fully the synthesis of a man with the values of his age, which Le Goff considers the key to un- derstanding Louis. Le Goff’s portrait of Louis depends most ªrmly on the narra- tive sources for the reign, particularly that of Joinville, a personal friend of Louis, whose layman’s account of Louis’ “holy words and good deeds” offers a corrective to the hagiographies written by clerical authors.11 Joinville’s lively, chatty biography has long fascinated scholars and has given rise to debates about the structure of the work, its dating, and its reliability.12 According to Le Goff, Joinville “introduces us to a ‘real’ Saint Louis whom Joinville knew and not an ideal model transmitted by culture. However they were altered or lightened at times, the concrete details from

10 The main schema of Le Goff’s book is laid out in the introduction, xxxi–xxxii. 11 (ed. Jacques Monfrin), Vie de Saint Louis (Paris, 1995), 2, paragraph 2. The works cited in the next note address some of the controversies about dating the stages of composition of Joinville’s book, which was completed in 1309. 12 Some of the key work on Joinville includes Paul Archambault, “The Silences of Joinville,” Papers on Language and Literature, VII (1971), 115–132; Daisy Delogu, Theorizing the Ideal Sovereign: The Rise of French Vernacular Royal Biography (Toronto, 2008), 22–57; Jean Dufournet and Laurence Harf (eds.), Le Prince et son historien: La Vie de Saint Louis de Joinville (Paris, 1997); Afrodesia E. McCannon, “Two Capetian Queens as the Foreground for an Aristocrat’s Anxiety in the Vie de Saint Louis,” in Kathleen Nolan (ed.), Capetian Women (New York, 2003), 163–176; Maureen Slattery, Myth, Man and Sovereign Saint: King Louis IX in Jean de Joinville’s Sources (New York, 1985); Caroline Smith, Crusading in the Age of Joinville (Aldershot, 2006); Michel Zink (trans. David Sices), The Invention of Literary Subjectivity (Balti- more, 1999), 199–218. THE PROBLEM OF KING LOUIS | 213 which the seneschal’s loving memory drew were “real” details” (383). Yet, Le Goff is far from a credulous reader; he is well aware of Joinville’s personal investment in his subject and his idiosyncra- sies. He carefully deconstructs the various sources about Louis, especially Joinville, in an effort to understand how the authors shaped their accounts. By framing the second section of his book around the narra-

tive constructions of the king, Le Goff is forced to deal with the Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/jinh/article-pdf/41/2/209/1710275/jinh_a_00050.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 question of how a biographer can disentangle a medieval subject from his sources. Le Goff’s constant attention to this problem— especially his admission that questions about Louis persist, despite Le Goff’s meticulous work—underlines the difªculty of medieval biography. Le Goff repeatedly challenges the sources’ ability to represent Saint Louis as an individual. Although he argues that Joinville’s portrait of Louis is sufªciently personal and speciªc to allow us to perceive Louis as a man, he does not shrink from a methodological discussion of the problems posed by the sources. Rather than directly answering the question of whether St. Louis existed, Le Goff explores how each source can reveal a facet of the saintly king, suggesting that the real Louis can be recovered but only with great difªculty. Part II of Le Goff’s biography is thus a self-conscious consideration of historical methodology and a tour de force of source analysis. Yet, regardless of any remaining doubts about Joinville’s reli- ability, Part III of the book offers another approach to understand- ing the “real” Saint Louis.13 Le Goff faced a particular challenge in his analysis, namely, the ways in which his sources used models of both sanctity and kingship to understand Louis. Do the sources convey genuine information about Louis as an individual, or did they ªt him into a set of expectations of what saints and kings should be? The problem is further complicated by the fact that Louis himself helped to shape models for understanding both kingship and sanctity, particularly given the Capetian interest in royal sanctity.14 Le Goff’s answer to this conundrum is to conclude

13 For one critique of Le Goff’s approach to Joinville, and Le Goff’s defense of his method, see Christopher Lucken, “L’évangile du roi: Joinville, témoin et auteur de la Vie de Saint Louis,” Annales, LVI (2001/2), 445–467; Le Goff, “Mon ami le saint roi: Joinville et Saint Louis (réponse),” ibid., 469–477. 14 Work on the Capetian cult of kingship includes (in addition to Bloch’s work, cited in n. 3) Andrew W. Lewis, Royal Succession in Capetian France: Studies on Familial Order and the State (Cambridge, Mass.,1981); Elizabeth A. R. Brown, The Monarchy of Capetian France and 214 | JENNIFER R. DAVIS that Louis so deeply embodied his society’s expectations that the difªculty is illusory: “In Saint Louis’ case, the individual and his ideal models were historically uniªed. Thus, studying Saint Louis’ models of sainthood amounts to studying the “real” Saint Louis” (690). This is one of Le Goff’s more controversial arguments. Jor- dan, for example, emphasizes the ways in which the sources rein-

terpret events from Louis’ life to suit the later need to re-imagine Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/jinh/article-pdf/41/2/209/1710275/jinh_a_00050.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 his life in terms of his sanctity: “After his death and increasingly af- ter his , the record of his life became the raw material for the refashioning of an ideal image of a French ruler. What scholars and admirers have tended to do is to take the refashioned image at face value, to make Louis’s behavior represent all think- ing men’s ideal of the behavior of a good medieval king.”15 Jordan also thinks that the sources can reveal something of Louis in his own time, but, contrary to Le Goff, he argues that the models in the sources obscure this view. Le Goff’s interest in Louis as ideal Christian king and unique ruler rolled into one constitutes the pri- mary focus of his biography.16 The aspects of thirteenth-century France that Le Goff analyzes are not intended to provide a setting for Louis but to deªne who Louis was. Not everyone will agree with Le Goff that, in this case, the models and the person coincide, but his optimistic vision of historical biography is certainly worthy of historians’ consideration. It amounts to a defense, by one of

Royal Ceremonial (Aldershot, 1991); Gabrielle Spiegel, The Past as Text: The Theory and Practice of Medieval Historiography (, 1997), 83–212 (Part II); Samantha Kelly, The New Solo- mon: Robert of Naples (1309–1343) and Fourteenth-Century Kingship (Leiden, 2003), 120–128. See also the work on Louis’ pious sister Isabelle: Jordan, “Isabelle of France and Religious Devo- tion at the Court of Louis IX,” in Nolan (ed.), Capetian Women, 209–223; Sean L. Field, Isabelle of France: Capetian Sanctity and Franciscan Identity in the Thirteenth Century (Notre Dame, 2006). On the limits of the Capetian efforts to use Saint Louis to strengthen the , see Elizabeth M. Hallem, “Philip the Fair and the Cult of St. Louis: Religion and National Iden- tity,” Studies in Church History, XVIII (1982), 211–213. 15 Jordan, “The Case of Saint Louis,” Viator, XIX (1988), 209, repr. in idem, Ideology and Royal Power in Medieval France (Aldershot, 2001), as Chapter 4, with same pagination. 16 Whereas Le Goff sees Louis as exceptional in certain respects (while still embodying ideal models), Gaposchkin strives to place Louis in the context of wider developments in sanctity and lay religiosity, showing little interest in highlighting the ways in which Louis was unusual (5–9). Hans-Joachim Schmidt also argues that Louis’ exceptionalism led to new norms, at least in terms of the king’s devotional practices: “La dévotion de Louis IX: exception ou normal- ité?” in Christine Hediger (ed.), La Sainte-Chapelle de Paris: royaume de France ou Jérusalem céleste? Actes du colloque (Paris, Collège de France, 2001) (Turnhout, 2007), 35–59. THE PROBLEM OF KING LOUIS | 215 France’s foremost historians, of the possibility of writing a true, scholarly biography of a medieval ªgure. In addition to their disagreement about whether the models of conduct evident in the sources expand or obstruct our under- standing of Louis, Le Goff and Jordan also differ about how Louis himself balanced the aspects of his life. Le Goff argues that Jordan overstates the importance of the crusade in Louis’ reign and that

he fails to appreciate the harmony of Louis’ kingship and sanctity Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/jinh/article-pdf/41/2/209/1710275/jinh_a_00050.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 (128–129, 368, 406–407, 516–517, 688). What Jordan views as a conºict between Louis’ self-image and his subjects’ expectations of him as king, Le Goff depicts as a powerful combination that would shape centuries of French history. Toward the end of his book, Le Goff emphasizes the creative fusion of king and saint: “He was a Christ-King, and this extraordinary memory combined political meaning and religious sentiment in an inseparable unity, making suffering into an instrument for both personal salvation and political success. An eschatological king, a king of psycho- drama, it was on pain—and physical pain most of all—that he founded a political practice and ideology” (724).17 Le Goff’s biography of Louis is the necessary starting point for all future research on Louis, and his speciªc conclusions are sug- gestive for continued scholarly investigation in many areas of later medieval history. The book is also well worth the attention of any historian interested in the problems inherent in biography. Whether or not Le Goff’s depiction of Louis proves ultimately convincing, his arguments about how to extract a person from sources and about how to use societal expectations as an aid rather than an obstacle to biography are cogent.18 the construction of cult: louis the saint Gaposchkin’s The Making of Saint Louis also pivots on the complex relationship be- tween sanctity and kingship. But since Gaposchkin’s subject is not so much the reign of a king as the creation, and image, of a saint, she begins with Louis’ death in 1270. The book, divided into eight

17 Jordan’s vision of Louis as torn between conºicting dictates of kingship and sanctity, be- tween his own sense of himself and his people’s expectations, is especially emphasized in “Case of Saint Louis.” 18 Le Goff believes that this approach, with appropriate modiªcations, works for other me- dieval ªgures, such as St. Francis, even though his study of Francis is not on the same scale as his study of Louis. See the preface to Le Goff (trans. Christine Rhone), Saint Francis of Assisi (London, 2004), ix–xii. 216 | JENNIFER R. DAVIS chapters, has two parts. The ªrst three chapters constitute a chro- nologically arranged narrative of Louis’ canonization, beginning with its preparation between 1270 and 1297 and concluding with the formal establishment of a cult of Saint Louis.19 Next comes an excursus outlining the liturgical sources that underpin her discus- sion. Gaposchkin’s greatest contribution in this book is her nuanced analysis of Louis’ treatment in the different ofªces and li-

turgical texts created to celebrate his cult. These texts, which often Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/jinh/article-pdf/41/2/209/1710275/jinh_a_00050.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 exist only in manuscript form, are complicated and rarely studied. In addition to the liturgical sources, Gaposchkin depends on simi- larly little-used sermons, as well as more traditional hagiographical, visual, and narrative material. The next ªve chapters examine how Louis’ sanctity was un- derstood by different communities with an investment in his cult, ranging from the Capetian family to the mendicant orders that he favored and to the that his mother patronized. The manner in which sanctity, kingship, and crusade entered into Louis’ image depended on a particular community’s perspective (242–243). For instance, liturgical sources from the milieu of the Capetian court understood Louis’ sanctity as a manifestation of qualities typical of ideal kings—in fact, as an instantiation of the sanctity inherent in the entire Capetian line (see Chapter 4, “Royal Sanctity and Sacral Kingship,” 100–124). Conversely, for the Franciscans, Louis’ royal attributes needed to be explained away: “Instead of kingship, the Franciscans were interested in his [Louis’] active devotion, and particularly in his ...Inthis, the ªgure of Saint Francis himself, particularly the Francis of 1300, was deeply inºuential, and he cast a long shadow over the Francis- can memorialization of Louis” (156). Three aspects of Gaposchkin’s contribution to the under- standing of Louis and of later medieval history require emphasis, the ªrst being its stress on poorly known materials. Gaposchkin’s study is the fruit of years of painstaking archival work and compar- ison of various liturgical texts. Not only does Gaposchkin use ma- terials that scholars have overlooked; she also provides ample cita- tions and appendixes presenting her sources, thus enabling other historians to make use of her materials and to evaluate how she has reached her conclusions. Second, Gaposchkin’s book belongs

19 The records of the canonization process survive only in fragments, but see Louis Caro- lus-Barré (ed. Henri Platelle), Le procès de canonisation de Saint Louis (1272–1297): Essai de recon- stitution (, 1994), for a valiant effort to reconstruct them. THE PROBLEM OF KING LOUIS | 217 with important work in the last few decades on lay sanctity and women’s sanctity.20 Her careful deconstruction of the different constituencies invested in a cult underlines the complexity of Louis’ sanctity. This vision of “multivalence,” to use Gaposchkin’s word, ªts well with conclusions that other scholars have reached about late medieval religiosity (243). The third contribution relates to the matter of Louis’ actual

kingship. Louis’ piety could be adjusted to the needs of various Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/jinh/article-pdf/41/2/209/1710275/jinh_a_00050.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 communities, but his crusade and his kingship presented more of an impediment for commentators: “Piety was the sine qua non of sanctity, though the forms Louis’ piety took often highlighted other ideals, and certainly different people understood his piety in very different ways. But his kingship and his crusading were po- tentially more complicated, and the ways in which they were val- uated reºected the fact that the monarchy and crusading were both in times of transition and transformation around 1300, both subjects of debate and discord” (242). Regardless of what the com- bination of kingship and sanctity meant for Louis himself, for those invested in his cult after his death, the two were not easily reconciled. The shaping of Louis’ cult thus underscores the vari- able responses that Louis evoked. Yet, the diversity of reaction is not just a question of cult. Although Louis was almost universally acknowledged as one of the most important kings of the Middle Ages, his reign presents difªculties of interpretation for modern historians, partly because it was hard for his contemporaries to comprehend, as discussed below. Gaposchkin’s disentangling of the elements of Louis’ sanctity, and what these component parts meant to different interest groups, allows her to historicize the ha- giography, to learn from the construction of sanctity without be- ing trapped by the formulaic elements and gloriªcation that are common in the lives of medieval saints. the problem of governance: louis the king Le Goff effec- tively illuminated Louis’ life in a synthetic sense, as did Gaposchkin his canonization and Jordan (and others) his role as 20 For examples of the extensive literature on lay and women’s sanctity, see the following foundational works: Caroline Walker Bynum, Holy Feast and Holy Fast: The Religious Signiªcance of Food to Medieval Women (Berkeley, 1987); idem, Fragmentation and Redemption: Es- says on Gender and the Human Body in Medieval Religion (New York, 1992); André Vauchez, La sainteté en Occident aux derniers siècles du Moyen Age, d’après les procès de canonisation et les docu- ments hagiographiques (Rome, 1988); idem (trans. Jean Birrell), Sainthood in the Later Middle Ages (New York, 1997). 218 | JENNIFER R. DAVIS crusader, but a thorough treatment of the day-to-day pragmatic aspects of the king’s rule still eludes us.21 The ªrst explanation for this lacuna is the nature of the sources. Surprisingly, no complete modern edition of Louis’ acts exists.22 The records of his gover- nance survive, and in great number, but the sources are scattered and insufªciently accessible in modern critical editions. Improved access to the charters and other documents of Louis’ reign is a nec-

essary starting point for a full study. Second, the most readily ac- Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/jinh/article-pdf/41/2/209/1710275/jinh_a_00050.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 cessible sources lend themselves to investigation of matters other than the pragmatic details of Louis’ rule—for instance, the re- markable artistic productions created during Louis’ reign, many of which treat models of kingship. To give one example, Alyce Jor- dan reconstructed the original design in Louis’ per- sonal chapel, La Sainte-Chapelle, which was damaged and re- placed repeatedly. She deduced the original motifs and images from accounts of the repair work, surviving fragments, and draw- ings from particular periods. Her re-creation of the windows em- phasizes the themes of dynastic lineage and idealized kingship.23 Much of the other art-historical research on Louis likewise con- cerns the ideological connotations of works associated with Louis, his court, his family, and his era.24 21 In addition to Jordan’s work, the literature on Louis as crusader includes Gaposchkin, “Louis IX, Crusade and the Promise of Joshua in the Holy Land,” Journal of Medieval History, XXXIV (2008), 245–274; Michael Lower, “Conversion and St Louis’s Last Crusade,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History, LVIII (2007), 211–231; Christoph T. Maier, “Civilis ac pia regis Francorum deceptio: Louis IX as Crusade Preacher,” in Michel Balard, Benjamin Z. Kedar, and Jonathan Riley-Smith (eds.), Dei gesta per Francos: Etudes sur les croisades dédiés à Jean Richard/ Crusade Studies in Honour of Jean Richard (Aldershot, 2001), 57–63; James M. Powell, “Church and Crusade: Frederick II and Louis IX,” Catholic Historical Review, XCIII (2007), 251–264; Smith, Crusading in the Age of Joinville; Joseph R. Strayer, “The Crusades of Louis IX,” in John F. Benton and Thomas N. Bisson (eds.), Medieval Statecraft and the Perspectives of History: Essays by Joseph R. Strayer (Princeton, 1971), 159–192; Richard, Saint Louis roi d’une France féodale, soutien de la Terre sainte (Paris, 1983), edited and abridged by Simon Lloyd, and translated by Birrell as Saint Louis, Crusader King of France (New York, 1992). 22 See Le Goff, 243–251, 871, for the available material and where it can currently be found. The limitations in the French sources are also noted by David Carpenter, “The Meet- ings of Kings Henry III and Louis IX,” in Prestwich, Richard Britnell, and Robin Frame (eds.), Thirteenth Century England X, The Proceedings of the Durham Conference 2003 (Wood- bridge, 2005), 1–2. Despite the gaps in the documents of governance, Le Goff perhaps under- states the potential of the records that do survive. 23 Alyce A. Jordan, Visualizing Kingship in the Windows of the Sainte-Chapelle (Turnhout, 2002). 24 For instance, see Robert Branner, Saint Louis and the Court Style in (London, 1965); Beat Brenk, “The Sainte-Chapelle as a Capetian Political Program,” in Vir- ginia Chieffo Raguin, Kathryn Brush, and Peter Draper (eds.), Artistic Integration in Gothic THE PROBLEM OF KING LOUIS | 219 Le Goff addresses issues of rulership in Saint Louis, but he tends to focus on such ideological questions as whether Louis was a feudal or a modern king (519–572).25 Although Le Goff is aware that both labels are abstractions, his discussion centers more on structures, ideologies, and models than the details of Louis’ own actions (for example, 548). The cumulative impact of the availabil- ity of visual and written sources conducive to studies of Louis’

sanctity, his personality, and the ideology surrounding his rulership Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/jinh/article-pdf/41/2/209/1710275/jinh_a_00050.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 serves to amplify the limited access to sources suited to studies of his governance. Yet the promise of such analysis of Louis’ rulership is great. William Jordan’s publications demonstrate the potential of this ap- proach. Jordan has mined the surviving administrative records to investigate such matters as Louis’ ªnancing of the crusade, his con- struction of a new harbor at Aigues-Mortes, and his replacement of ofªcials who did not live up to his high standards.26 More work of this kind is needed. Although the bibliography about Louis is large, much of it is focused on case studies, rather than an overall evaluation of kingship.27 Jordan also suggests another avenue for future study in his dis- cussion of possible conºicts within Louis’ entourage, as indicated by the criticism that Louis attracted.28 Further study along these lines could exploit little used materials, once they become widely available. Moreover, much work on the earlier Capetians has de-

Buildings (Toronto, 1995), 195–213; Meredith Cohen, “An Indulgence for the Visitor: The Public at the Sainte-Chapelle of Paris,” Speculum, LXXXIII (2008), 840–883; Donna Sadler, “The King as Subject, the King as Author: Art and Politics of Louis IX,” in Heinz Duchhardt, Richard A. Jackson, and David Sturdy (eds.), European Monarchy: Its Evolution and Practice from Roman Antiquity to Modern Times (Stuttgart, 1992), 53–68; Harvey Stahl, Picturing Kingship: History and Painting in the Psalter of Saint Louis (University Park, 2008); Daniel H. Weiss, Art and Crusade in the Age of Saint Louis (New York, 1998). 25 For further reºections on Louis as both feudal and modern ruler, see Jean-Philippe Genet, “Saint Louis: le roi politique,” Médiévales, XXXIV (1998), 25–34. 26 In addition to Louis IX and the Challenge of the Crusade, see Jordan’s Ideology and Royal Power in Medieval France, which collects many of his key articles on Louis IX. 27 Jordan’s assessment of the state of scholarship in Louis IX and the Challenge of the Crusade, xi–xii, remains largely true in 2010. 28 See especially Jordan, “Case of Saint Louis.” Le Goff also addressed criticism of the king (640–676) but with only limited reference to contemporary political criticism (667–676), since he believed that some of this criticism derived from well-known models of kingly behavior not in need of explanation (368). Other scholars have examined complaints about the exten- sion of Capetian rulership, especially in the context of the enquêtes, but there has been little sustained attention to conºict within the court. 220 | JENNIFER R. DAVIS pended on careful study of the charters, addressing the use of wit- nesses, their language, and so forth.29 A similar examination of Louis would enable historians to situate him more precisely in the context of his predecessors and successors, and in the history of medieval rulership generally. It would also entail more attention to the reigns of Philip Augustus and Louis VIII, to distinguish Louis IX fully from his father and especially from the grandfather whose

example he invoked. Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/jinh/article-pdf/41/2/209/1710275/jinh_a_00050.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 Royal Effectiveness We must take Louis’ role as king seri- ously because Louis himself appears to have done so. His confessor Geoffrey of Beaulieu suggested that Louis wanted to resign his royal ofªce to become a friar but that he hesitated because he could not decide whether he should join the Dominicans or the Franciscans.30 Le Goff does not believe Louis ever considered ab- dicating (255–256), seeing him as a dedicated and active ruler, who strove to do well for his people (see his discussion of justice, for example, 521–523). Jordan’s contention that Louis not only toler- ated criticism but also welcomed it and sought to learn from it un- derscores this dedication.31 Louis’s skill as a ruler is evident from numerous angles. Witness, for instance, his ability to establish au- thority despite a period of turbulent relations with the aristocracy after he, as a child, succeeded his father, and a six-year absence from his kingdom on crusade. Both achievements owed much to Blanche of Castille, Louis’ formidable mother, who managed the kingdom during the king’s youth and again during his crusade, until her own death in 1252 (Louis returned to France in 1254 af- ter news of her death reached him). Nonetheless, Louis’ ability to command loyalty in such circumstances provides clear evidence of the control that he exerted in his realm. Louis’ effectiveness as a ruler is also demonstrated by his in- dependence. His devotion to the Church did not manifest itself in a willingness to defer to the ecclesiastical hierarchy on com-

29 Examples of studies about the Capetians that emphasize charter evidence include John W. Baldwin, The Government of Philip Augustus: Foundations of French Royal Power in the Middle Ages (Berkeley, 1986); Eric Bournazel, Le gouvernement capétien au XIIe siècle 1108–1180: struc- tures sociales et mutations institutionnelles (Limoges, 1975); Geoffrey Koziol, Begging Pardon and Favor: Ritual and Political Order in Early Medieval France (Ithaca, 1992); Jean François Lemarignier, Le gouvernement royal aux premiers temps capétiens (987–1108) (Paris, 1965). 30 Geoffrey of Beaulieu (ed. Martin Bouquet et al.), Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France. XX. Vita Ludovici noni (Paris, 1841), 7, c. 12. 31 Jordan, “Case of Saint Louis,” 212, 216. THE PROBLEM OF KING LOUIS | 221 mand.32 As Le Goff puts it, commenting on Louis’ resolution of a conºict surrounding the bishopric of Beauvais, “If Saint Louis was inºexible and biting when the rights of the king and the kingdom were at stake, it was because at the age of eighteen the very Chris- tian king already had no weaknesses in relation to the threats of the papacy and the bishops against the functions of royal justice” (77). There are numerous such examples of Louis asserting his rights as

king, sometimes forcefully. Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/jinh/article-pdf/41/2/209/1710275/jinh_a_00050.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 The third context in which Louis’ effectiveness is clearly demonstrated is arguably the most important—his willingness to innovate. Louis often acted much like a French king was expected to act, and the sources frequently stress his accordance with tradi- tion. But his establishment of the enquêteurs and his issuance of or- donnances, or royal legislation applicable to the kingdom as a whole, were largely unprecedented, requiring careful organization and the trust of loyal and competent agents (see, for instance, Le Goff’s discussion of these issues, 126–127, 157–167, 554–558).33 Change on this scale is never easy. Louis’ innovations, however, reach far beyond the develop- ment of new techniques of governance. Bisson’s recent book on twelfth-century rulership suggests that a crisis of lordship, of exploitive power, led to a fraught birth of European govern- ment.34 In the twelfth century, according to Bisson, accountable

32 Yves Congar, “L’Église et l’État sous le règne de Saint Louis,” in Carolus-Barré (ed.), Septième centenaire de la mort de Saint Louis: Actes des colloques de Royaumont et de Paris (21–27 mai 1970) (Paris, 1976), 265–271. 33 More traditional acts can also lead to new consequences, as Charles Wood observed of Louis’ effort to resolve conºict between Henry III of England and his barons in “The Mise of Amiens and Saint-Louis’ Theory of Kingship,” French Historical Studies, VI (1970), 300–310. For other judicial innovations of Louis’ reign, see Ludwig Buisson, “Saint Louis: justice et amour de Dieu,” Francia, VI (1978), 127–149, and his fuller discussion in König Ludwig IX., der Heilige, und das Recht: Studie zur Gestaltung der Lebensordnung Frankreichs im hohen Mittelalter (Freiburg, 1954). On the enquêtes, see Robert Bartlett, “The Impact of Royal Government in the French Ardennes: The Evidence of the 1247 Enquête,” Journal of Medieval History, VII (1981), 83–96; Gérard Sivéry, “Le mécontentement dans le royaume de France et les enquêtes de saint Louis,” Revue historique, CCLXIX (1983), 3–24; Strayer, “La conscience du roi: les enquêtes de 1258–1262 dans la sénéchaussée de -Béziers,” in Mélanges Roger Aubenas (Montpellier, 1974), 725–736; on the ordonnances, Carolus-Barré, “La grande ordonnance de 1254 sur la réforme de l’administration et la police du royaume,” in idem (ed.), Septième centenaire de la mort de Saint Louis, 85–96. Still useful is the general account of political institutions by Charles-Victor Langlois (ed. Ernest Lavisse), Histoire de France. III. Saint Louis: Philippe le Bel: Les derniers Capétians directs (1226–1328) (Paris, 1901), 321–352. 34 Bisson, The Crisis of the Twelfth Century: Power, Lordship, and the Origins of European Gov- ernment (Princeton, 2009). 222 | JENNIFER R. DAVIS governance and coherent interest groups ªrst took shape. Under- stood in this light, Louis’ enquêtes and ordonnances assume sig- niªcance over and above their importance for the implementation of rule. Both could be interpreted as signs of Louis’ cultivation of a broader political community in thirteenth-century France, in which the king interacted with the people, and particularly the elites, in novel ways.35 These innovations in rulership could reveal

not just how Louis sought to exercise his power but also how he Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/jinh/article-pdf/41/2/209/1710275/jinh_a_00050.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 reconstructed the nature of relations between the king and both the common people and elites and how he, at least potentially, created a new form of French political culture. The scope of Louis’ achievements as a ruler is certainly worthy of more detailed attention. Possibilities for Future Research What might a reinvigorated study of Louis’ kingship yield? The kind of administrative history of Louis’ reign that Strayer began almost eighty years ago would certainly be welcome, as was suggested above.36 There is still much more research to be done on the administrative front, as Jordan recently reminded us.37 Jordan’s approach, adding analysis of the ideology of rulership to the study of the practice of ruler- ship, also has promise, as do investigations of power, of collabora- tion and conºict—especially with the aristocracy—and of royal resources and their limits. For instance, one case involving royal resources preserved in the Olim—the records of the (royal court)—concerns a claim from the Parisian chapter that it should receive a particular set of judicial proceeds.38 After two in- vestigations, the verdict reached on the basis of the inquest and of

35 On intellectual and ideological aspects of changes in political culture, focusing on France after Saint Louis, see Jacques Krynen, L’empire du roi: Idées et croyances politiques en France XIIIe– XVe siècle (Paris, 1993). 36 See Strayer, The Administration of under Saint Louis (Cambridge, 1932); idem, Medieval Statecraft. Other literature includes Bisson, “Coinages and Royal Monetary Policy in during the Reign of Saint Louis,” Speculum, XXXII (1957), 443–469; Jean Favier, “Les ªnances de Saint Louis,” in Carolus-Barré (ed.), Septième centenaire de la mort de Saint Louis, 133–140; Michel Nortier, “État préparatoire d’un acte de Saint Louis (diplôme pour la maison-Dieu de Compiègne, juillet 1260),” Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes, CLIX (2001), 251–261; Richard, “Les itineraires de Saint Louis en Ile-de-France,” in Jean Chapelot and Elisabeth Lalou (eds.), Vincennes aux origines de l’état moderne: Actes du colloque scientiªque sur Les Capétiens et Vincennes au Moyen Age (Paris, 1996), 163–170; Arié Serper, “L’administration royale de Paris au temps de Louis IX,” Francia, VII (1979), 123–139. 37 Jordan, “Anti-Corruption Campaigns in Thirteenth-Century Europe,” Journal of Medi- eval History, XXXV (2009), 208. 38 The Parlement was primarily a judicial court, but it had other functions as well. See Bisson, “Consultative Functions in the King’s (1250–1314),” Speculum, XLIV THE PROBLEM OF KING LOUIS | 223 the common law (ius commune) was that the proceeds from high justice (major crimes) belonged to the king and those from low justice to the Parisian chapter. The chapter submitted two older charters of dubious value to support its claim to high justice, but the Parlement judged them to be suspect.39 The king, however, intervened to grant the disputed rights to the chapter nonetheless.40

This type of generosity from a king toward an ecclesiastical Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/jinh/article-pdf/41/2/209/1710275/jinh_a_00050.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 institution is hardly unique in the surviving medieval charters, but the sheer number of such cases heard during Louis’ reign is excep- tional. Louis’ court in Paris produced the equivalent of hundreds of pages of records, a major increase in the business brought before the royal court. The mere volume testiªes to the breadth of Louis’ interests, the appeal exerted by royal justice, and the king’s ability to ªnd enough competent men to handle the work. The surviving records are important not only because of their number but also because of their potential value in a systematic and synthetic analy- sis.41 For example, how many cases were heard per year, and did the frequency change? What kinds of cases were heard, and which of them were most common? How often did Louis intervene per- sonally? When the king overruled his agents, what were the con- sequences?42 How many royal ofªcials are evident in the records, and how often did the composition of the court change?43 What were the king’s interactions with his people and his agents like? To

(1969), 353–373. Arthur A. Beugnot (ed.), Les Olim ou registres des arrêts rendus par la cour du roi (Paris, 1839), v. I, 154, I (1262). 39 Ibid., v. I, 166–167, XVII (1262). 40 See also Edgard Boutaric, Actes du Parlement de Paris (Paris, 1863; repr. Berlin, 1975), I, 65–66, nos. 716 and 716A. 41 The foundation for such a comprehensive analysis in the light of new questions has been laid by the older scholarship, especially that of Le Nain de Tillemont, who compiled some of the necessary information; see the assessment of Bruno Neveu, “Le Nain de Tillemont et La Vie de Saint Louis,” in Carolus-Barré (ed.), Septieme centenaire de la mort de Saint Louis, 325–326. 42 See Jordan’s useful remarks on Louis’ personal interventions in governance in Louis IX and the Challenge of the Crusade, 144–146. 43 For important work on the king’s entourage and agents, see, in particular, Jordan, Louis IX and the Challenge of the Crusade, 46–63, 145–181, 221–231; Quentin Grifªths, “New Men among the Lay Counselors of Saint Louis’ Parlement,” Mediaeval Studies, XXXII (1970), 234– 272; Lester K. Little, “Saint Louis’ Involvement with the Friars,” Church History, XXXIII (1964), 125–148; Charles Petit-Dutaillis (trans. E. D. Hunt), The Feudal Monarchy in France and England from the Tenth to the Thirteenth Century (New York, 1964), 242–243; Richard, “Les conseillers de Saint Louis: Des grands barons aux premiers légistes: au point de rencontre de deux droits,” in Alain Marchandisse and Jean-Louis Kupper (eds.), A l’ombre du pouvoir: Les entourages princiers au Moyen Age (Geneva, 2003), 135–147. 224 | JENNIFER R. DAVIS what extent did the concerns of the royal court coincide with those of the enquêteurs on their circuits or those in other areas of government? Was Louis’ governance as reºected in the records novel? In short, we are still in the early stages of investigating Louis’ rulership. The particular difªculties of understanding Louis as king emerge from a comparison with another iconic medieval king, 44 Charlemagne (reigned 768–814). Like Louis’ kingship, Charle- Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/jinh/article-pdf/41/2/209/1710275/jinh_a_00050.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 magne’s was instrumental in the development of national identity (in Charlemagne’s case, that of both Germany and France), and not without complication. Despite Charlemagne serving as a model for the Capetian kings, it is difªcult to imagine two kings more dissimilar than Charlemagne and Louis.45 For one thing, whereas warfare was an occasional pursuit for Louis, most notably during the crusades, Charlemagne spent half of his reign engaged in military campaigns. Nonetheless, the two monarchs were simi- lar in their introduction of judicial and legal innovations and in their impact on the prevailing political culture. Historians seeking to study Charlemagne must grapple with the fact that contempo- rary commentators did not always know what to make of his rule. Although most of the texts about Charlemagne written during his lifetime praise him, at times the aristocracy reacted to his initiatives with hostility or confusion. When the tensions in the narrative sources are read in conjunction with the records of governance, more of Charlemagne’s actions and the various responses to them become evident. Stripping away both the later patina of legend and the confusions of contemporaries allows historians to under- stand Charlemagne’s rulership better. Gaposchkin’s deconstruction of the tensions in how different communities interpreted Louis after his death should also encour- age us to search for similar tensions regarding his kingship during

44 To give just one example of the many comparisons between Louis and Charlemagne, see Charles Teisseyre, “Le prince chrétien aux XVe et XVIe siècles, à travers les représentations de Charlemagne et de Saint Louis,” Annales de Bretagne, LXXXVII (1980), 409–414. 45 The Capetians, successors to the Carolingians, at ªrst preferred to downplay their prede- cessors. In the twelfth century, however, they rediscovered their Carolingian precursors and consciously sought to emulate them. See Karl Ferdinand Werner, “Die Legitimität der Kapetinger und die Entstehung des ‘Reditus regni Francorum ad stirpem Karoli,’” Die Welt als Geschichte, XII (1952), 203–225; Spiegel, “The Reditus Regni ad Stirpem Karoli Magni: A New Look,” in The Past as Text, 111–137. Charlemagne was canonized for a time, but he was never considered a saint by his contemporaries. See also Beaune, Birth of an Ideology, 90–91. THE PROBLEM OF KING LOUIS | 225 his lifetime. Jordan’s interest in the conºict surrounding the com- bination of kingship and sanctity and Bisson’s emphasis on new political culture similarly point to potentially problematical aspects of Louis’ rulership. This scholarship can thus indicate that some of the difªculties with how Carolingian sources depict Charlemagne might apply just as well to texts about Louis, as can the precedent of Charlemagne as a beloved ruler who sometimes forced his peo-

ple into unwelcome innovations. Even leaving aside the problems Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/jinh/article-pdf/41/2/209/1710275/jinh_a_00050.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021 posed by his sanctity, hints in the narrative sources imply mixed reactions to Louis as king. The correlation of these tensions with the governmental records, as in Charlemagne’s case, would permit an understanding of Louis’ reign with minimal reference to his sanctity and would place it more ªrmly within the trajectory of European rulership.

Le Goff has revealed a wealth of detail about the life of St. Louis, and offered a lesson in careful source analysis. Gaposchkin’s ele- gant elucidation of the construction of Louis’ sanctity brings new and useful materials to light and takes the insights of recent schol- arship about sanctity and late medieval religion to a new level. The last few decades have also seen developments in the study of medi- eval political history, and political history more broadly, focusing on questions of power, of conºict within political cultures, and of political resources that would have much to contribute to a con- tinued analysis of Louis as a working king, building on founda- tions laid by Jordan. The research of Le Goff and Gaposchkin deals compellingly with some of the most stubborn difªculties inherent in medieval biography, namely, the recovery of the individual and the histor- icization of hagiography. Scholarship has yet to provide a full bi- ography of Louis as a king, even though medieval biography has traditionally been most successful in this area. Such a biography, however, is eminently possible; it would be a welcome compan- ion to these two important new books, which point the way.46

46 The potential for such a biography of Louis as king is also suggested by the many biogra- phies of contemporary (or near contemporary) rulers. In addition to the examples given by Prestwich, see, among others: David Abulaªa, Frederick II: A Medieval Emperor (New York, 1988); Carpenter, The Reign of Henry III (London, 1996); Kelly, The New Solomon. Downloaded from http://direct.mit.edu/jinh/article-pdf/41/2/209/1710275/jinh_a_00050.pdf by guest on 02 October 2021