Title: A Popular History of France from the Earliest Times, Volume 2
Author: Guizot, François
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.


*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "A Popular History of France from the Earliest Times, Volume 2" ***


HISTORY OF FRANCE

BY M. GUIZOT

VOLUME II.



TABLE OF CONTENTS.

XVII. THE CRUSADES, THEIR DECLINE AND END.  9

XVIII. THE KINGSHIP IN FRANCE  65

XIX. THE COMMUNES AND THE THIRD ESTATE  205

XX. THE HUNDRED YEARS’ WAR. PHILIP VI. AND JOHN II.  249

XXI.  THE STATES-GENERAL OF THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY  328

XXII.  THE HUNDRED YEARS’ WAR.  CHARLES V.   358



LIST OF STEEL ENGRAVINGS.

BRIDGE OF TOULOUSE   FRONTISPIECE.

PREACHING THE SECOND CRUSADE   13

ST. LOUIS ADMINISTERING JUSTICE   46

ST. LOUIS MEDIATING BETWEEN HENRY III.  AND HIS BARONS   136

THE SICILIAN VESPERS   156

THE TOWN AND FORTRESS OF LILLE   164



LIST OF WOOD-CUT ILLUSTRATIONS.

Richard’s Farewell to the Holy Land  10

Defeat of the Turks   16

The Christians of the Holy City defiling before Saladin.  28

Richard Coeur de Lion having the Saracens beheaded.  .  37

Sire de Joinville  55

The Death of St. Louis  64

Thomas de Marie made Prisoner  69

Louis the Fat on an Expedition  69

The Battle of Bouvines  81

Death of De Montfort   104

De la Marche’s parting Insult  126

“It is rather hard Bread.”    146

The Battle of Courtrai   167

Colonna striking the Pope  185

The Hanging of Marigny  200

The Peasants resolved to Live according to their own Inclinations and
their own Laws.  .  .  .  209

Insurrection in favor of the Commune at Cambrai   214

Burghers of Laon  220

View of the Town of Laon  223

Bishop Gaudri dragged from the Cask  224

The Cathedral of Laon   233

Homage of Edward III. to Philip VI.  250

Van Artevelde at his Door  264

“See! See!” she cried  283

Statue of James Van Artevelde  296

Queen Philippa at the Feet of the King  314

John II., called the Good  318

“Father, ware right!  Father, ware left!”  326

King John taken Prisoner  326

Arrest of the Dauphin’s Councillors  334

Charles the Bad, King of Navarre  335

The Louvre in the Fourteenth Century  336

Stephen Marcel  342

The Murder of the Marshals  345

“In his Hands the Keys of the Gates.”    354

Charles V.  371

Big Ferre 376

Bertrand du Guesclin  388

Putting the Keys on Du Guesclin’s Bier  407



A POPULAR HISTORY OF FRANCE FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES.



CHAPTER XVII.----THE CRUSADES, THEIR DECLINE AND END.

In the month of August, 1099, the Crusade, to judge by appearances, had
attained its object.  Jerusalem was in the hands of the Christians, and
they had set up in it a king, the most pious and most disinterested of
the crusaders.  Close to this ancient kingdom were growing up likewise,
in the two chief cities of Syria and Mesopotamia, Antioch and Edessa, two
Christian principalities, in the possession of two crusader-chiefs,
Bohemond and Baldwin.  A third Christian principality was on the point of
getting founded at the foot of Libanus, at Tripolis, for the advantrge of
another crusader, Bertrand, eldest son of Count Raymond of Toulouse.  The
conquest of Syria and Palestine seemed accomplished, in the name of the
faith, and by the armies of Christian Europe; and the conquerors
calculated so surely upon their fixture that, during his reign, short as
it was (for he was elected king July 23, 1099, and died July 18, 1100,
aged only forty years), Godfrey de Bouillon caused to be drawn up and
published, under the title of Assizes of Jerusalem, a code of laws, which
transferred to Asia the customs and traditions of the feudal system, just
as they existed in France at the moment of his departure for the Holy
Land.

Forty-six years afterwards, in 1145, the Mussulmans, under the leadership
of Zanghi, sultan of Aleppo and of Mossoul, had retaken Edessa.  Forty-
two years after that, in 1187, Saladin (Salah-el-Eddyn), sultan of Egypt
and of Syria, had put an end to the Christian kingdom of Jerusalem; and
only seven years later, in 1194, Richard Coeur de Lion, king of England,
after the most heroic exploits in Palestine, on arriving in sight of
Jerusalem, retreated in despair, covering his eyes with his shield, and
saying that he was not worthy to look upon the city which he was not in a
condition to conquer.  When he re-embarked at St. Jean d’Acre, casting a
last glance and stretching out his arms towards the coast, he cried,
“Most Holy Land, I commend thee to the care of the Almighty; and may He
grant me long life enough to return hither and deliver thee from the yoke
of the infidels!  “A century had not yet rolled by since the triumph of
the first crusaders, and the dominion they had acquired by conquest in
the Holy Land had become, even in the eyes of their most valiant and most
powerful successors, an impossibility.

[Illustration: Richard’s Farewell to the Holy Land----10]

Nevertheless, repeated efforts and glory, and even victories, were not
then, and were not to be still later, unknown amongst the Christians in
their struggle against the Mussulmans for the possession of the Holy
Land.  In the space of a hundred and seventy-one years from the
coronation of Godfrey de Bouillon as king of Jerusalem, in 1099, to the
death of St. Louis, wearing the cross before Tunis, in 1270, seven grand
crusades were undertaken with the same design by the greatest sovereigns
of Christian Europe; the Kings of France and England, the Emperors of
Germany, the King of Denmark, and princes of Italy successively engaged
therein.  And they all failed.  It were neither right nor desirable to
make long pause over the recital of their attempts and their reverses,
for it is the history of France, and not a general history of the
crusades, which is here related; but it was in France, by the French
people, and under French chiefs, that the crusades were begun; and it was
with St. Louis, dying before Tunis beneath the banner of the cross, that
they came to an end.  They received in the history of Europe the glorious
name of _Gesta Dei per Francos_ (God’s works by French hands); and they
have a right to keep, in the history of France, the place they really
occupied.

During a reign of twenty-nine years, Louis VI., called the Fat, son of
Philip I., did not trouble himself about the East or the crusades, at
that time in all their fame and renown.  Being rather a man of sense than
an enthusiast in the cause either of piety or glory, he gave all his
attention to the establishment of some order, justice, and royal
authority in his as yet far from extensive kingdom.  A tragic incident,
however, gave the crusade chief place in the thoughts and life of his
son, Louis VII., called the Young, who succeeded him in 1137.  He got
himself rashly embroiled, in 1142, in a quarrel with Pope Innocent II.,
on the subject of the election of the Archbishop of Bourges.  The pope
and the king had each a different candidate for the see.  “The king is a
child,” said the pope; “he must get schooling, and be kept from learning
bad habits.”

“Never, so long as I live,” said the king, “shall Peter de la Chatre (the
pope’s candidate) enter the city of Bourges.”  The chapter of Bourges,
thinking as the pope thought, elected Peter de la Chatre; and Theobald
II., Count of Champagne, took sides for the archbishop elect.  Mind your
own business,” said the king to him; “your dominions are large enough to
occupy you; and leave me to govern my own as I have a mind.”  Theobald
persisted in backing the elect of pope and chapter.  The pope
excommunicated the king.  The king declared war against the Count of
Champagne; and went and besieged Vitry.  Nearly all the town was built of
wood, and the besiegers set fire to it.  The besieged fled for refuge to
a church, in which they were invested; and the fire reached the church,
which was entirely consumed, together with the thirteen hundred
inhabitants, men, women, and children, who had retreated thither.  This
disaster made a great stir.  St. Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux and the
leading ecclesiastical authority of the age, took the part of Count
Theobald.  King Louis felt a lively sorrow, and sincere repentance.  Soon
afterwards it became known in the West that the affairs of the Christians
were going ill in the East; that the town of Edessa had been re-taken by
the Turks, and all its inhabitants massacred.  The kingdom of Jerusalem,
too, was in danger.  Great was the emotion in Europe; and the cry of the
crusade was heard once more.  Louis the Young, to appease his troubled
conscience, and to get reconciled with the pope, to say nothing of
sympathy for the national movement, assembled the grandees, laic and
ecclesiastical, of the kingdom, to deliberate upon the matter.

Deliberation was more prolonged, more frequently repeated, and more
indecisive than it had been at the time of the first crusade.  Three
grand assemblies met, the first in 1145, at Bourges; the second in 1146,
at Vezelai, in Nivernais; and the third in 1147, at Etampes; all three
being called to investigate the expediency of a new crusade, and of the
king’s participation in the enterprise.  Not only was the question
seriously discussed, but extremely diverse opinions were expressed, both
amongst the rank and file of these assemblies, and amongst their most
illustrious members.  There were two men whose talents and fame made them
conspicuous above all; Suger, Abbot of St. Denis, the intimate and able
adviser of the wise king, Louis the Fat, and St. Bernard, Abbot of
Clairvaux, the most eloquent, most influential, and most piously
disinterested amongst the Christians of his age.  Though both were
ecclesiastics, these two great men were, touching the second crusade,
of opposite opinions.  “Let none suppose,” says Suger’s biographer and
confidant, William, monk of St. Denis, “that it was at his instance or by
his counsel that the king undertook the voyage to the Holy Land.
Although the success of it was other than had been expected, this prince
was influenced only by pious wishes and zeal for the service of God.  As
for Suger, ever far-seeing and only too well able to read the future, not
only did he not suggest to the monarch any such design, but he
disapproved of it so soon as it was mentioned to him.  The truth of it
is, that, after having vainly striven to nip it in the bud, and being
unable to put a check upon the king’s zeal, he thought it wise, either
for fear of wounding the king’s piety, or of uselessly incurring the
wrath of the partisans of the enterprise, to yield to the times.”  As for
St. Bernard, at the first of the three assemblies, viz., at Bourges,
whether it were that his mind was not yet made up or that he desired to
cover himself with greater glory, he advised the king to undertake
nothing without having previously consulted the Holy See; but when Pope
Eugenius III., so far from hesitating, had warmly solicited the aid of
the Christians against the infidels, St. Bernard, at the second assembly,
viz., at Vezelai, gave free vent to his feelings and his eloquence.
After having read the pope’s letters, “If ye were told,” said he, “that
an enemy had attacked your castles, your cities, and your lands, had
ravished your wives and your daughters, and had profaned your temples,
which of you would not fly to arms?  Well, all those evils, and evils
still greater, have come upon your brethren, upon the family of Christ,
which is your own.  Why tarry ye, then, to repair so many wrongs, to
avenge so many insults?  Christian warriors, He who gave His life for you
to-day demandeth yours; illustrious knights, noble defenders of the
cross, call to mind the example of your fathers, who conquered Jerusalem,
and whose names are written in heaven!  The living God hath charged me to
tell unto you that He will punish those who shall not have defended Him
against His enemies.  Fly to arms, and let Christendom re-echo with the
words of the prophet, ‘Woe to him who dyeth not his sword with blood!’
“At this fervent address the assembly rang with the shout of the first
crusade, ‘God willeth it!  God willeth it!’  The king, kneeling before
St. Bernard, received from his hands the cross; the queen, Eleanor of
Aquitaine, assumed it, like her husband; nearly all the barons present
followed their example; St. Bernard tore up his garments into crosses for
distribution, and, on leaving the assembly, he scoured the country
places, everywhere preaching and persuading the people.  The villages and
castles are deserted,” he wrote to the pope; “there is none to be seen
save widows and orphans whose husbands and fathers are alive.”  Nor did
he confine himself to France; he crossed into Germany, and preached the
crusade all along the Rhine.  The emperor, Conrad III., showed great
hesitation; the empire was sorely troubled, he said, and had need of its
head.  “Be of good cheer,” replied St.  Bernard “so long as you defend
His heritage, God himself will take the burden of defending yours.”  One
day, in December, 1146, he was celebrating mass at Spire, in presence of
the emperor and a great number of German princes.  Suddenly he passed
from the regular service to the subject of the crusade, and transported
his audience to the last judgment, in the presence of all the nations of
the earth summoned together, and Jesus Christ bearing his cross, and
reproaching the emperor with ingratitude.  Conrad was deeply moved, and
interrupted the preacher by crying out, “I know what I owe to Jesus
Christ: and I swear to go whither it pleaseth Him to call me.”  The
attraction became general; and Germany, like France, took up the cross.


[Illustration: PREACHING THE SECOND CRUSADE----13]

St. Bernard returned to France.  The ardor there had cooled a little
during his absence; the results of his trip in Germany were being waited
for; and it was known that, on being eagerly pressed to put himself at
the head of the crusaders, and take the command of the whole expedition,
he had formally refused.  His enthusiasm and his devotion, sincere and
deep as they were, did not, in his case, extinguish common sense; and he
had not forgotten the melancholy experiences of Peter the Hermit.  In
support of his refusal he claimed the intervention of Pope Eugenius III.
“Who am I,” he wrote to him, “that I should form a camp, and march at the
head of an army?  What can be more alien to my calling, even if I lacked
not the strength and the ability?  I need not tell you all this, for you
know it perfectly.  I conjure you by the charity you owe me, deliver me
not over, thus, to the humors of men.”  The pope came to France; and the
third grand assembly met at Etampes, in February, 1147.  The presence of
St. Bernard rekindled zeal; but foresight began to penetrate men’s minds.
Instead of insisting upon his being the chief of the crusade, attention
was given to preparations for the expedition; the points were indicated
at which the crusaders should form a junction, and the directions in
which they would have to move; and inquiry was made as to what measures
should be taken, and what persons should be selected for the government
of France during the king’s absence.  “Sir,” said St.  Bernard, after
having come to an understanding upon the subject with the principal
members of the assembly, at the same time pointing to Suger and the Count
de Nevers, “here be two swords, and it sufficeth.”  The Count de Nevers
peremptorily refused the honor done him; he was resolved, he said, to
enter the order of St. Bruno, as indeed he did.  Suger also refused at
first, “considering the dignity offered him a burden, rather than an
honor.”  Wise and clear-sighted by nature, he had learned in the reign of
Louis the Fat, to know the requirements and the difficulties of
government.  “He consented to accept,” says his biographer, “only when he
was at last forced to it by Pope Eugenius, who was present at the king’s
departure, and whom it was neither permissible nor possible for him to
resist.”  It was agreed that the French crusaders should form a junction
at Metz, under the command of King Louis, and the Germans at Ratisbonne,
under that of the Emperor Conrad, and that the two armies should
successively repair by land to Constantinople, whence they would cross
into Asia.

Having each a strength, it is said, of one hundred thousand men, they
marched by Germany and the Lower Danube, at an interval of two months
between them, without committing irregularities and without meeting
obstacles so serious as those of the first crusade, but still much
incommoded, and subjected to great hardships in the countries they
traversed.  The Emperor Conrad and the Germans first, and then King Louis
and the French, arrived at Constantinople in the course of the summer of
1117.  Manuel Comnenus, grandson of Alexis Comnenus, was reigning there;
and he behaved towards the crusaders with the same mixture of caresses
and malevolence, promises and perfidy, as had distinguished his
grandfather.  “There is no ill turn he did not do them,” says the
historian Nicetas, himself a Greek.  Conrad was the first to cross into
Asia Minor, and, whether it were unskilfulness or treason, the guides
with whom he had been supplied by Manuel Comnenus led him so badly that,
on the 28th of October, 1147, he was surprised and shockingly beaten by
the Turks near Iconium.  An utter distrust of Greeks grew up amongst the
French, who had not yet left Constantinople; and some of their chiefs,
and even one of their prelates, the Bishop of Langres, proposed to make,
without further delay, an end of it with this emperor and empire, so
treacherously hostile, and to take Constantinople in order to march more
securely upon Jerusalem.  But King Louis and the majority of his knights
turned a deaf ear: “We be come forth,” said they, “to expiate our own
sins, not to punish the crimes of the Greeks; when we took up the cross,
God did not put into our hands the sword of His justice;” and they, in
their turn, crossed over into Asia Minor.  There they found the Germans
beaten and dispersed, and Conrad himself wounded and so discouraged that,
instead of pursuing his way by land with the French, he returned to
Constantinople to go thence by sea to Palestine.  Louis and his army
continued their march across Asia Minor, and gained in Phrygia, at the
passage of the river Meander, so brilliant a victory over the Turks that,
“if such men,” says the historian Nicetas, abstained from taking
Constantinople, one cannot but admire their moderation and forbearance.”

[Illustration: Defeat of the Turks----16]

But the success was short, and, ere long, dearly paid for.  On entering
Pisidia, the French army split up into two, and afterwards into several
divisions, which scattered and lost themselves in the defiles of the
mountains.  The Turks waited for them, and attacked them at the mouths
and from the tops of the passes; before long there was nothing but
disorder and carnage; the little band which surrounded the king was cut
to pieces at his side; and Louis himself, with his back against a rock,
defended himself, alone, for some minutes, against several Turks, till
they, not knowing who he was, drew off, whereupon he, suddenly throwing
himself upon a stray horse, rejoined his advanced guard, who believed him
dead.  The army continued their march pell-mell, king, barons, knights,
soldiers, and pilgrims, uncertain day by day what would become of them on
the morrow.  The Turks harassed them afield; the towns in which there
were Greek governors residing refused to receive them; provisions fell
short; arms and baggage were abandoned on the road.  On arriving in
Pamphylia, at Satalia, a little port on the Mediterranean, the
impossibility of thus proceeding became evident; they were still, by
land, forty days’ march from Antioch, whereas it required but three to
get there by sea.  The governor of Satalia proposed to the king to embark
the crusaders; but, when the vessels arrived, they were quite inadequate
for such an operation; hardly could the king, the barons, and the knights
find room in them; and it would be necessary to abandon and expose to the
perils of the land-march the majority of the infantry and all the mere
pilgrims who had followed the army.  Louis, disconsolate, fluctuated
between the most diverse resolutions, at one time demanding to have
everybody embarked at any risk, at another determining to march by land
himself with all who could not be embarked; distributing whatever money
and provisions he had left, being as generous and sympathetic as he was
improvident and incapable, and “never letting a day pass,” says Odo of
Deuil, who accompanied him, “without hearing mass and crying unto the God
of the Christians.”  At last he embarked with his queen, Eleanor, and his
principal knights; and towards the end of March, 1148, he arrived at
Antioch, having lost more than three quarters of his army.

Scarcely had he taken a few days’ rest when messengers came to him on
behalf of Baldwin III., king of Jerusalem, begging him to repair without
delay to the Holy City.  Louis was as eager to go thither as the king and
people of Jerusalem were to see him there; but his speedy departure
encountered unforeseen hinderances.  Raymond, of Poitiers, at that time
Prince of Antioch by his marriage with Constance, granddaughter of the
great Bohemond of the first crusade, was uncle to the Queen of France,
Eleanor of Aquitaine.  He was, says William of Tyre, “a lord of noble
descent, of tall and elegant figure, the handsomest of the princes of the
earth, a man of charming affability and conversation, open-handed and
magnificent beyond measure,” and, moreover, ambitious and eager to extend
his small dominion.  He had at heart, beyond everything, the conquest of
Aleppo and Caesarea.  In this design the King of France and the crusaders
who were still about him might be of real service; and he attempted to
win them over.  Louis answered that he would engage in no enterprise
until he had visited the holy places.  Raymond was impetuous, irritable,
and as unreasonable in his desires as unfortunate in his undertakings.
He had quickly acquired great influence over his niece, Queen Eleanor,
and he had no difficulty in winning her over to his plans.  “She,” says
William of Tyre, “was a very inconsiderate woman, caring little for royal
dignity or conjugal fidelity; she took great pleasure in the court of
Antioch, where she also conferred much pleasure, even upon Mussulmans,
whom, as some chronicles say, she did not repulse; and, when the king,
her husband, spoke to her of approaching departure, she emphatically
refused, and, to justify her opposition, she declared that they could no
longer live together, as there was, she asserted, a prohibited degree of
consanguinity between them.”  Louis, “who loved her with an almost
excessive love,” says William of Nangis, was at the same time angered and
grieved.  He was austere in morals, easily jealous, and religiously
scrupulous, and for a moment he was on the point of separating from his
wife; but the counsels of his chief barons dissuaded him, and, thereupon,
taking a sudden resolution, he set out from Antioch secretly, by night,
carrying off the queen almost by force.  “They both hid their wrath as
much as possible,” says the chronicler; “but at heart they had ever this
outrage.”  We shall see, before long, what were the consequences.  No
history can offer so striking an example of the importance of
well-assorted unions amongst the highest as well as the lowest, and of
the prolonged woes which may be brought upon a nation by the domestic
evils of royalty.

On approaching Jerusalem, in the month of April, 1148, Louis VII. saw
coming to meet him King Baldwin III., and the patriarch and the people,
singing, “Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the Lord!”  So soon
as he had entered the city, his pious wishes were fulfilled by his being
taken to pay a solemn visit to all the holy places.  At the same time
arrived from Constantinople the Emperor Conrad, almost alone and in the
guise of a simple pilgrim.  All the remnant of the crusaders, French and
German, hurried to join them.  Impatient to exhibit their power on the
theatre of their creed, and to render to the kingdom of Jerusalem some
striking service, the two Western sovereigns, and Baldwin, and their
principal barons assembled at Ptolemais (St. Jean d’Acre) to determine
the direction to be taken by their enterprise.  They decided upon the
siege of Damascus, the most important and the nearest of the Mussulman
princedoms in Syria, and in the early part of June they moved thither
with forces incomplete and ill united.  Neither the Prince of Antioch nor
the Counts of Edessa and Tripolis had been summoned to St. Jean d’Acre;
and Queen Eleanor had not appeared.  At the first attack, the ardor of
the assailants and the brilliant personal prowess of their chiefs, of the
Emperor Conrad amongst others, struck surprise and consternation into the
besieged, who, foreseeing the necessity of abandoning their city, laid
across the streets beams, chains, and heaps of stones, to stop the
progress of the conquerors and give themselves time for flying, with
their families and their wealth, by the northern and southern gates.  But
personal interest and secret negotiations before long brought into the
Christian camp weakness, together with discord.  Many of the barons were
already disputing amongst themselves, at the very elbows of the
sovereigns, for the future government of Damascus; others were not
inaccessible to the rich offers which came to them from the city; and it
is maintained that King Baldwin himself suffered himself to be bribed by
a sum of two hundred thousand pieces of gold which were sent to him by
Modjer-Eddyn, Emir of Damascus, and which turned out to be only pieces of
copper, covered with gold leaf.  News came that the Emirs of Aleppo and
Mossoul were coming, with considerable forces, to the relief of the
place.  Whatever may have been the cause of retreat, the crusader-
sovereigns decided upon it, and, raising the siege, returned to
Jerusalem.  The Emperor Conrad, in indignation and confusion, set out
precipitately to return to Germany.  King Louis could not make up his
mind thus to quit the Holy Land in disgrace, and without doing anything
for its deliverance.  He prolonged his stay there for more than a year
without anything to show for his time and zeal.  His barons and his
knights nearly all left him, and, by sea or land, made their way back to
France.  But the king still lingered.  I am under a bond,” he wrote to
Suger, “not to leave the Holy Land, save with glory, and after doing
somewhat for the cause of God and the kingdom of France.”  At last, after
many fruitless entreaties, Suger wrote to him, “Dear king and lord, I
must cause thee to hear the voice of thy whole kingdom.  Why dost thou
fly from us?  After having toiled so hard in the East, after having
endured so many almost unendurable evils, by what harshness or what
cruelty comes it that, now when the barons and grandees of the kingdom
have returned, thou persistest in abiding with the barbarians?  The
disturbers of the kingdom have entered into it again; and thou, who
shouldst defend it, remainest in exile as if thou wert a prisoner; thou
givest over the lamb to the wolf, thy dominions to the ravishers.  We
conjure thy majesty, we invoke thy piety, we adjure thy goodness, we
summon thee in the name of the fealty we owe thee; tarry not at all, or
only a little while, beyond Easter; else thou wilt appear, in the eyes of
God, guilty of a breach of that oath which thou didst take at the same
time as the crown.”  At length Louis made up his mind and embarked at St.
Jean d’Acre at the commencement of July, 1149; and he disembarked in the
month of October at the port of St. Gilles, at the mouth of the Rhone,
whence he wrote to Suger, “We be hastening unto you safe and sound, and
we command you not to defer paying us a visit, on a given day and before
all our other friends.  Many rumors reach us touching our kingdom, and
knowing nought for certain, we be desirous to learn from you how we
should bear ourselves or hold our peace, in every case.  And let none but
yourself know what I say to you at this present writing.”

This preference and this confidence were no more than Louis VII. owed to
Suger.  The Abbot of St. Denis, after having opposed the crusade with a
freedom of spirit and a far-sightedness unique, perhaps, in his times,
had, during the king’s absence, borne the weight of government with a
political tact, a firmness, and a disinterestedness rare in any times.
He had upheld the authority of absent royalty, kept down the pretensions
of vassals, and established some degree of order wherever his influence
could reach; he had provided for the king’s expenses in Palestine by good
administration of the domains and revenues of the crown; and, lastly, he
had acquired such renown in Europe, that men came from Italy and from
England to view the salutary effects of his government, and that the name
of Solomon of his age was conferred upon him by strangers his
contemporaries.  With the exception of great sovereigns, such as
Charlemagne or William the Conqueror, only great bishops or learned
theologians, and that by their influence in the Church or by their
writings, had obtained this European reputation; from the ninth to the
twelfth century, Suger was the first man who attained to it by the sole
merit of his political conduct, and who offered an example of a minister
justly admired, for his ability and wisdom, beyond the circle in which he
lived.  When he saw that the king’s return drew near, he wrote to him,
saying, “You will, I think, have ground to be satisfied with our conduct.
We have remitted to the knights of the Temple the money we had resolved
to send you.  We have, besides, reimbursed the Count of Vermandois the
three thousand livres he had lent us for your service.  Your land and
your people are in the enjoyment, for the present, of a happy peace.  You
will find your houses and your palaces in good condition through the care
we have taken to have them repaired.  Behold me now in the decline of
age: and I dare to say that the occupations in which I have engaged for
the love of God and through attachment to your person have added many to
my years.  In respect of the queen, your consort, I am of opinion that
you should conceal the displeasure she causes you, until, restored to
your dominions, you can calmly deliberate upon that and upon other
subjects.”

On once more entering his kingdom, Louis, who, at a distance, had
sometimes lent a credulous ear to the complaints of the discontented or
to the calumnies of Suger’s enemies, did him full justice and was the
first to give him the name of Father of the country.  The ill success of
the crusade and the remembrance of all that France had risked and lost
for nothing, made a deep impression upon the public; and they honored
Suger for his far-sightedness whilst they blamed St. Bernard for the
infatuation which he had fostered and for the disasters which had
followed it.  St. Bernard accepted their reproaches in a pious spirit:
“If,” said he, “there must be murmuring against God or against me, I
prefer to see the murmurs of men falling upon me rather than upon the
Lord.  To me it is a blessed thing that God should deign to use me as a
buckler to shield Himself.  I shrink not from humiliation, provided that
His glory be unassailed.”  But at the same time St. Bernard himself was
troubled, and he permitted himself to give expression to his troubled
feelings in a singularly free and bold strain of piety.  “We be fallen
upon very grievous times,” he wrote to Pope Eugenius III.; “the Lord,
provoked by our sins, seemeth in some sort to have determined to judge
the world before the time, and to judge it, doubtless, according to His
equity, but not remembering His mercy.  Do not the heathen say, ‘Where is
now their God?’  And who can wonder?  The children of the Church, those
who be called Christian, lie stretched upon the desert, smitten with the
sword or dead of famine.  Did we undertake the work rashly?  Did we
behave ourselves lightly?  How patiently God heareth the sacrilegious
voices and the blasphemies of these Egyptians!  Assuredly His judgments
be righteous; who doth not know it?  But in the present judgment there is
so profound a depth, that I hesitate not to call him blessed whosoever is
not surprised and offended by it.”

The soul of man, no less than the shifting scene of the world, is often a
great subject of surprise.  King Louis, on his way back to France, had
staid some days at Rome; and there, in a conversation with the pope, he
had almost promised him a new crusade to repair the disasters of that
from which he had found it so difficult to get out.  Suger, when he
became acquainted with this project, opposed it as he had opposed the
former; but, at the same time, as he, in common with all his age,
considered the deliverance of the Holy Land to be the bounden duty of
Christians, he conceived the idea of dedicating the large fortune and
great influence he had acquired to the cause of a new crusade, to be
undertaken by himself and at his own expense, without compromising either
king or state.  He unfolded his views to a meeting of bishops assembled
at Chartres; and he went to Tours, and paid a visit to the tomb of St.
Martin to implore his protection.  Already more than ten thousand
pilgrims were in arms at his call, and already he had himself chosen a
warrior, of ability and renown, to command them, when he fell ill, and
died at the end of four months, in 1152, aged seventy, and “thanking the
Almighty,” says his biographer, “for having taken him to Him, not
suddenly, but little by little, in order to bring him step by step to the
rest needful for the weary man.”  It is said that, in his last days and
when St. Bernard was exhorting him not to think any more save only of the
heavenly Jerusalem, Suger still expressed to him his regret at dying
without having succored the city which was so dear to them both.

Almost at the very moment when Suger was dying, a French council,
assembled at Beaugency, was annulling on the ground of prohibited
consanguinity, and with the tacit consent of the two persons most
concerned, the marriage of Louis VII. and Eleanor of Aquitaine.  Some
months afterwards, at Whitsuntide in the same year, Henry Plantagenet,
Duke of Normandy and Count of Anjou, espoused Eleanor, thus adding to his
already great possessions Poitou and Aquitaine, and becoming, in France,
a vassal more powerful than the king his suzerain.  Twenty months later,
in 1154, at the death of King Stephen, Henry Plantagenet became King of
England; and thus there was a recurrence, in an aggravated form, of the
position which had been filled by William the Conqueror, and which was
the first cause of rivalry between France and England and of the
consequent struggles of considerably more than a century’s duration.

Little more than a year after Suger, on the 20th of April, 1153,
St. Bernard died also.  The two great men, of whom one had excited and
the other opposed the second crusade, disappeared together from the
theatre of the world.  The crusade had completely failed.  After a lapse
of scarce forty years, a third crusade began.  When a great idea is
firmly fixed in men’s minds with the twofold sanction of duty and
feeling, many generations live and die in its service before efforts are
exhausted and the end reached or abandoned.

During this forty years’ interval between the end of the second and
beginning of the third crusade, the relative positions of West and East,
Christian Europe and Mussulman Asia, remained the same outwardly and
according to the general aspect of affairs; but in Syria and in Palestine
there was a continuance of the struggle between Christendom and Islamry,
with various fortunes on either side.  The Christian kingdom of Jerusalem
still stood; and after Godfrey de Bouillon, from 1100 to 1180, there had
been a succession of eight kings; some energetic and bold, aspiring to
extend their young dominion, others indolent and weak upon a tottering
throne.  The rivalries and often the defections and treasons of the petty
Christian princes and lords who were set up at different points in
Palestine and Syria endangered their common cause.  Fortunately similar
rivalries, dissensions, and treasons prevailed amongst the Mussulman
emirs, some of them Turks and others Persians or Arabs, and at one time
foes, at another dependants, of the Khalifs of Bagdad or of Egypt.
Anarchy and civil war harassed both races and both religions with almost
equal impartiality.  But, beneath this surface of simultaneous agitation
and monotony, great changes were being accomplished or preparing for
accomplishment in the West.  The principal sovereigns of the preceding
generation, Louis VII., King of France, Conrad III., Emperor of Germany,
and Henry II., King of England, were dying; and princes more juvenile and
more enterprising, or simply less wearied out,--Philip Augustus,
Frederick Barbarossa, and Richard Coeur de Lion,--were taking their
places.  In the East the theatre of policy and events was being enlarged;
Egypt was becoming the goal of ambition with the chiefs, Christian or
Mussulman, of Eastern Asia; and Damietta, the key of Egypt, was the
object of their enterprises, those of Amaury I., the boldest of the kings
of Jerusalem, as well as those of the Sultans of Damascus and Aleppo.
Noureddin and Saladin (Nour-Eddyn and Sala-Eddyn), Turks by origin, had
commenced their fortunes in Syria; but it was in Egypt that they
culminated, and, when Saladin became the most illustrious as well as the
most powerful of Mussulman sovereigns, it was with the title of Sultan of
Egypt and of Syria that he took his place in history.

In the course of the year 1187, Europe suddenly heard tale upon tale
about the repeated disasters of the Christians in Asia.  On the 1st of
May, the two religious and warlike orders which had been founded in the
East for the defence of Christendom--the Hospitallers of St. John of
Jerusalem and the Templars--lost, at a brush in Galilee, five hundred of
their bravest knights.  On the 3d and 4th of July, near Tiberias, a
Christian army was surrounded by the Saracens, and also, ere long, by the
fire which Saladin had ordered to be set to the dry grass which covered
the plain.  The flames made their way and spread beneath the feet of men
and horses.  “There,” say the Oriental chroniclers, “the sons of Paradise
and the children of fire settled their terrible quarrel.  Arrows hurtled
in the air like a noisy flight of sparrows, and the blood of warriors
dripped upon the ground like rain-water.”  “I saw,” adds one of them who
was present at the battle, “hill, plain, and valley covered with their
dead; I saw their banners stained with dust and blood; I saw their heads
laid low, their limbs scattered, their carcasses piled on a heap like
stones.”  Four days after the battle of Tiberias, on the 8th of July,
1187, Saladin took possession of St. Jean d’Acre, and, on the 4th of
September following, of Ascalon.  Finally, on the 18th of September, he
laid siege to Jerusalem, wherein refuge had been sought by a multitude of
Christian families driven from their homes by the ravages of the infidels
throughout Palestine; and the Holy City contained at this time, it is
said, nearly one hundred thousand Christians.  On approaching its walls,
Saladin sent for the principal inhabitants, and said to them, “I know as
well as you that Jerusalem is the house of God; and I will not have it
assaulted if I can get it by peace and love.  I will give you thirty
thousand byzants of gold if you promise me Jerusalem, and you shall have
liberty to go whither you will and do your tillage, to a distance of five
miles from the city.  And I will have you sup-plied with such plenty of
provisions that in no place on earth shall they be so cheap.  You shall
have a truce from now to Whitsuntide, and when this time comes, if you
see that you may have aid, then hold on.  But if not, you shall give up
the city, and I will have you conveyed in safety to Christian territory,
yourselves and your substance.”  “We may not yield up to you a city where
died our God,” answered the envoys: “and still less may we sell you.”
 The siege lasted fourteen days.  After having repulsed several assaults,
the inhabitants saw that effectual resistance was impossible; and the
commandant of the place, a knight named Dalian d’Ibelin, an old warrior,
who had been at the battle of Tiberias, returned to Saladin, and asked
for the conditions back again which had at first been rejected.  Saladin,
pointing to his own banner already planted upon several parts of the
battlements, answered, “It is too late; you surely see that the city is
mine.”  “Very well, my lord,” replied the knight: “we will ourselves
destroy our city, and the mosque of Omar, and the stone of Jacob: and
when it is nothing but a heap of ruins, we will sally forth with sword
and fire in hand, and not one of us will go to Paradise without having
sent ten Mussulmans to hell.”  Saladin understood enthusiasm, and
respected it; and to have had the destruction of Jerusalem connected with
his name would’ have caused him deep displeasure.  He therefore consented
to the terms of capitulation demanded of him.  The fighting men were
permitted to retreat to Tyre or Tripolis, the last cities of any
importance, besides Antioch, in the power of the Christians; and the
simple inhabitants of Jerusalem had their lives preserved, and permission
given them to purchase their freedom on certain conditions; but, as many
amongst them could not find the means, Malek-Adhel, the sultan’s brother,
and Saladin himself paid the ransom of several thousands of captives.
All Christians, however, with the exception of Greeks and Syrians, had
orders to leave Jerusalem within four days.  When the day came, all the
gates were closed, except that of David by which the people were to go
forth; and Saladin, seated upon a throne, saw the Christians defile
before him.  First came the patriarch, followed by the clergy, carrying
the sacred vessels, and the ornaments of the church of the Holy
Sepulchre.  After him came Sibylla, Queen of Jerusalem, who had remained
in the city, whilst her husband, Guy de Lusignan, had been a prisoner at
Nablous since the battle of Tiberias.  Saladin saluted her respectfully,
and spoke to her kindly.  He had too great a soul to take pleasure in the
humiliation of greatness.

[Illustration: The Christians of the Holy City defiling before Saladin.--
--28]

The news, spreading through Europe, caused amongst all classes there,
high and low, a deep feeling of sorrow, anger, disquietude, and shame.
Jerusalem was a very different thing from Edessa.  The fall of the
kingdom of Jerusalem meant the sepulchre of Jesus Christ fallen once more
into the hands of the infidels, and, at the same time, the destruction of
what had been wrought by Christian Europe in the East, the loss of the
only striking and permanent gage of her victories.  Christian pride was
as much wounded as Christian piety.  A new fact, moreover, was
conspicuous in this series of reverses and in the accounts received of
them; after all its defeats and in the midst of its discord, Islamry had
found a chieftain and a hero.  Saladin was one of those strange and
superior beings who, by their qualities and by their very defects, make a
strong impression upon the imaginations of men, whether friends or foes.
His Mussulman fanaticism was quite as impassioned as the Christian
fanaticism of the most ardent crusaders.  When he heard that Reginald of
Chatillon, Lord of Karat, on the confines of Palestine and Arabia, had
all but succeeded in an attempt to go and pillage the Caaba and the tomb
of Mahomet, he wrote to his brother Malek-Adhel, at that time governor of
Egypt, “The infidels have violated the home and the cradle of Islamism;
they have profaned our sanctuary.  Did we not prevent a like insult
(which God forbid!) we should render ourselves guilty in the eyes of God
and the eyes of men.  Purge we, therefore, our land from these men who
dishonor it; purge we the very air from the air they breathe.”  He
commanded that all the Christians who could possibly be captured on this
occasion should be put to death; and many were taken to Mecca, where the
Mussulman pilgrims immolated them instead of the sheep and lambs they
were accustomed to sacrifice.  The expulsion of the Christians from
Palestine was Saladin’s great idea and unwavering passion; and he
severely chid the Mussulmans for their soft-heartedness in the struggle.
“Behold these Christians,” he wrote to the Khalif of Bagdad, “how they
come crowding in!  How emulously they press on!  They are continually
receiving fresh re-enforcements more numerous than the waves of the sea,
and to us more bitter than its brackish waters.  Where one dies by land,
a thousand come by sea.  .  .  .  The crop is more abundant than the
harvest; the tree puts forth more branches than the axe can lop off.  It
is true that great numbers have already perished, insomuch that the edge
of our swords is blunted; but our comrades are beginning to grow weary of
so long a war.  Haste we, therefore, to implore the help of the Lord.”
 Nor needed he the excuse of passion in order to be cruel and sanguinary
when he considered it would serve his cause; for human lives and deaths
he had that barbaric indifference which Christianity alone has rooted out
from the communities of men, whilst it has remained familiar to the
Mussulman.  When he found himself, either during or after a battle,
confronted by enemies whom he really dreaded, such as the Hospitallers of
St. John of Jerusalem or the Templars, he had them massacred, and
sometimes gave them their death-blow himself, with cool satisfaction.
But, apart from open war and the hatred inspired by passion or cold
calculation, he was moderate and generous, gentle towards the vanquished
and the weak, just and compassionate towards his subjects, faithful to
his engagements, and capable of feeling sympathetic admiration for men,
even his enemies, in whom he recognized superior qualities, courage,
loyalty, and loftiness of mind.  For Christian knighthood, its precepts
and the noble character it stamped upon its professors, he felt so much
respect and even inclination that the wish of his heart, it is said, was
to receive the title of knight, and that he did, in fact, receive it with
the approval of Richard Coeur de Lion.  By reason of all these facts and
on all these grounds he acquired, even amongst the Christians, that
popularity which attaches itself to greatness justified by personal deeds
and living proofs, in spite of the fear and even the hatred inspired
thereby.  Christian Europe saw in him the able and potent chief of
Mussulman Asia, and, whilst detesting, admired him.

After the capture of Jerusalem by Saladin, the Christians of the East, in
their distress, sent to the West their most eloquent prelate and gravest
historian William, Archbishop of Tyre, who, fifteen years before, in the
reign of Baldwin IV., had been Chancellor of the kingdom of Jerusalem.
He, accompanied by a legate of Pope Gregory VIII., scoured Italy, France,
and Germany, recounting everywhere the miseries of the Holy Land, and
imploring the aid of all Christian princes and peoples, whatever might be
their own position of affairs and their own quarrels in Europe.  At a
parliament assembled at Gisors, on the 21st of January, 1188, and at a
diet convoked at Mayence on the 27th of March following, he so powerfully
affected the knighthood of France, England, and Germany, that the three
sovereigns of these three states, Philip Augustus, Richard Coeur de Lion,
and Frederick Barbarossa, engaged with acclamation in a new crusade.
They were princes of very different ages and degrees of merit, but all
three distinguished for their personal qualities as well as their
puissance.  Frederick Barbarossa was sixty-seven, and for the last
thirty-six years had been leading, in Germany and Italy, as politician
and soldier, a very active and stormy existence.  Richard Cceur de Lion
was thirty-one, and had but just ascended the throne where he was to
shine as the most valiant and adventurous of knights rather than as a
king.  Philip Augustus, though only twenty-three, had already shown
signs, beneath the vivacious sallies of youth, of the reflective and
steady ability characteristic of riper age.  Of these three sovereigns,
the eldest, Frederick Barbarossa, was first ready to plunge amongst the
perils of the crusade.  Starting from Ratisbonne about Christmas, 1189,
with an army of one hundred and fifty thousand men, he traversed the
Greek empire and Asia Minor, defeated the Sultan of Iconium, passed the
first defiles of Taurus, and seemed to be approaching the object of his
voyage, when, on the 10th of June, 1190, having arrived at the borders of
the Selef, a small river which throws itself into the Mediterranean close
to Seleucia, he determined to cross it by fording, was seized with a
chill, and, according to some, drowned before his people’s eyes, but,
according to others, carried dying to Seleucia, where he expired.  His
young son Conrad, Duke of Suabia, was not equal to taking the command of
such an army; and it broke up.

The majority of the German princes returned to Europe: and “there
remained beneath the banner of Christ only a weak band of warriors
faithful to their vow, a boy-chief, and a bier.  When the crusaders of
the other nations, assembled before St. Jean d’Acre, saw the remnant of
that grand German army arrive, not a soul could restrain his tears.
Three thousand men, all but stark naked, and harassed to death, marched
sorrowfully along, with the dried bones of their emperor carried in a
coffin.  For, in the twelfth century, the art of embalming the dead was
unknown.  Barbarossa, before leaving Europe, had asked that, if he should
die in the crusade, he might be buried in the church of the Resurrection
at Jerusalem; but this wish could not be accomplished, as the Christians
did not recover the Holy City, and the mortal remains of the emperor were
carried, as some say, to Tyre, and, as others, to Antioch, Where his tomb
has not been discovered.”  (_Histoire de la Lutte des Papes et des
Empereurs de la Maison de Souabe,_ by M. de Cherrier, Member of the
Institute, t. i., p. 222.)

Frederick Barbarossa was already dead in Asia Minor, and the German army
was already broken up, when, on the 24th of June, 1190, Philip Augustus
went and took the oriflamme at St. Denis, on his way to Vezelai, where he
had appointed to meet Richard, and whence the two kings, in fact, set
out, on the 4th of July, to embark with their troops, Philip at Genoa,
and Richard at Marseilles.  They had agreed to touch nowhere until they
reached Sicily, where Philip was the first to arrive, on the 16th of
September; and Richard was eight days later.  But, instead of simply
touching, they passed at Messina all the autumn of 1190, and all the
winter of 1190-91, no longer seeming to think of anything but quarrelling
and amusing themselves.  Nor were grounds for quarrel or opportunities
for amusements to seek.  Richard, in spite of his promise, was unwilling
to marry the Princess Alice, Philip’s sister; and Philip, after lively
discussion, would not agree to give him back his word, save “in
consideration of a sum of ten thousand silver marks, whereof he shall pay
us three thousand at the feast of All Saints, and year by year in
succession, at this same feast.”  Some of their amusements were not more
refined than their family arrangements, and ruffianly contests and
violent enmities sprang up amidst the feasts and the games in which kings
and knights nearly every evening indulged in the plains round about
Messina.  One day there came amongst the crusaders thus assembled a
peasant driving an ass, laden with those long and strong reeds known by
the name of canes.  English and French, with Richard at their head,
bought them of him; and, mounting on horseback, ran tilt at one another,
armed with these reeds by way of lances.  Richard found himself opposite
to a French knight, named William des Barres, of whose strength and valor
he had already, not without displeasure, had experience in Normandy.  The
two champions met with so rude a shock that their reeds broke, and the
king’s cloak was torn.  Richard, in pique, urged his horse violently
against the French knight, in order to make him lose his stirrups; but
William kept a firm seat, whilst the king fell under his horse, which
came down in his impetuosity.  Richard, more and more exasperated, had
another horse brought, and charged a second time, but with no more
success, the immovable knight.  One of Richard’s favorites, the Earl of
Leicester, would have taken his place, and avenged his lord; but “let be,
Robert,” said the king: “it is a matter between him and me;” and he once
more attacked William des Barres, and once more to no purpose.  “Fly from
my sight,” cried he to the knight, “and take care never to appear again;
for I will be ever a mortal foe to thee, to thee and thine.”  William des
Barres, somewhat discomfited, went in search of the King of France, to
put himself under his protection.  Philip accordingly paid a visit to
Richard, who merely said, “I’ll not hear a word.”  It needed nothing less
than the prayers of the bishops, and even, it is said, a threat of
excommunication, to induce Richard to grant William des Barres the king’s
peace during the time of pilgrimage.

Such a comrade was assuredly very inconvenient, and might be under
difficult circumstances very dangerous.  Philip, without being
susceptible or quarrelsome, was naturally independent, and disposed to
act, on every occasion, according to his own ideas.  He resolved, not to
break with Richard, but to divide their commands, and separate their
fortunes.  On the approach of spring, 1191, he announced to him that the
time had arrived for continuing their pilgrimage to the Holy Land, and
that, as for himself, he was quite ready to set out.  “I am not ready,”
 said Richard; “and I cannot depart before the middle of August.”  Philip,
after some discussion, set out alone, with his army, on the 30th of
March, and on the 14th of April arrived before St. Jean d’.Acre.  This
important place, of which Saladin had made himself master nearly four
years before, was being besieged by the last King of Jerusalem, Guy de
Lusignan, at the head of the Christians of Palestine, and by a multitude
of crusaders, Genoese, Danish, Flemish, and German, who had flocked
freely to the enterprise.  A strong and valiant Mussulman garrison was
defending St. Jean d’Acre.  Saladin manoeuvred incessantly for its
relief, and several battles had already been fought beneath the walls.
When the King of France arrived, he was received by the Christians
besieging,” say the chronicles of St. Denis, “with supreme joy, as if he
were an angel come down from heaven.”.  Philip set vigorously to work to
push on the siege; but at his departure he had promised Richard not to
deliver the grand assault until they had formed a junction before the
place with all their forces.  Richard, who had set out from Messina at
the beginning of May, though he had said that he would not be ready till
August, lingered again on the way to reduce the island of Cyprus, and to
celebrate there his marriage with Berengaria of Navarre, in lieu of Alice
of France.  At last he arrived, on the 7th of June, before St. Jean
d’Acre; and several assaults in succession were made on the place with
equal determination on the part of the besiegers and the besieged.  “The
tumultuous waves of the Franks,” says an Arab historian, “rolled towards
the walls of the city with the rapidity of a torrent; and they climbed
the half-ruined battlements as wild goats climb precipitous rocks, whilst
the Saracens threw themselves upon the besiegers like stones unloosed
from the top of a mountain.”  At length, on the 13th of July, 1191, in
spite of the energetic resistance offered by the garrison, which defended
itself “as a lion defends his blood-stained den,” St. Jean d’Acre
surrendered.  The terms of capitulation stated that two hundred thousand
pieces of gold should be paid to the chiefs of the Christian army; that
sixteen hundred prisoners and the wood of the true cross should be given
up to them; and that the garrison as well as all the people of the town
should remain in the conquerors’ power, pending full execution of the
treaty.

Whilst the siege was still going on, the discord between the Kings of
France and England was increasing in animosity and venom.  The conquest
of Cyprus had become a new subject of dispute.  When the French were most
eager for the assault, King Richard remained in his tent; and so the
besieged had scarcely ever to repulse more than one or other of the kings
and armies at a time.  Saladin, it is said, showed Richard particular
attention, sending him grapes and pears from Damascus; and Philip
conceived some mistrust of these relations.  In camp the common talk,
combined with anxious curiosity, was, that Philip was jealous of
Richard’s warlike popularity, and Richard was jealous of the power and
political weight of the King of France.

When St.  Jean d’Acre had been taken, the judicious Philip, in view of
what it had cost the Christians of East and West, in time and blood, to
recover this single town, considered that a fresh and complete conquest
of Palestine and Syria, which was absolutely necessary for a
re-establishment of the kingdom of Jerusalem, was impossible: he had
discharged what he owed to the crusade; and the course now permitted and
prescribed to him was to give his attention to France.  The news he
received from home was not encouraging; his son Louis, hardly four years
old, had been dangerously ill; and he himself fell ill, and remained some
days in bed, in the midst of the town he had just conquered.  His enemies
called his illness in question, for already there was a rumor abroad that
he had an idea of giving up the crusade, and returning to France; but the
details given by contemporary chroniclers about the effects of his
illness scarcely permit it to be regarded as a sham.  “Violent sweats,”
 they say, “committed such havoc with his bones and all his members, that
the nails fell from his fingers and the hair from his head, insomuch that
it was believed--and, indeed, the rumor is not yet dispelled--that he had
taken a deadly poison.”  There was nothing strange in Philip’s illness,
after all his fatigues, in such a country and such a season; Saladin,
too, was ill at the same time, and more than once unable to take part
with his troops in their engagements.  But, however that may be, a
contemporary English chronicler, Benedict, Abbot of Peterborough, relates
that, on the 22d of July, 1191, whilst King Richard was playing chess
with the Earl of Gloucester, the Bishop of Beauvais, the Duke of
Burgundy, and two knights of consideration, presented themselves before
him on behalf of the King of France.  “They were dissolved in tears,”
 says he, “in such sort they could not utter a single word; and, seeing
them so moved, those present wept in their turn for pity’s sake.  ‘Weep
not,’ said King Richard to them; ‘I know what ye be come to ask; your
lord, the King of France, desireth to go home again, and ye be come in
his name to ask on his behalf my counsel and leave to get him gone.’
‘It is true, sir; you know all,’ answered the messengers; ‘our king
sayeth, that if he depart not speedily from this land, he will surely
die.’  ‘It will be for him and for the kingdom of France,’ replied King
Richard, ‘eternal shame, if he go home without fulfilling the work for
the which he came, and he shall not go hence by my advice; but if he must
die or return home, let him do what he will, and what may appear to him
expedient for him, for him and his.’”  The source from which this story
comes, and the tone of it, are enough to take from it all authority; for
it is the custom of monastic chroniclers to attribute to political or
military characters emotions and demonstrations alien to their position
and their times.  Philip Augustus, moreover, was one of the most decided,
most insensible to any other influence but that of his own mind, and most
disregardful of his enemies’ bitter speeches, of all the kings in French
history.  He returned to France after the capture of St. Jean d’ Acre,
because he considered the ultimate success of the crusade impossible, and
his return necessary for the interests of France and for his own.  He was
right in thus thinking and acting; and King Richard, when insultingly
reproaching him for it, did not foresee that, a year later, he would
himself be doing the same thing, and would give up the crusade without
having obtained anything more for Christendom, except fresh reverses.

[Illustration: RICHARD COEUR DE LION HAVING THE SARACENS BEHEADED.----7]

On the 31st of July, 1191, Philip, leaving with the army of the crusaders
ten thousand foot and five hundred knights, under the command of Duke
Hugh of Burgundy, who had orders to obey King Richard, set sail for
France; and, a few days after Christmas in the same year, landed in his
kingdom, and forth-with resumed, at Fontainebleau according to some, and
at Paris according to others, the regular direction of his government.
We shall see before long with what intelligent energy and with what
success he developed and consolidated the territorial greatness of France
and the influence of the kingship, to her security in Europe and her
prosperity at home.

From the 1st of August, 1191, to the 9th of October, 1192, King Richard
remained alone in the East as chief of the crusade and defender of
Christendom.  He pertains, during that period, to the history of England,
and no longer to that of France.  We will, however, recall a few facts to
show how fruitless, for the cause of Christendom in the East, was the
prolongation of his stay and what strange deeds--at one time of savage
barbarism, and at another of mad pride or fantastic knight-errantry--were
united in him with noble instincts and the most heroic courage.  On the
20th of August, 1191, five weeks after the surrender of St. Jean d’Acre,
he found that Saladin was not fulfilling with sufficient promptitude the
conditions of capitulation, and, to bring him up to time, he ordered the
decapitation, before the walls of the place, of, according to some,
twenty-five hundred, and, according to others, five thousand, Mussulman
prisoners remaining in his hands.

[Illustration: Richard Coeur de Lion having the Saracens beheaded.----37]

The only effect of this massacre was, that during Richard’s first
campaign after Philip’s departure for France, Saladin put to the sword
all the Christians taken in battle or caught straggling, and ordered
their bodies to be left without burial, as those of the garrison of St.
Jean d’Acre had been.  Some months afterwards Richard conceived the idea
of putting an end to the struggle between Christendom and Islamry, which
he was not succeeding in terminating by war, by a marriage.  He had a
sister, Joan of England, widow of William II., king of Sicily; and
Saladin had a brother, Malek-Adhel, a valiant warrior, respected by the
Christians.  Richard had proposals made to Saladin to unite them in
marriage and set them to reign together over the Christians and
Mussulmans in the kingdom of Jerusalem.  The only result of the
negotiation was to give Saladin time for repairing the fortifications of
Jerusalem, and to bring down upon King Richard and his sister, on the
part of the Christian bishops, the fiercest threats of the fulminations
of the Church.  With the exception of this ridiculous incident, Richard’s
life, during the whole course of this year, was nothing but a series of
great or small battles, desperately contested, against Saladin.  When
Richard had obtained a success, he pursued it in a haughty, passionate
spirit; when he suffered a check, he offered Saladin peace, but always on
condition of surrendering Jerusalem to the Christians, and Saladin always
answered, “Jerusalem never was yours, and we may not without sin give it
up to you; for it is the place where the mysteries of our religion were
accomplished, and the last one of my soldiers will perish before the
Mussulmans renounce conquests made in the name of Mahomet.”  Twice
Richard and his army drew near Jerusalem, “without his daring to look
upon it, he said, since he was not in a condition to take it.”  At last,
in the summer of 1192, the two armies and the two chiefs began to be
weary of a war without result.  A great one, however, for Saladin and the
Mussulmans was the departure of Richard and the crusaders.  Being unable
to agree about conditions for a definitive peace, they contented
themselves, on both sides, with a truce for three years and eight months,
leaving Jerusalem in possession of the Mussulmans, but open for worship
to the Christians, in whose hands remained, at the same time, the towns
they were in occupation of on the maritime coast, from Jaffa to Tyre.
This truce, which was called peace, having received the signature of all
the Christian and Mussulman princes, was celebrated by galas and
tournaments, at which Christians and Mussulmans seemed for a moment to
have forgotten their hate; and on the 9th of October, 1192, Richard
embarked at St. Jean d’Acre to go and run other risks.

Thus ended the third crusade, undertaken by the three greatest sovereigns
and the three greatest armies of Christian Europe, and with the loudly
proclaimed object of retaking Jerusalem from the infidels, and
re-establishing a king over the sepulchre of Jesus Christ.  The Emperor
Frederick Barbarossa perished in it before he had trodden the soil of
Palestine.  King Philip Augustus retired from it voluntarily, so soon as
experience had foreshadowed to him the impossibility of success.  King
Richard abandoned it perforce, after having exhausted upon it his heroism
and his knightly pride.  The three armies, at the moment of departure
from Europe, amounted, according to the historians of the time, to five
or six hundred thousand men, of whom scarcely one hundred thousand
returned; and the only result of the third crusade was to leave as head
over all the most beautiful provinces of Mussulman Asia and Africa,
Saladin, the most illustrious and most able chieftain, in war and in
politics, that Islamry had produced since Mahomet.

From the end of the twelfth to the middle of the thirteenth century,
between the crusade of Philip Augustus and that of St. Louis, it is usual
to count three crusades, over which we will not linger.  Two of these
crusades--one, from 1195 to 1198, under Henry VI., Emperor of Germany,
and the other, from 1216 to 1240, under the Emperor Frederick II.  and
Andrew II., King of Hungary--are unconnected with France, and almost
exclusively German, or, in origin and range, confined to Eastern Europe.
They led, in Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, to wars, negotiations, and
manifold complications; Jerusalem fell once more, for a while, into the
hands of the Christians; and there, on the 18th of March, 1229, in the
church of the Resurrection, the Emperor Frederick II., at that time
excommunicated by Pope Gregory IX., placed with his own hands the royal
crown upon his head.  But these events, confused, disconnected, and
short-lived as they were, did not produce in the West, and especially in
France, any considerable reverberation, and did not exercise upon the
relative situations of Europe and Asia, of Christendom and Islamry, any
really historical influence.  In people’s lives, and in the affairs of
the world, there are many movements of no significance, and more cry than
wool; and those facts only which have had some weight and some duration
are here to be noted for study and comprehension.  The event which has
been called the fifth crusade was not wanting, so far, in real
importance, and it would have to be described here, if it had been really
a crusade; but it does not deserve the name.  The crusades were a very
different thing from wars and conquests; their real and peculiar
characteristic was, that they should be struggles between Christianity
and Islamism, between the fruitful civilization of Europe and the
barbarism and stagnation of Asia.  Therein consist their originality and
their grandeur.  It was certainly on this understanding, and with this
view, that Pope Innocent III., one of the greatest men of the thirteenth
century, seconded with all his might the movement which was at that time
springing up again in favor of a fresh crusade, and which brought about,
in 1202, an alliance between a great number of powerful lords, French,
Flemish, and Italian, and the republic of Venice, for the purpose of
recovering Jerusalem from the infidels.  But from the very first, the
ambition, the opportunities, and the private interests of the Venetians,
combined with a recollection of the perfidy displayed by the Greek
emperors, diverted the new crusaders from the design they had proclaimed.
What Bohemond, during the first crusade, had proposed to Godfrey de
Bouillon, and what the Bishop of Langres, during the second, had
suggested to Louis the Young, namely, the capture of Constantinople for
the sake of insuring that of Jerusalem, the first crusaders of the
thirteenth century were led by bias, greed, anger, and spite to take in
hand and accomplish; they conquered Constantinople, and, having once made
that conquest, they troubled themselves no more about Jerusalem.
Founded, May 16th, 1204, in the person of Baldwin IX., Count of Flanders,
the Latin empire of the East existed for seventy years, in the teeth of
many a storm, only to fall once more, in 1273, into the hands of the
Greek emperors, overthrown in 1453 by the Turks, who are still in
possession.

One circumstance, connected rather with literature than politics, gives
Frenchmen a particular interest in this conquest of the Greek empire by
the Latin Christians; for it was a Frenchman, Geoffrey de Villehardouin,
seneschal of Theobald III., Count of Champagne, who, after having been
one of the chief actors in it, wrote the history of it; and his work,
strictly historical as to facts, and admirably epic in description of
character and warmth of coloring, is one of the earliest and finest
monuments of French literature.

But to return to the real crusades.

At the beginning of the thirteenth century, whilst the enterprises which
were still called crusades were becoming more and more degenerate in
character and potency, there was born in France, on the 25th of April,
1215, not merely the prince, but the man who was to be the most worthy
representative and the most devoted slave of that religious and moral
passion which had inspired the crusades.  Louis IX., though born to the
purple, a powerful king, a valiant warrior, a splendid knight, and an
object of reverence to all those who at a distance observed his life, and
of affection to all those who approached his person, was neither biassed
nor intoxicated by any such human glories and delights; neither in his
thoughts nor in his conduct did they ever occupy the foremost place;
before all and above all he wished to be, and was indeed, a Christian,
a true Christian, guided and governed by the idea and the resolve of
defending the Christian faith and fulfilling the Christian law.  Had he
been born in the most lowly condition, as the world holds, or, as
religion, the most commanding; had he been obscure, needy, a priest, a
monk, or a hermit, he could not have been more constantly and more
zealously filled with the desire of living as a faithful servant of Jesus
Christ, and of insuring, by pious obedience to God here, the salvation of
his soul hereafter.  This is the peculiar and original characteristic of
St. Louis, and a fact rare and probably unique in the history of kings.
(He was canonized on the 11th of August, 1297; and during twenty-four
years nine successive popes had prosecuted the customary inquiries as to
his faith and life.)

It is said that the Christian enthusiasm of St. Louis had its source in
the strict education he received from Queen Blanche, his mother.  That is
overstepping the limits of that education and of her influence.  Queen
Blanche, though a firm believer and steadfastly pious, was a stranger to
enthusiasm, and too discreet and too politic to make it the dominating
principle of her son’s life any more than of her own.  The truth of the
matter is that, by her watchfulness and her exactitude in morals, she
helped to impress upon her son the great Christian lesson of hatred for
sin and habitual concern for the eternal salvation of his soul.  “Madame
used to say of me,” Louis was constantly repeating, “that if I were sick
unto death, and could not be cured save by acting in such wise that I
should sin mortally, she would let me die rather than that I should anger
my Creator to my damnation.”

[Illustration: ST. LOUIS ADMINISTERING JUSTICE----46]


In the first years of his government, when he had reached his majority,
there was nothing to show that the idea of the crusade occupied Louis
IX.’s mind; and it was only in 1239, when he was now four and twenty,
that it showed itself vividly in him.  Some of his principal vassals, the
Counts of Champagne, Brittany, and Macon, had raised an army of
crusaders, and were getting ready to start for Palestine; and the king
was not contented with giving them encouragement, but “he desired that
Amaury de Montfort, his constable, should, in his name, serve Jesus
Christ in this war; and for that reason he gave him arms and assigned to
him per day a sum of money, for which Amaury thanked him on his knees,
that is, did him homage, according to the usage of those times.  And the
crusaders were mighty pleased to have this lord with them.”

Five years afterwards, at the close of 1244, Louis fell seriously ill at
Pontoise; the alarm and sorrow in the kingdom were extreme; the king
himself believed that his last hour was come; and he had all his
household summoned, thanked them for their kind attentions, recommended
them to be good servants of God, “and did all that a good Christian ought
to do.  His mother, his wife, his brothers, and all who were about him
kept continually praying for him; his mother, beyond all others, adding
to her prayers great austerities.”  Once he appeared motionless and
breathless; and he was supposed to be dead.  “One of the dames who were
tending him,” says Joinville, “would have drawn the sheet over his face,
saying that he was dead; but another dame, who was on the other side of
the bed, would not suffer it, saying that there was still life in his
body.  When the king heard the dispute between these two dames, our Lord
wrought in him: he began to sigh, stretched his arms and legs, and said,
in a hollow voice, as if he had come forth from the tomb, ‘He, by God’s
grace, hath visited me, He who cometh from on high, and hath recalled me
from amongst the dead.’  Scarcely had he recovered his senses and speech,
when he sent for William of Auvergne, Bishop of Paris, together with
Peter de Cuisy, Bishop of Meaux, in whose diocese he happened to be, and
requested them ‘to place upon his shoulder the cross of the voyage over
the sea.’  The two bishops tried to divert him from this idea, and the
two queens, Blanche and Marguerite, conjured him on their knees to wait
till he was well, and after that he might do as he pleased.  He insisted,
declaring that he would take no nourishment till he had received the
cross.  At last the Bishop of Paris yielded, and gave him a cross.  The
king received it with transport, kissing it, and placing it right gently
Upon his breast.”  “When the queen, his mother, knew that he had taken
the cross,” says Joinville, “she made as great mourning as if she had
seen him dead.”

Still more than three years rolled by before Louis fulfilled the
engagement which he had thus entered into, with himself alone, one might
say, and against the wish of nearly everybody about him.  The crusades,
although they still remained an object of religious and knightly
aspiration, were from the political point of view decried; and, without
daring to say so, many men of weight, lay or ecclesiastical, had no
desire to take part in them.  Under the influence of this public feeling,
timidly exhibited but seriously cherished, Louis continued, for three
years, to apply himself to the interior concerns of his kingdom and to
his relations with the European powers, as if he had no other idea.
There was a moment when his wisest counsellors and the queen his mother
conceived a hope of inducing him to give up his purpose.  “My lord king,”
 said one day that same Bishop of Paris, who, in the crisis of his
illness, had given way to his wishes, “bethink you that, when you
received the cross, when you suddenly and without reflection made this
awful vow, you were weak, and, sooth to say, of a wandering mind, and
that took away from your words the weight of verity and authority.  Our
lord the pope, who knoweth the necessities of your kingdom and your
weakness of body, will gladly grant unto you a dispensation.  Lo! we have
the puissance of the schismatic Emperor Frederick, the snares of the
wealthy King of the English, the treasons but lately stopped of the
Poitevines, and the subtle wranglings of the Albigensians to fear;
Germany is disturbed; Italy hath no rest; the Holy Land is hard of
access; you will not easily penetrate thither, and behind you will be
left the implacable hatred between the pope and Frederick.  To whom will
you leave us, every one of us, in our feebleness and desolation?  “Queen
Blanche appealed to other considerations, the good counsels she had
always given her son, and the pleasure God took in seeing a son giving
heed to and believing his mother; and to hers she promised, that, if he
would remain, the Holy Land should not suffer, and that more troops
should be sent thither than he could lead thither himself.  The king
listened attentively and with deep emotion.  You say,” he answered, “that
I was not in possession of my senses when I took the cross.  Well, as you
wish it, I lay it aside; I give it back to you;” and raising his hand to
his shoulder, he undid the cross upon it, saying, “Here it is, my lord
bishop; I restore to you the cross I had put on.”  All present
congratulated themselves; but the king, with a sudden change of look and
intention, said to them, “My friends, now, assuredly, I lack not sense
and reason; I am neither weak nor wandering of mind; and I demand my
cross back again.  He who knoweth all things knoweth that until it is
replaced upon my shoulder, no food shall enter my lips.”  At these words
all present declared that “herein was the finger of God, and none dared
to raise, in opposition to the king’s saying, any objection.”

In June, 1248, Louis, after having received at St. Denis, together with
the oriflamme, the scrip and staff of a pilgrim, took leave, at Corbeil
or Cluny, of his mother, Queen Blanche, whom he left regent during his
absence, with the fullest powers.  “Most sweet fair son,” said she,
embracing him; “fair tender son, I shall never see you more; full well my
heart assures me.”  He took with him Queen Marguerite of Provence, his
wife, who had declared that she would never part from him.  On arriving,
in the early part of August, at Aigues-Mortes, he found assembled there a
fleet of thirty-eight vessels with a certain number of transport-ships
which he had hired from the republic of Genoa; and they were to convey to
the East the troops and personal retinue of the king himself.  The number
of these vessels proves that Louis was far from bringing one of those
vast armies with which the first crusades had been familiar; it even
appears that he had been careful to get rid of such mobs, for, before
embarking, he sent away nearly ten thousand bow-men, Genoese, Venetian,
Pisan, and even French, whom he had at first engaged, and of whom, after
inspection, he desired nothing further.  The sixth crusade was the
personal achievement of St. Louis, not the offspring of a popular
movement, and he carried it out with a picked army, furnished by the
feudal chivalry and by the religious and military orders dedicated to the
service of the Holy Land.

The Isle of Cyprus was the trysting-place appointed for all the forces of
the expedition.  Louis arrived there on the 12th of September, 1248, and
reckoned upon remaining there only a few days; for it was Egypt that he
was in a hurry to reach.  The Christian world was at that time of opinion
that, to deliver the Holy Land, it was necessary first of all to strike a
blow at Islamism in Egypt, wherein its chief strength resided.  But
scarcely had the crusaders formed a junction in Cyprus, when the vices of
the expedition and the weaknesses of its chief began to be manifest.
Louis, unshakable in his religious zeal, was wanting in clear ideas and
fixed resolves as to the carrying out of his design; he inspired his
associates with sympathy rather than exercised authority over them, and
he made himself admired without making himself obeyed.  He did not
succeed in winning a majority in the council of chiefs over to his
opinion as to the necessity for a speedy departure for Egypt; it was
decided to pass the winter in Cyprus, and during this leisurely halt of
seven months, the improvidence of the crusaders, their ignorance of the
places, people, and facts amidst which they were about to launch
themselves, their headstrong rashness, their stormy rivalries, and their
moral and military irregularities aggravated the difficulties of the
enterprise, great as they already were.  Louis passed his time in
interfering between them, in hushing up their quarrels, in upbraiding
them for their licentiousness, and in reconciling the Templars and
Hospitallers.  His kindness was injurious to his power; he lent too ready
an ear to the wishes or complaints of his comrades, and small matters
took up his thoughts and his time almost as much as great.

At last a start was made from Cyprus in May, 1249, and, in spite of
violent gales of wind which dispersed a large number of vessels, they
arrived on the 4th of June before Damietta.

The crusader-chiefs met on board the king’s ship, the Mountjoy; and one
of those present, Guy, a knight in the train of the Count of Melun, in a
letter to one of his friends; a student at Paris, reports to him the
king’s address in the following terms: “My friends and lieges, we shall
be invincible if we be inseparable in brotherly love.  It was not without
the will of God that we arrived here so speedily.  Descend we upon this
land and occupy it in force.  I am not the King of France.  I am not Holy
Church.  It is all ye who are King and Holy Church.  I am but a man whose
life will pass away as that of any other man whenever it shall please
God.  Any issue of our expedition is to usward good; if we be conquered
we shall wing our way to heaven as martyrs; and if we be conquerors, men
will celebrate the glory of the Lord; and that of France, and, what is
more, that of Christendom, will grow thereby.  It were senseless to
suppose that God, whose providence is over everything, raised me up for
nought: He will see in us His own, His mighty cause.  Fight we for
Christ; it is Christ who will triumph in us, not for our own sake, but
for the honor and blessedness of His name.”  It was determined to
disembark the next day.  An army of Saracens lined the shore.  The galley
which bore the oriflamme was one of the first to touch.  When the king
heard tell that the banner of St. Denis was on shore, he, in spite of the
pope’s legate, who was with him, would not leave it; he leaped into the
sea, which was up to his arm-pits, and went, shield on neck, helm on
head, and lance in hand, and joined his people on the sea-shore.  When he
came to land, and perceived the Saracens, he asked what folk they were,
and it was told him that they were the Saracens; then he put his lance
beneath his arm and his shield in front of him, and would have charged
the Saracens, if his mighty men, who were with him, had suffered him.

This, from his very first outset, was Louis exactly, the most fervent of
Christians and the most splendid of knights, much rather than a general
and a king.

Such he appeared at the moment of landing, and such he was during the
whole duration, and throughout all the incidents of his campaign in
Egypt, from June, 1249, to May, 1250: ever admirable for his moral
greatness and knightly valor, but without foresight or consecutive plan
as a leader, without efficiency as a commander in action, and ever
decided or biassed either by his own momentary impressions or the fancies
of his comrades.  He took Damietta without the least difficulty.  The
Mussulmans, stricken with surprise as much as terror, abandoned the
place; and when Fakr-Eddin, the commandant of the Turks, came before the
Sultan of Egypt, Malek-Saleh, who was ill, and almost dying, “Couldst
thou not have held out for at least an instant?”  said the sultan.
“What! not a single one of you got slain!”  Having become masters of
Damietta,  St. Louis and the crusaders committed the same fault there as
in the Isle of Cyprus: they halted there for an indefinite time.  They
were expecting fresh crusaders; and they spent the time of expectation in
quarrelling over the partition of the booty taken in the city.  They made
away with it, they wasted it blindly.  “The barons,” said Joinville,
“took to giving grand banquets, with an excess of meats; and the people
of the common sort took up with bad women.”  Louis saw and deplored these
irregularities, without being in a condition to stop them.

At length, on the 20th of November, 1249, after more than five months’
inactivity at Damietta, the crusaders put themselves once more in motion,
with the determination of marching upon Babylon, that outskirt of Cairo,
now called _Old Cairo,_ which the greater part of them, in their
ignorance, mistook for the real Babylon, and where they flattered
themselves they would find immense riches, and avenge the olden
sufferings of the Hebrew captives.  The Mussulmans had found time to
recover from their first fright, and to organize, at all points, a
vigorous resistance.  On the 8th of February, 1250, a battle took place
twenty leagues from Damietta, at Mansourah (the city of victory), on the
right bank of the Nile.  The king’s brother, Robert, Count of Artois,
marched with the vanguard, and obtained an early success; but William de
Sonnac, grand master of the Templars, and William Longsword, Earl of
Salisbury, leader of the English crusaders but lately arrived at
Damietta, insisted upon his waiting for the king before pushing the
victory to the uttermost.  Robert taxed them, ironically, with caution.
“Count Robert,” said William Longsword, “we shall be presently where
thou’lt not dare to come nigh the tail of my horse.”  There came a
message from the king ordering his brother to wait for him; but Robert
made no account of it.”  I have already put the Saracens to flight,” said
he, “and I will wait for none to complete their defeat; “and he rushed
forward into Mansourah.  All those who had dissuaded him followed after;
they found the Mussulmans numerous and perfectly rallied; in a few
moments the Count of Artois fell, pierced with wounds, and more than
three hundred knights of his train, the same number of English, together
with their leader, William Longsword, and two hundred and eighty
Templars, paid with their lives for the senseless ardor of the French
prince.

The king hurried up in all haste to the aid of his brother; but he had
scarcely arrived, and as yet knew nothing of his brother’s fate, when he
himself engaged so impetuously in the battle that he was on the point of
being taken prisoner by six Saracens who had already seized the reins of
his horse.  He was defending himself vigorously with his sword, when
several of his knights came up with him, and set him free.  He asked one
of them if he had any news of his brother; and the other answered,
“Certainly I have news of him: for I am sure that he is now in Paradise.”
 “Praised be God!” answered the king, with a tear or two, and went on with
his fighting.  The battle-field was left that day to the crusaders; but
they were not allowed to occupy it as conquerors, for, three days
afterwards, on the 11th of February, 1250, the camp of  St. Louis was
assailed by clouds of Saracens, horse and foot, Mamelukes and Bedouins.
All surprise had vanished, the Mussulmans measured at a glance the
numbers of the Christians, and attacked them in full assurance of
success, whatever heroism they might display; and the crusaders
themselves indulged in no more self-illusion, and thought only of
defending themselves.  Lack of provisions and sickness soon rendered
defence almost as impossible as attack; every day saw the Christian camp
more and more encumbered with the famine-stricken, the dying, and the
dead; and the necessity for retreating became evident.  Louis made to the
Sultan Malek-Moaddam an offer to evacuate Egypt, and give up Damietta,
provided that the kingdom of Jerusalem were restored to the Christians,
and the army permitted to accomplish its retreat without obstruction.
The sultan, without accepting or rejecting the proposition, asked what
guarantees would be given him for the surrender of Damietta.  Louis
offered as hostage one of his brothers, the Count of Anjou, or the Count
of Poitiers.  “We must have the king himself,” said the Mussulmans.  A
unanimous cry of indignation arose amongst the crusaders.  “We would
rather,” said Geoffrey de Sargines, “that we had been all slain, or taken
prisoners by the Saracens, than be reproached with having left our king
in pawn.”  All negotiation was broken off; and on the 5th of April, 1250,
the crusaders decided upon retreating.

This was the most deplorable scene of a deplorable drama; and at the same
time it was, for the king, an occasion for displaying, in their most
sublime and most attractive traits, all the virtues of the Christian.
Whilst sickness and famine were devastating the camp, Louis made himself
visitor, physician, and comforter; and his presence and his words
exercised upon the worst cases a searching influence.  He had one day
sent his chaplain, William de Chartres, to visit one of his household
servants, a modest man of some means, named Gaugelme, who was at the
point of death.  When the chaplain was retiring, “I am waiting for my
lord, our saintly king, to come,” said the dying man; “I will not depart
this life until I have seen him and spoken to him: and then I will die.”
 The king came, and addressed to him the most affectionate words of
consolation; and when he had left him, and before he had re-entered his
tent, he was told that Gaugelme had expired.  When the 5th of April, the
day fixed for the retreat, had come, Louis himself was ill and much
enfeebled.  He was urged to go aboard one of the vessels which were to
descend the Nile, carrying the wounded and the most suffering; but he
refused absolutely, saying, “I don’t separate from my people in the hour
of danger.”  He remained on land, and when he had to move forward he
fainted twice.  When he came to himself, he was amongst the last to leave
the camp, got himself helped on to the back of a little Arab horse,
covered with silken housings, and marched at a slow pace with the
rear-guard, having beside him Geoffrey de Sargines, who watched over him,
“and protected me against the Saracens,” said Louis himself to Joinville,
“as a good servant protects his lord’s tankard against the flies.”

Neither the king’s courage nor his servants’ devotion was enough to
insure success, even to the retreat.  At four leagues’ distance from the
camp it had just left, the rear-guard of the crusaders, harassed by
clouds of Saracens, was obliged to halt.  Louis could no longer keep on
his horse.  He was put up at a house,” says Joinville, “and laid, almost
dead, upon the lap of a tradeswoman from Paris; and it was believed that
he would not last till evening.”  With his consent, one of his lieges
entered into parley with one of the Mussulman chiefs; a truce was about
to be concluded, and the Mussulman was taking off his ring from his
finger as a pledge that he would observe it.  “But during this,” says
Joinville, “there took place a great mishap.  A traitor of a sergeant,
whose name was Marcel, began calling to our people, ‘Sirs knights,
surrender, for such is the king’s command: cause not the king’s death.’
All thought that it was the king’s command; and they gave up their swords
to the Saracens.”  Being forthwith declared prisoners, the king and all
the rear-guard were removed to Mansourah; the king by boat; and his two
brothers, the Counts of Anjou and Poitiers, and all the other crusaders,
drawn up in a body and shackled, followed on foot on the river bank.  The
advance-guard, and all the rest of the army, soon met the same fate.

Ten thousand prisoners--this was all that remained of the crusade that
had started eighteen months before from Aigues-Mortes.  Nevertheless the
lofty bearing and the piety of the king still inspired the Mussulmans
with great respect.  A negotiation was opened between him and the Sultan
Malek-Moaddam, who, having previously freed him from his chains, had him
treated with a certain magnificence.  As the price of a truce and of his
liberty, Louis received a demand for the immediate surrender of Damietta,
a heavy ransom, and the restitution of several places which the
Christians still held in Palestine.  “I cannot dispose of those places,”
 said Louis, “for they do not belong to me; the princes and the Christian
orders, in whose hands they are, can alone keep or surrender them.”  The
sultan, in anger, threatened to have the king put to the torture, or sent
to the Grand Khalif of Bagdad, who would detain him in prison for the
rest of his days.  “I am your prisoner,” said Louis; “you can do with me
what you will.”  “You call yourself our prisoner,” said the Mussulman
negotiators, “and so, we believe you are; but you treat us as if you had
us in prison.”  The sultan perceived that he had to do with an
indomitable spirit; and he did not insist any longer upon more than the
surrender of Damietta, and on a ransom of five hundred thousand livres
(that is, about ten million one hundred and thirty-two thousand francs,
or four hundred and five thousand two hundred and eighty pounds, of
modern money, according to M. de Wailly, supposing, as is probable, that
livres of Tours are meant).  “I will pay willingly five hundred thousand
livres for the deliverance of my people,” said Louis, and I will give up
Damietta for the deliverance of my own person, for I am not a man who
ought to be bought and sold for money.”  “By my faith,” said the sultan,
the Frank is liberal not to have haggled about so large a sum.  Go tell
him that I will give him one hundred thousand livres to help towards
paying the ransom.”  The negotiation was concluded on this basis; and
victors and vanquished quitted Mansourah, and arrived, partly by land and
partly by the Nile, within a few leagues of Damietta, the surrender of
which was fixed for the 7th of May.  But five days previously a tragic
event took place.  Several emirs of the Mamelukes suddenly entered
Louis’s tent.  They had just slain the Sultan Malek-Moaddam, against whom
they had for some time been conspiring.  “Fear nought, sir,” said they to
the king; “this was to be.  Do what concerns you in respect of the
stipulated conditions, and you shall be free.”  Of these emirs one, who
had slain the sultan with his own hand, asked the king, brusquely, “What
wilt thou give me?  I have slain thine enemy, who would have put thee to
death, had he lived;” and he asked to be made knight.  Louis answered not
a word.  Some of the crusaders present urged him to satisfy the desire of
the emir, who had in his power the decision of their fate.  “I will never
confer knighthood on an infidel,” said Louis; “let the emir turn
Christian; I will take him away to France, enrich him, and make him
knight.”  It is said that, in their admiration for this piety and this
indomitable firmness, the emirs had at one time a notion of taking Louis
himself for sultan in the place of him whom they had just slain; and this
report was probably not altogether devoid of foundation, for, some time
afterwards, in the intimacy of the conversations between them, Louis one
day said to Joinville, “Think you that I would have taken the kingdom of
Babylon, if they had offered it to me?”  “Whereupon I told him,” adds
Joinville, “that he would have done a mad act, seeing that they had slain
their lord; and he said to me that of a truth he would not have refused.”
 However that may be, the conditions agreed upon with the late Sultan
Malek-Moaddam were carried out; on the 7th of May, 1250, Geoffrey
de Sargines gave up to the emirs the keys of Damietta; and the Mussulmans
entered in tumultuously.  The king was waiting aboard his ship for the
payment which his people were to make for the release of his brother, the
Count of Poitiers; and, when he saw approaching a bark on which he
recognized his brother, “Light up! light up!” he cried instantly to his
sailors; which was the signal agreed upon for setting out.  And leaving
forthwith the coast of Egypt, the fleet which bore the remains of the
Christian army made sail for the shores of Palestine.

The king, having arrived at  St. Jean d’Acre on the 14th of May, 1250,
accepted without shrinking the trial imposed upon him by his unfortunate
situation.  He saw his forces considerably reduced; and the majority of
the crusaders left to him, even his brothers themselves, did not hide
their ardent desire to return to France.  He had that virtue, so rare
amongst kings, of taking into consideration the wishes of his comrades,
and of desiring their free assent to the burden he asked them to bear
with him.  He assembled the chief of them, and put the question plainly
before them.  “The queen, my mother,” he said, “biddeth me and prayeth me
to get me hence to France, for that my kingdom hath neither peace nor
truce with the king of England.  The folk here tell me that, if I get me
hence, this land is lost, for none of those that be there will dare to
abide in it.  I pray you, therefore, to give it thought, for it is a
grave matter, and I grant you nine days for to answer me whatever shall
seem to you good.”  Eight days after, they returned; and Guy de
Mauvoisin, speaking in their name, said to the king, “Sir, your brothers
and the rich men who be here have had regard unto your condition, and
they see that you cannot remain in this country to your own and your
kingdom’s honor, for of all the knights who came in your train, and of
whom you led into Cyprus twenty-eight hundred, there remain not one
hundred in this city.  Wherefore they do counsel you, sir, to get you
hence to France, and to provide troops and money wherewith you may return
speedily to this country, to take vengeance on these enemies of God who
have kept you in prison.”  Louis, without any discussion, interrogated
all present, one after another, and all, even the pope’s legate, agreed
with Guy de Mauvoisin.  “I was seated just fourteenth, facing the
legate,” says Joinville, “and when he asked me how it seemed to me, I
answered him that if the king could hold out so far as to keep the field
for a year, he would do himself great honor if he remained.”

[Illustration: Sire de Joinville----55]

Only two knights, William de Beaumont and Sire de Chatenay, had the
courage to support the opinion of Joinville, which was bolder for the
time being, but not less indecisive in respect of the immediate future
than the contrary opinion.  “I have heard you out, sirs,” said the king:
“and I will answer you, within eight clays from this time, touching that
which it shall please me to do.”  “Next Sunday,” says Joinville, “we came
again, all of us, before the king.  ‘Sirs,’ said he, ‘I thank very much
all those who have counselled me to get me gone to France, and likewise
those who have counselled me to bide.  But I have bethought me that, if I
bide, I see no danger lest my kingdom of France be lost, for the queen,
my mother, hath a many folk to defend it.  I have noted likewise that the
barons of this land do say that, if I go hence, the kingdom of Jerusalem
is lost.  At no price will I suffer to be lost the kingdom of Jerusalem,
which I came to guard and conquer.  My resolve, then, is, that I bide for
the present.  So I say unto you, ye rich men who are here, and to all
other knights who shall have a mind to bide with me, come and speak
boldly unto me, and I will give ye so much that it shall not be my fault
if ye have no mind to bide.’”

Thus none, save Louis himself, dared go to the root of the question.  The
most discreet advised him to depart, only for the purpose of coming back,
and recommencing what had been so unsuccessful; and the boldest only
urged him to remain a year longer.  None took the risk of saying, even
after so many mighty but vain experiments, that the enterprise was
chimerical, and must be given up.  Louis alone was, in word and deed,
perfectly true to his own absorbing idea of recovering the Holy Sepulchre
from the Mussulmans and re-establishing the kingdom of Jerusalem.  His
was one of those pure and majestic souls, which are almost alien to the
world in which they live, and in which disinterested passion is so strong
that it puts judgment to silence, extinguishes all fear, and keeps up
hope to infinity.  The king’s two brothers embarked with a numerous
retinue.  How many crusaders, knights, or men-at-arms, remained with
Louis, there is nothing to show; but they were, assuredly, far from
sufficient for the attainment of the twofold end he had in view, and even
for insuring less grand results, such as the deliverance of the crusaders
still remaining prisoners in the hands of the Mussulmans, and anything
like an effectual protection for the Christians settled in Palestine and
Syria.

Twice Louis believed he was on the point of accomplishing his desire.
Towards the end of 1250, and again in 1252, the Sultan of Aleppo and
Damascus, and the Emirs of Egypt, being engaged in a violent struggle,
made offers to him, by turns, of restoring the kingdom of Jerusalem if he
would form an active alliance with one or the other party against its
enemies.  Louis sought means of accepting either of these offers without
neglecting his previous engagements, and without compromising the fate of
the Christians still prisoners in Egypt, or living in the territories of
Aleppo and Damascus; but, during the negotiations entered upon with a
view to this end, the Mussulmans of Syria and Egypt suspended their
differences, and made common cause against the remnants of the Christian
crusaders; and all hope of re-entering Jerusalem by these means vanished
away.  Another time, the Sultan of Damascus, touched by Louis’s pious
perseverance, had word sent to him that he, if he wished, could go on a
pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and should find himself in perfect safety.  “The
king,” says Joinville, “held a great council; and none urged him to go.
It was shown unto him that if he, who was the greatest king in
Christendom, performed his pilgrimage without delivering the Holy City
from the enemies of God, all the other kings and other pilgrims who came
after him would hold themselves content with doing just as much, and
would trouble themselves no more about the deliverance of Jerusalem.”  He
was reminded of the example set by Richard Coeur de Lion, who, sixty
years before, had refused to cast even a look upon Jerusalem, when he was
unable to deliver her from her enemies.  Louis, just as Richard had,
refused the incomplete satisfaction which had been offered him, and for
nearly four years, spent by him on the coasts of Palestine and Syria
since his departure from Damietta, from 1250 to 1254, he expended, in
small works of piety, sympathy, protection, and care for the future of
the Christian populations in Asia, his time, his strength, his pecuniary
resources, and the ardor of a soul which could not remain icily abandoned
to sorrowing over great desires unsatisfied.

An unexpected event occurred and brought about all at once a change in
his position and his plans.  At the commencement of the year 1253, at
Sidon, the ramparts of which he was engaged in repairing, he heard that
his mother, Queen Blanche, had died at Paris on the 27th of November,
1252.  “He made so great mourning thereat,” says Joinville, “that for two
days no speech could be gotten of him.  After that he sent a chamber-man
for to fetch me.  When I carne before him, in his chamber where he was
alone, so soon as he got sight of me, he stretched forth his arms, and
said to me, ‘O, seneschal, I have lost my mother!’”  It was a great loss
both for the son and for the king.  Imperious, exacting, jealous, and
often disagreeable in private life and in the bosom of her family,
Blanche was, nevertheless, according to all contemporary authority, even
the least favorable to her, “the most discreet woman of her time, with a
mind singularly quick and penetrating, and with a man’s heart to leaven
her Woman’s sex and ideas; personally magnanimous, of indomitable energy,
sovereign mistress in all the affairs of her age, guardian and
protectress of France, worthy of comparison with Semiramis, the most
eminent of her sex.”  From the time of Louis’s departure on the crusade
as well as during his minority she had given him constant proofs of a
devotion as intelligent as it was impassioned, as useful as it was
masterful.  All letters from France demanded the speedy return of the
king.  The Christians of Syria were themselves of the same opinion; the
king, they said, has done for us, here, all he could do; he will serve us
far better by sending us strong re-enforcements from France.  Louis
embarked at  St. Jean d’Acre, on the 24th of April, 1254, carrying away
with him, on thirteen vessels, large and small, Queen Marguerite, his
children, his personal retinue, and his own more immediate men-at-arms,
and leaving the Christians of Syria, for their protection in his name,
a hundred knights under the orders of Geoffrey de Sargines, that comrade
of his in whose bravery and pious fealty he had the most entire
confidence.  After two months and a half at sea, the king and his fleet
arrived, on the 8th of July, 1254, off the port of Hyeres, which at that
time belonged to the Empire, and not to France.  For two days Louis
refused to land at this point; for his heart was set upon not putting his
foot upon land again save on the soil of his own kingdom, at Aigues-
Mortes, whence he had, six years before, set out.  At last he yielded to
the entreaties of the queen and those who were about him, landed at
Hyeres, passed slowly through France, and made his solemn entry into
Paris on the 7th of September, 1254.  “The burgesses and all those who
were in the city were there to meet him, clad and bedecked in all their
best according to their condition.  If the other towns had received him
with great joy, Paris evinced even more than any other. For several days
there were bonfires, dances, and other public rejoicings, which ended
sooner than the people wished; for the king, who was pained to see the
expense, the dances, and the vanities indulged in, went off to the wood
of Vincennes to put a stop to them.

So soon as he had resumed the government of his kingdom, after six years’
absence and adventures, heroic, indeed, but all in vain for the cause of
Christendom, those of his counsellors and servants who lived most closely
with him and knew him best were struck at the same time with what he had
remained and what he had become during this long and cruel trial.  “When
the king had happily returned to France, how piously he bare himself
towards God, how justly towards his subjects, how compassionately towards
the afflicted, and how humbly in his own respect, and with what zeal he
labored to make progress, according to his power, in every virtue, all
this can be attested by persons who carefully watched his manner of life,
and who knew the spotlessness of his conscience.  It is the opinion of
the most clear-sighted and the wisest that, in proportion as gold is more
precious than silver, so the manner of living and acting which the king
brought back from his pilgrimage in the Holy Land was holy and new, and
superior to his former behavior, albeit, even in his youth, he had ever
been good and guileless, and worthy of high esteem.”  These are the words
written about  St. Louis by his confessor Geoffrey de Beaulieu, a
chronicler, curt and simple even to dryness, but at the same time well
informed.  An attempt will be made presently to give a fair idea of the
character of  St. Louis’s government during the last fifteen years of his
reign, and of the place he fills in the history of the kingship and of
politics in France; but just now it is only with the part he played in
the crusades and with what became of them in his hands that we have to
occupy our attention.  For seven years after his return to France, from
1254 to 1261, Louis seemed to think no more about them, and there is
nothing to show that he spoke of them even to his most intimate
confidants; but, in spite of his apparent calmness, he was living, so far
as they were concerned, in a continual ferment of imagination and
internal fever, ever flattering himself that some favorable circumstance
would call him back to his interrupted work.  And he had reason to
believe that circumstances were responsive to his wishes.  The Christians
of Palestine and Syria were a prey to perils and evils which became more
pressing every day; the cross was being humbled at one time before the
Tartars of Tchingis-Khan, at another before the Mussulmans of Egypt; Pope
Urban was calling upon the King of France; and Geoffrey de Sargines, the
heroic representative whom Louis had left in  St. Jean d’Acre, at the
head of a small garrison, was writing to him that ruin was imminent, and
speedy succor indispensable to prevent it.  In 1261, Louis held, at
Paris, a parliament, at which, without any talk of a new crusade,
measures were taken which revealed an idea of it: there were decrees for
fasts and prayers on behalf of the Christians of the East and for
frequent and earnest military drill.  In 1263, the crusade was openly
preached; taxes were levied, even on the clergy, for the purpose of
contributing towards it; and princes and barons bound themselves to take
part in it.  Louis was all approval and encouragement, without declaring
his own intention.  In 1267, a parliament was convoked at Paris.  The
king, at first, conversed discreetly with some of his barons about the
new plan of crusade; and then, suddenly, having had the precious relics
deposited in the Holy Chapel set before the eyes of the assembly, he
opened the session by ardently exhorting those present “to avenge the
insult which had so long been offered to the Saviour in the Holy Land and
to recover the Christian heritage possessed, for our sins, by the
infidels.”  Next year, on the 9th of February, 1268, at a new parliament
assembled at Paris, the king took an oath to start in the month of May,
1270.

Great was the surprise, and the disquietude was even greater than the
surprise.  The kingdom was enjoying abroad a peace and at home a
tranquillity and prosperity for a long time past without example; feudal
quarrels were becoming more rare and terminating more quickly; and the
king possessed the confidence and the respect of the whole population.
Why compromise such advantages by such an enterprise, so distant, so
costly, and so doubtful of success?  Whether from good sense or from
displeasure at the burdens imposed upon them, many ecclesiastics showed
symptoms of opposition, and Pope Clement IV. gave the king nothing but
ambiguous and very reserved counsel.  When he learned that Louis was
taking with him on the crusade three of his sons, aged respectively
twenty-two, eighteen, and seventeen, he could not refrain from writing to
the Cardinal of  St. Cecile, “It doth not strike us as an act of well-
balanced judgment to impose the taking of the cross upon so many of the
king’s sons, and especially the eldest; and, albeit we have heard reasons
to the contrary, either we be much mistaken or they are utterly devoid of
reason.”  Even the king’s personal condition was matter for grave
anxiety.  His health was very much enfeebled; and several of his most
intimate and most far-seeing advisers were openly opposed to his design.
He vehemently urged Joinville to take the cross again with him; but
Joinville refused downright.  “I thought,” said he, “that they all
committed a mortal sin to advise him the voyage, because the whole
kingdom was in fair peace at home and with all neighbors, and, so soon as
he departed, the state of the kingdom did nought but worsen.  They also
committed a great sin to advise him the voyage in the great state of
weakness in which his body was, for he could not bear to go by chariot or
to ride; he was so weak that he suffered me to carry him in my arms from
the hotel of the Count of Auxerre, the place where I took leave of him,
to the Cordeliers.  And nevertheless, weak as he was, had he remained in
France, he might have lived yet a while and wrought much good.”

All objections, all warnings, all anxieties came to nothing in the face
of Louis’s fixed idea and pious passion.  He started from Paris on the
16th of March, 1270, a sick man almost already, but with soul content,
and probably the only one without misgiving in the midst of all his
comrades.  It was once more at Aigues-Mortes that he went to embark.  All
was as yet dark and undecided as to the plan of the expedition.  Was
Egypt, or Palestine, or Constantinople, or Tunis, to be the first point
of attack?  Negotiations, touching this subject, had been opened with the
Venetians and the Genoese without arriving at any conclusion or
certainty.  Steps were taken at haphazard with full trust in Providence
and utter forgetfulness that Providence does not absolve men from
foresight.  On arriving at Aigues-Mortes about the middle of May, Louis
found nothing organized, nothing in readiness, neither crusaders nor
vessels; everything was done slowly, incompletely, and with the greatest
irregularity.  At last, on the 2d of July, 1270, he set sail without any
one’s knowing and without the king’s telling any one whither they were
going.  It was only in Sardinia, after four days’ halt at Cagliari, that
Louis announced to the chiefs of the crusade, assembled aboard his ship
the Mountjoy, that he was making for Tunis, and that their Christian work
would commence there.  The King of Tunis (as he was then called),
Mohammed Mostanser, had for some time been talking of his desire to
become a Christian, if he could be efficiently protected against the
seditions of his subjects.  Louis welcomed with transport the prospect of
Mussulman conversions.  “Ah!” he cried, “if I could only see myself the
gossip and sponsor of so great a godson!”

But on the 17th of July, when the fleet arrived before Tunis, the
admiral, Florent de Varennes, probably without the king’s orders and with
that want of reflection which was conspicuous at each step of the
enterprise, immediately took possession of the harbor and of some
Tunisian vessels as prize, and sent word to the king “that he had only to
support him and that the disembarkation of the troops might be effected
in perfect safety.”  Thus war was commenced at the very first moment
against the Mussulman prince whom there had been a promise of seeing
before long a Christian.

At the end of a fortnight, after some fights between the Tunisians and
the crusaders, so much political and military blindness produced its
natural consequences.  The re-enforcements promised to Louis, by his
brother Charles of Anjou, king of Sicily, had not arrived; provisions
were falling short; and the heats of an African summer were working havoc
amongst the army with such rapidity that before long there was no time to
bury the dead, but they were cast pell-mell into the ditch which
surrounded the camp, and the air was tainted thereby.  On the 3d of
August Louis was attacked by the epidemic fever, and obliged to keep his
bed in his tent.  He asked news of his son John Tristan, Count of Nevers,
who had fallen ill before him, and whose recent death, aboard the vessel
to which he had been removed in hopes that the sea air might be
beneficial, had been carefully concealed from him.  The count, as well as
the Princess Isabel, married to Theobald the Young, King of Navarre, was
a favorite child of Louis, who, on hearing of his loss, folded his hands
and sought in silence and prayer some assuagement of his grief.  His
malady grew worse; and having sent for his successor, Prince Philip
(Philip the Bold), he took from his hour-book some instructions which he
had written out for him, with his own hand and in French, and delivered
them to him, bidding him to observe them scrupulously.  He gave likewise
to his daughter Isabel, who was weeping at the foot of his bed, and to
his son-in-law the King of Navarre, some writings which had been intended
for them, and he further charged Isabel to deliver another to her
youngest sister, Agnes, affianced to the Duke of Burgundy.  “Dearest
daughter,” said he, “think well hereon: full many folk have fallen asleep
with wild thoughts of sin, and in the morning their place hath not known
them.”  Just after he had finished satisfying his paternal solicitude, it
was announced to him, on the 24th of August, that envoys from the Emperor
Michael Palaeologus had landed at Cape Carthage, with orders to demand
his intervention with his brother Charles, King of Sicily, to deter him
from making war on the but lately re-established Greek empire.  Louis
summoned all his strength to receive them in his tent, in the presence of
certain of his counsellors, who were uneasy at the fatigue he was
imposing upon himself.  “I promise you, if I live,” said he to the
envoys, “to cooperate, so far as I may be able, in what your master
demands of me; meanwhile, I exhort you to have patience, and be of good
courage.”  This was his last political act, and his last concern with the
affairs of the world; henceforth he was occupied only with pious
effusions which had a bearing at one time on his hopes for his soul, at
another on those Christian interests which had been so dear to him all
his life.  He kept repeating his customary orisons in a low voice, and he
was heard murmuring these broken words: “Fair Sir God, have mercy on this
people that bideth here, and bring them back to their own land!  Let them
not fall into the hands of their enemies, and let them not be constrained
to deny Thy name!”  And at the same time that he thus expressed his sad
reflections upon the situation in which he was leaving his army and his
people, he cried from time to time, as he raised himself on his bed,
“Jerusalem! Jerusalem!  We will go up to Jerusalem!”  During the night of
the 24th 25th of August he ceased to speak, all the time continuing to
show that he was in full possession of his senses; he insisted upon
receiving extreme unction out of bed, and lying upon a coarse sack-cloth
covered with cinders, with the cross before him; and on Monday, the 25th
of August, 1270, at three P.M., he departed in peace, whilst uttering
these his last words: “Father, after the example of the Divine Master,
into Thy hands I commend my spirit!”

[Illustration: The Death of St. Louis----64]



CHAPTER XVIII.----THE KINGSHIP IN FRANCE.

That the kingship occupied an important place and played an important
part in the history of France is an evident and universally recognized
fact.  But to what causes this fact was due, and what particular
characteristics gave the kingship in France that preponderating influence
which, in weal and in woe, it exercised over the fortunes of the country,
is a question which has been less closely examined, and which still
remains vague and obscure.  This question it is which we would now shed
light upon and determine with some approach to precision.  We cannot
properly comprehend and justly appreciate a great historical force until
we have seen it issuing from its primary source and followed it in its
various developments.

At the first glance, two facts strike us in the history of the kingship
in France.  It was in France that it adopted soonest and most
persistently maintained its fundamental principle, heredity.  In the
other monarchical states of Europe--in England, in Germany, in Spain, and
in Italy--divers principles, at one time election, and at another right
of conquest, have been mingled with or substituted for the heredity of
the throne; different dynasties have reigned; and England has had her
Saxon, Danish, and Norman kings, her Plantagenets, her Tudors, her
Stuarts, her Nassaus, her Brunswicks.  In Germany, and up to the
eighteenth century, the Empire, the sole central dignity, was elective
and transferable.  Spain was for a long while parcelled out into several
distinct kingdoms, and since she attained territorial unity the houses of
Austria and Bourbon have both occupied her throne.  The monarchy and the
republic for many a year disputed and divided Italy.  Only in France was
there, at any time during eight centuries, but a single king and a single
line of kings.  Unity and heredity, those two essential principles of
monarchy, have been the invariable characteristics of the kingship in
France.

A second fact, less apparent and less remarkable, but, nevertheless, not
without importance or without effect upon the history of the kingship in
France, is the extreme variety of character, of faculties, of
intellectual and moral bent, of policy and personal conduct amongst the
French kings.  In the long roll of thirty-three kings who reigned in
France from Hugh Capet to Louis XVI. there were kings wise and kings
foolish, kings able and kings incapable, kings rash and kings slothful,
kings earnest and kings frivolous, kings saintly and kings licentious,
kings good and sympathetic towards their people, kings egotistical and
concerned solely about themselves, kings lovable and beloved, kings
sombre and dreaded or detested.  As we go forward and encounter them on
our way, all these kingly characters will be seen appearing and acting in
all their diversity and all their incoherence.  Absolute monarchical
power in France was, almost in every successive reign, singularly
modified, being at one time aggravated and at another alleviated
according to the ideas, sentiments, morals, and spontaneous instincts of
the monarchs.  Nowhere else, throughout the great European monarchies,
has the difference between kingly personages exercised so much influence
on government and national condition.  In that country the free action of
individuals has filled a prominent place and taken a prominent part in
the course of events.

It has been shown how insignificant and inert, as sovereigns, were the
first three successors of Hugh Capet.  The goodness to his people
displayed by King Robert was the only kingly trait which, during that
period, deserved to leave a trace in history.  The kingship appeared once
more with the attributes of energy and efficiency on the accession of
Louis VI., son of Philip I.  He was brought up in the monastery of St.
Denis, which at that time had for its superior a man of judgment, the
Abbot Adam; and he then gave evidence of tendencies and received his
training under influences worthy of the position which awaited him.  He
was handsome, tall, strong, and alert, determined and yet affable.  He
had more taste for military exercises than for the amusements of
childhood and the pleasures of youth.  He was at that time called Louis
the Wide-awake.  He had the good fortune to find in the Monastery of St.
Denis a fellow-student capable of becoming a king’s counsellor.  Suger, a
child born at St. Denis, of obscure parentage, and three or four years
younger than Prince Louis, had been brought up for charity’s sake in the
abbey, and the Abbot Adam, who had perceived his natural abilities, had
taken pains to develop them.  A bond of esteem and mutual friendship was
formed between the two young people, both of whom were disposed to
earnest thought and earnest living; and when, in 1108, Louis the Wide-
awake ascended the throne, the monk Suger became his adviser whilst
remaining his friend.

A very small kingdom was at that time the domain belonging properly and
directly to the King of France.  Ile-de-France, properly so called, and a
part of Orleanness (_l’Oreanais_), pretty nearly the five departments of
the Seine, Seine-et-Oise, Seineet-Marne, Oise and Loiret, besides,
through recent acquisitions, French Vexin (which bordered on the Ile-de-
France and had for its chief place Pontoise, being separated by the
little River Epte from Norman Vexin, of which Rouen was the capital),
half the countship of Sens and the countship of Bourges--such was the
whole of its extent.  But this limited state was as liable to agitation,
and often as troublous and as toilsome to govern, as the very greatest of
modern states.  It was full of Petty lords, almost sovereigns in their
own estates, and sufficiently strong to struggle against their kingly
suzerain, who had, besides, all around his domains, several neighbors
more powerful than himself in the extent and population of their states.
But lord and peasant, layman and ecclesiastic, castle and country and the
churches of France, were not long discovering that, if the kingdom was
small, it had verily a king.  Louis did not direct to a distance from
home his ambition and his efforts; it was within his own dominion, to
check the violence of the strong against the weak, to put a stop to the
quarrels of the strong amongst themselves, to make an end, in France at
least, of unrighteousness and devastation, and to establish there some
sort of order and some sort of justice, that he displayed his energy and
his perseverance.  “He was animated,” says Suger, “by a strong sense of
equity; to air his courage was his delight; he scorned inaction; he
opened his eyes to see the way of discretion; he broke his rest and was
unwearied in his solicitude.”  Suger has recounted in detail sixteen of
the numerous expeditions which Louis undertook into the interior, to
accomplish his work of repression or of exemplary chastisement.
Bouchard, Lord of Montmorency, Matthew de Beaumont, Dreux de Mouchy-le-
Chatel, Ebble de Roussi, Leon de Mean, Thomas de Marle, Hugh de Crecy,
William de la Roche-Guyon, Hugh du Puiset, and Amaury de Montfort
learned, to their cost, that the king was not to be braved with impunity.
“Bouchard, on taking up arms one day against him, refused to accept his
sword from the hands of one of his people who offered it to him, and said
by way of boast to the countess his wife, ‘Noble countess, give thou
joyously this glittering sword to the count thy spouse: he who taketh it
from thee as count will bring it back to thee as king.’  “In this very
campaign, Bouchard,” by his death,” says Suger, “restored peace to the
kingdom, and took away himself and his war to the bottomless pit of
hell.”  Hugh du Puiset had frequently broken his oaths of peace and
recommenced his devastations and revolts; and Louis resumed his course of
hunting him down, “destroyed the castle of Puiset, threw down the walls,
dug up the wells, and razed it completely to the ground, as a place
devoted to the curse of Heaven.”  Thomas de Marle, Lord of Couci, had
been_ committing cruel ravages upon the town and church of Laon, lands
and inhabitants; when “Louis, summoned by their complaints, repaired to
Laon, and there, on the advice of the bishops and grandees, and
especially of Raoul, the illustrious Count of Vermandois, the most
powerful, after the king, of the lords in this part of the country, he
determined to go and attack the castle of Couci, and so went back to his
own camp.  The people whom he had sent to explore the spot reported that
the approach to the castle was very difficult, and in truth impossible.
Many urged the king to change his purpose in the matter; but he cried,
‘Nay, what we resolved on at Laon stands: I would not hold back
therefrom, though it were to save my life.  The king’s majesty would be
vilified, if I were to fly before this scoundrel.’  Forthwith, in spite
of his corpulence, and with admirable ardor, he pushed on with his troops
through ravines and roads encumbered with forests.  .  .  .  Thomas, made
prisoner and mortally wounded, was brought to King Louis, and by his
order removed to Laon, to the almost universal satisfaction of his own
folk and ours.  Next day, his lands were sold for the benefit of the
public treasury, his ponds were broken up, and King Louis, sparing the
country because he had the lord of it at his disposal, took the road back
to Laon, and afterwards returned in triumph to Paris.”

Sometimes, when the people, and their habitual protectors, the bishops,
invoked his aid, Louis would carry his arms beyond his own dominions, by
sole right of justice and kingship.  It is known,” says Suger, “that
kings have long hands.”  In 1121, the Bishop of Clermont-Ferrand made a
complaint to the king against William VI., Count of Auvergne, who had
taken possession of the town, and even of the episcopal church, and was
exercising therein “unbridled tyranny.”  The king, who never lost a
moment when there was a question of helping the Church, took up with
pleasure and solemnity what was, under these circumstances, the cause of
God; and having been unable, either by word of mouth or by letters sealed
with the seal of the king’s majesty, to bring back the tyrant to his
duty, he assembled his troops, and led into revolted Auvergne a numerous
army of Frenchmen.  He had now become exceeding fat, and could scarce
support the heavy mass of his body.  Any one else, however humble, would
have had neither the will nor the power to ride a-horseback; but he,
against the advice of all his friends, listened only to the voice of
courage, braved the fiery suns of June and August, which were the dread
of the youngest knights, and made a scoff of those who could not bear the
heat, although many a time, during the passage of narrow and difficult
swampy places, he was constrained to get himself held on by those about
him.”  After an obstinate struggle, and at the intervention of William
VII., Duke of Aquitaine, the Count of Auvergne’s suzerain, “Louis fixed a
special day for regulating and deciding, in parliament, at Orleans, and
in the duke’s presence, between the bishop and the count, the points to
which the Auvergnats had hitherto refused to subscribe.  Then
triumphantly leading back his army, he returned victoriously to France.”
 He had asserted his power, and increased his ascendency, without any
pretension to territorial aggrandizement.

[Illustration: Louis the Fat on an Expedition----69]

Into his relations with his two powerful neighbors, the King of England,
Duke of Normandy, and the Emperor of Germany, Louis the Fat introduced
the same watchfulness, the same firmness, and, at need, the same warlike
energy, whilst observing the same moderation, and the same policy of
holding aloof from all turbulent or indiscreet ambition, adjusting his
pretensions to his power, and being more concerned to govern his kingdom
efficiently than to add to it by conquest.  Twice, in 1109 and in 1118,
he had war in Normandy with Henry I., King of England, and he therein was
guilty of certain temerities resulting in a reverse, which he hastened to
repair during a vigorous prosecution of the campaign; but, when once his
honor was satisfied, he showed a ready inclination for the peace which
the Pope, Calixtus II., in council at Rome, succeeded in establishing
between the two rivals.  The war with the Emperor of Germany, Henry V.,
in 1124, appeared, at the first blush, a more serious matter.  The
emperor had raised a numerous army of Lorrainers, Allemannians,
Bavarians, Suabians, and Saxons, and was threatening the very city of
Rheims with instant attack.  Louis hastened to put himself in position;
he went and took solemnly, at the altar of  St. Denis, the banner of that
patron of the kingdom, and flew with a mere handful of men to confront
the enemy, and parry the first blow, calling on the whole of France to
follow him.  France summoned the flower of her chivalry; and when the
army had assembled from every quarter of the kingdom at Rheims, there was
seen, says Suger, “so great a host of knights and men a-foot, that they
might have been compared to swarms of grasshoppers covering the face of
the earth, not only on the banks of the rivers, but on the mountains and
over the plains.”  This multitude was formed in three divisions.  The
third division was composed of Orleanese, Parisians, the people of
Etampes, and those of  St. Denis; and at their head was the king in
person: “With them,” said he, “I shall fight bravely and with good
assurance; besides being protected by the saint, my liege lord, I have
here of my country-men those who nurtured me with peculiar affection, and
who, of a surety, will back me living, or carry me off dead, and save my
body.”  At news of this mighty host, and the ardor with which they were
animated, the Emperor Henry V. advanced no farther, and, before long,
“marching, under some pretext, towards other places, he preferred the
shame of retreating like a coward to the risk of exposing his empire and
himself to certain destruction.  After this victory, which was more than
as great as a triumph on the field of battle, the French returned, every
one, to their homes.”

The three elements which contributed to the formation and character of
the kingship in France,--the German element, the Roman element, and the
Christian element,--appear in con-junction in the reign of Louis the Fat.
We have still the warrior-chief of a feudal society founded by conquest
in him who, in spite of his moderation and discretion, cried many a time,
says Suger, “What a pitiable state is this of ours, to never have
knowledge and strength both together!  In my youth had knowledge, and in
my old age had strength been mine, I might have conquered many kingdoms;
“and probably from this exclamation of a king in the twelfth century came
the familiar proverb, “If youth but knew, and age could do!  “We see the
maxims of the Roman empire and reminiscences of Charlemagne in Louis’s
habit of considering justice to emanate from the king as fountain head,
and of believing in his right to import it everywhere.  And what
conclusion of a reign could be more Christian-like than his when,
“exhausted by the long enfeeblement of his wasted body, but disdaining to
die ignobly or unpreparedly, he called about him pious men, bishops,
abbots, and many priests of holy Church; and then, scorning all false
shame, he demanded to make his confession devoutly before them all, and
to fortify himself against death by the comfortable sacrament of the body
and blood of Christ!  Whilst everything is being arranged, the king on a
sudden rises, of himself, dresses himself, issues, fully clad, from his
chamber, to the wonderment of all, advances to meet the body of our Lord
Jesus Christ, and prostrates himself in reverence.  Thereupon, in the
presence of all, cleric and laic, he lays aside his kingship, deposes
himself from the government of the state, confesses the sin of having
ordered it ill, hands to his son Louis the king’s ring, and binds him to
promise, on oath, to protect the Church of God, the poor, and the orphan,
to respect the rights of everybody, and to keep none prisoner in his
court, save such a one as should have actually transgressed in the court
itself.”

This king, so well prepared for death, in his last days found great cause
for rejoicing as a father.  William VII., Duke of Aquitaine, had, at his
death, intrusted to him the guardianship of his daughter Eleanor, heiress
of all his dominions, that is to say, of Poitou, of Saintonge, of
Gascony, and of the Basque country, the most beautiful provinces of the
south-west of France, from the lower Loire to the Pyrenees.  A marriage
between Eleanor and Louis the Young, already sharing his father’s throne,
was soon concluded; and a brilliant embassy, composed of more than five
hundred lords and noble knights, to whom the king had added his intimate
adviser, Suger, set out for Aquitaine, where the ceremony was to take
place.  At the moment of departure the king had them all assembled about
him, and, addressing himself to his son, said, “May the strong hand of
God Almighty, by whom kings reign, protect thee, my dear son, both thee
and thine!  If, by any mischance, I were to lose thee, thee and those I
send with thee, neither my life, nor my kingdom would thenceforth be
aught to me.”  The marriage took place at Bordeaux, at the end of July,
1137, and, on the 8th of August following, Louis the Young, on his way
back to Paris, was crowned at Poitiers as Duke of Aquitaine.  He there
learned that the king, his father, had lately died, on the 1st of August.
Louis the Fat was far from foreseeing the deplorable issues of the
marriage, which he regarded as one of the blessings of his reign.

In spite of its long duration of forty-three years, the reign of Louis
VII., called the Young, was a period barren of events and of persons
worthy of keeping a place in history.  We have already had the story of
this king’s unfortunate crusade from 1147 to 1149, the commencement at
Antioch of his imbroglio with his wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine, and the
fatal divorce which, in 1152, at the same time that it freed the king
from a faithless queen, entailed for France the loss of the beautiful
provinces she had brought him in dowry, and caused them to pass into the
possession of Henry II., King of England.  Here was the only event, under
Louis the Young’s reign, of any real importance, in view of its long and
bloody consequences for his country.  A Petty war or a sullen strife
between the Kings of France and England, petty quarrels of Louis with
some of the great lords of his kingdom, certain rigorous measures against
certain districts in travail of local liberties, the first bubblings of
that religious fermentation which resulted before long, in the south of
France, in the crusade against the Albigensians--such were the facts
which went to make up with somewhat of insipidity the annals of this
reign.  So long as Suger lived, the kingship preserved at home the wisdom
which it had been accustomed to display, and abroad the respect it had
acquired under Louis the Fat; but at the death of Suger it went on
languishing and declining, without encountering any great obstacles.  It
was reserved for Louis the Young’s son, Philip Augustus, to open for
France, and for the kingship in France, a new era of strength and
progress.

Philip II., to whom history has preserved the name of Philip Augustus,
given him by his contemporaries, had shared the crown, been anointed, and
taken to wife Isabel of Hainault, a year before the death of Louis VII.
put him in possession of the kingdom.  He was as yet only fifteen, and
his father, by his will, had left him under the guidance of Philip of
Alsace, Count of Flanders, as regent, and of Robert Clement, marshal of
France, as governor.  But Philip, though he began his reign under this
double influence, soon let it be seen that he intended to reign by
himself, and to reign with vigor.  “Whatever my vassals do,” said he,
during his minority, “I must bear with their violence and outrageous
insults and villanous misdeeds; but, please God, they will get weak and
old whilst I shall grow in strength and power, and shall be, in my turn,
avenged according to my desire.”  He was hardly twenty, when, one day,
one of his barons seeing him gnawing, with an air of abstraction and
dreaminess, a little green twig, said to his neighbors, “If any one could
tell me what the king is thinking of, I would give him my best horse.”
 Another of those present boldly asked the King.  “I am thinking,”
 answered Philip, “of a certain matter, and that is, whether God will
grant unto me or unto one of my heirs grace to exalt France to the height
at which she was in the time of Charlemagne.”

It was not granted to Philip Augustus to resuscitate the Frankish empire
of Charlemagne, a work impossible for him or any one whatsoever in the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries; but he made the extension and
territorial construction of the kingdom of France the chief aim of his
life, and in that work he was successful.  Out of the forty-three years
of his reign, twenty-six at the least were war-years, devoted to that
very purpose.  During the first six, it was with some of his great French
vassals, the Count of Champagne, the Duke of Burgundy, and even the Count
of Flanders, sometime regent, that Philip had to do battle, for they all
sought to profit by his minority so as to make themselves independent and
aggrandize themselves at the expense of the crown; but, once in
possession of the personal power as well as the title of king, it was,
from 1187 to 1216, against three successive kings of England, Henry II.,
Richard Coeur de Lion, and John Lackland, masters of the most beautiful
provinces of France, that Philip directed his persistent efforts.  They
were in respect of power, of political capacity and military popularity,
his most formidable foes.  Henry II., what with his ripeness of age, his
ability, energy, and perseverance, without any mean jealousy or puerile
obstinacy, had over Philip every advantage of position and experience,
and he availed himself thereof with discretion, habitually maintaining
his feudal status of great French vassal as well as that of foreign
sovereign, seeking peace rather than strife with his youthful suzerain,
and some-times even going to his aid.  He thus played off the greater
part of the undeclared attempts or armed expeditions by which, from 1186
to 1189, Philip tried to cut him short in his French possessions, and,
so long as Henry IL lived, there were but few changes in the territorial
proportions of the two states.  But, at Henry’s death, Philip found
himself in a very different position towards Henry’s two sons, Richard
Coeur de Lion and John Lackland.  They were of his own generation; he had
been on terms with them, even in opposition to their own father, of
complicity and familiarity: they had no authority over him, and he had no
respect for them.  Richard was the feudal prince, beyond comparison the
boldest, the most unreflecting, the most passionate, the most ruffianly,
the most heroic adventurer of the middle ages, hungering after movement
and action, possessed of a craving spirit for displaying his strength,
and doing his pleasure at all times and in all places, not only in
contempt of the rights and well-being of his subjects, but at the risk of
his own safety, his own power, and even of his crown.  Philip was of a
sedate temperament, patient, persevering, moved but little by the spirit
of adventure, more ambitious than fiery, capable of far-reaching designs,
and discreet at the same time that he was indifferent as to the
employment of means.  He had fine sport with Richard.  We have already
had the story of the relations between them, and their rupture during
their joint crusade in the East.  On returning to the West, Philip did
not wrest from King Richard those great and definitive conquests which
were to restore to France the greater part of the marriage-portion that
went with Eleanor of Aquitaine; but he paved the way for them by petty
victories and petty acquisitions, and by making more and more certain his
superiority over his rival.  When, after Richard’s death, he had to do
with John Lackland, cowardly and insolent, knavish and addle-pated,
choleric, debauched, and indolent, an intriguing subordinate on the
throne on which he made pretence to be the most despotic of kings, Philip
had over him, even more than over his brother Richard, immense
advantages.  He made such use of them that after six years’ struggling,
from 1199 to 1205, he deprived John of the greater part of his French
possessions, Anjou, Normandy, Touraine, Maine, and Poitou.  Philip would
have been quite willing to dispense with any legal procedure by way of
sanction to his conquests, but John furnished him with an excellent
pretext; for on the 3d of April, 1203, he assassinated with his own hand,
in the tower of Rouen, his young nephew Arthur, Duke of Brittany, and in
that capacity vassal of Philip Augustus, to whom he was coming to do
homage.  Philip had John, also his vassal, cited before the court of the
barons of France, his peers, to plead his defence of this odious act.
“King John,” says the contemporary English historian Matthew Paris, “sent
Eustace, Bishop of Ely, to tell King Philip that he would willingly go to
his court to answer before his judges, and to show entire obedience in
the matter, but that he must have a safe-conduct.  King Philip replied,
but with neither heart nor visage unmoved, ‘Willingly; let him come in
peace and safety.’  ‘And return so too, my lord?’ said the bishop.
‘Yes,’ rejoined the king, ‘if the decision of his peers allow him.’
And when the envoys from England entreated him to grant to the King of
England to go and return in safety, the King of France was wroth, and
answered with his usual oath, ‘No, by all the saints of France, unless
the decision tally therewith.’  ‘My lord king,’ rejoined the bishop, ‘the
Duke of Normandy cannot come unless there come also the King of England,
since the duke and the king are one and the same person.  The baronage of
England would never allow it in any way, and if the king were willing,
he would run, as you know, risk of imprisonment or death.’  King Philip
answered him, ‘How now, my lord bishop?  It is well known that my
liegeman, the Duke of Normandy, by violence got possession of England.
And so, prithee, if a vassal increase in honor and power, shall his lord
suzerain lose his rights?  Never!’

“King John was not willing to trust to chance and the decision of the
French, who liked him not; and he feared above everything to be
reproached with the shameful murder of Arthur.  The grandees of France,
nevertheless, proceeded to a decision, which they could not do lawfully,
since he whom they had to try was absent, and would have gone had he been
able.”

The condemnation, not a whit the less, took full effect; and Philip
Augustus thus recovered possession of nearly all the territories which
his father, Louis VII., had kept but for a moment.  He added, in
succession, other provinces to his dominions; in such wise that the
kingdom of France, which was limited, as we have seen, under Louis the
Fat, to the Ile-de-France and certain portions of Picardy and Orleanness,
comprised besides, at the end of the reign of Philip Augustus,
Vermandois, Artois, the two Vexins, French and Norman, Berri, Normandy,
Maine, Anjou, Poitou, Touraine, and Auvergne.

In 1206 the territorial work of Philip Augustus was well nigh completed;
but his wars were not over.  John Lackland, when worsted, kicked against
the pricks, and was incessantly hankering, in his antagonism to the King
of France, after hostile alliances and local conspiracies easy to hatch
amongst certain feudal lords discontented with their suzerain.  John was
on intimate terms with his nephew, Otho IV., Emperor of Germany and the
foe of Philip Augustus, who had supported against him Frederick II., his
rival for the empire.  They prepared in concert for a grand attack upon
the King of France, and they had won over to their coalition some of his
most important vassals, amongst others, Renaud de Dampierre, Count of
Boulogne.  Philip determined to divert their attack, whilst anticipating
it, by an unexpected enterprise--the invasion of England itself.
Circumstances seemed favorable.  King John, by his oppression and his
perfidy, had drawn upon him the hatred and contempt of his people; and
the barons of England, supported and guided by the Archbishop of
Canterbury, Stephen Langton, had commenced against him the struggle which
was to be ended some years afterwards by the forced concession of Magna
Charta, that foundation-stone of English liberties.  John, having been
embroiled for five years past with the court of Rome, affected to defy
the excommunication which the pope had hurled at him, and of which the
King of France had been asked by several prelates of the English Church
to insure the efficient working.  On the 8th of April, 1213, Philip
convoked, at Soissons, his principal vassals or allies, explained to them
the grounds of his design against the King of England, and, by a sort of
special confederation, they bound themselves, all of them, to support
him.  One of the most considerable vassals, however, the sometime regent
of France during the minority of Philip, Ferrand, Count of Flanders, did
not attend the meeting to which he had been summoned, and declared his
intention of taking no part in the war against England.  “By all the
saints of France,” cried Philip, “either France shall become Flanders, or
Flanders France!”  And, all the while pressing forward the equipment of a
large fleet collected at Calais for the invasion of England, he entered
Flanders, besieged and took several of the richest cities in the country,
Cassel, Ypres, Bruges, and Courtrai, and pitched his camp before the
walls of Ghent, “to lower,” as he said, “the pride of the men of Ghent
and make them bend their necks beneath the yoke of kings.”  But he heard
that John Lackland, after making his peace with the court of Rome through
acceptance of all the conditions and all the humiliations it had thought
proper to impose upon him, had just landed at Rochelle, and was exciting
a serious insurrection amongst the lords of Saintonge and Poitou.  At the
same time Philip’s fleet, having been attacked in Calais roads by that of
John, had been half destroyed or captured; and the other half had been
forced to take shelter in the harbor of Damme, where it was strictly
blockaded.  Philip, forthwith adopting a twofold and energetic
resolution, ordered his son Philip to go and put down the insurrection of
the Poitevines on the banks of the Loire, and himself took in hand the
war in Flanders, which was of the most consequence, considering the
quality of the foe and the designs they proclaimed.  They had at their
head the Emperor Otho IV., who had already won the reputation of a brave
and able soldier; and they numbered in their ranks several of the
greatest lords, German, Flemish, and Dutch, and Hugh de Boves, the most
dreaded of those adventurers in the pay of wealthy princes who were known
at that time by the name of roadsters (routiers, mercenaries).  They
proposed, it was said, to dismember France; and a promise to that effect
had been made by the Emperor Otho to his principal chieftains assembled
in secret conference.  “It is against Philip himself, and him alone,” he
had said to them, “that we must direct all our efforts; it is he who must
be slain first of all, for it is he alone who opposes us and makes
himself our foe in everything.  When he is dead, you will be able to
subdue and divide the kingdom according to our pleasure; as for thee,
Renaud, thou shalt take Peronne and all Vermandois; Hugh shall be master
of Beauvais, Salisbury of Dreux, Conrad of Mantes, together with Vexin,
and as for thee, Ferranti, thou shalt have Paris.”

The two armies marched over the Low Countries and Flanders, seeking out
both of them the most favorable position for commencing the attack.  On
Sunday, the 27th of August, 1214, Philip had halted near the bridge of
Bouvines, not far from Lille, and was resting under an ash beside a small
chapel dedicated to St. Peter.  There came running to him a messenger,
sent by Guerin, Bishop of Senlis, his confidant in war as well as
government, and brought him word that his rear-guard, attacked by the
Emperor Otho, was not sufficient to resist him.  Philip went into the
chapel, said a short prayer, and cried as he came out, “Haste we forward
to the rescue of our comrades!”  Then he put on his armor, mounted his
horse, and made swiftly for the point of attack, amidst the shouts of all
those who were about him, “To arms! to arms!”

[Illustration: BATTLE OF BOUVINES----81]

Both armies numbered in their ranks not only all the feudal chivalry on
the two sides, but burgher-forces, those from the majority of the great
cities of Flanders being for Otho, and those from sixteen towns or
communes of France for Philip Augustus.  It was not, as we have seen, the
first time that the forces from the French rural districts had taken part
in the king’s wars; Louis the Fat had often received their aid against
the tyrannical and turbulent lords of his small kingdom; but since the
reign of Louis the Fat the organization and importance of the communes
had made great progress in France; and it was not only rural communes,
but considerable cities, such as Amiens, Arras, Beauvais, Compiegne, and
Soissons, which sent to the army of Philip Augustus bodies of men in
large numbers and ready trained to arms.  Contemporary historians put the
army of Otho at one hundred thousand, and that of Philip Augustus at from
fifty to sixty thousand men; but amongst modern historians one of the
most eminent, M. Sismondi, reduces them both to some fifteen or twenty
thousand.  One would say that the reduction is as excessive as the
original estimate.  However that may be, the communal forces evidently
filled an important place in the king’s army at Bouvines, and maintained
it brilliantly.  So soon as Philip had placed himself at the head of the
first line of his troops, “the men of Soissons,” says William the Breton,
who was present at the battle, “being impatient and inflamed by the words
of Bishop Guerin, let out their horses at the full speed of their legs,
and attacked the enemy.  But the Flemish knights prick not forward to the
encounter, indignant that the first charge against them was not made by
knights, as would have been seemly, and remain motionless at their post.
The men of Soissons, meanwhile, see no need of dealing softly with them
and humoring them, so thrust them roughly, upset them from their horses,
slay a many of them, and force them to leave their place or defend
themselves, willy nilly.  At last, the Chevalier Eustace, scorning the
burghers and proud of his illustrious ancestors, moves out into the
middle of the plain, and with haughty voice, roars, “Death to the
French!”  The battle soon became general and obstinate; it was a
multitude of hand-to-hand fights in the midst of a confused melley.
In this melley, the knights of the Emperor Otho did not forget the
instructions he had given them before the engagement: they sought out the
King of France himself, to aim their blows at him; and ere long they knew
him by the presence of the royal standard, and made their way almost up
to him.  The communes, and chiefly those of Corbeil, Amiens, Beauvais,
Compiegne, and Arras, thereupon pierced through the battalions of the
knights and placed themselves in front of the king, when some German
infantry crept up round Philip, and with hooks and light lances threw him
down from his horse; but a small body of knights who had remained by him
overthrew, dispersed, and slew these infantry, and the king, recovering
himself more quickly than had been expected, leaped upon another horse,
and dashed again into the melley.  Then danger threatened the Emperor
Otho in his turn.  The French drove back those about him, and came right
up to him; a sword thrust, delivered with vigor, entered the brain of
Otho’s horse; the horse, mortally wounded, reared up and turned his head
in the direction whence he had come; and the emperor, thus carried away,
showed his back to the French, and was off in full flight.  “Ye will see
his face no more to-day,” said Philip to his followers: and he said
truly.  In vain did William des Barres, the first knight of his day in
strength, and valor, and renown, dash off in pursuit of the emperor;
twice he was on the point of seizing him, but Otho escaped, thanks to the
swiftness of his horse and the great number of his German knights, who,
whilst their emperor was flying, were fighting to a miracle.  But their
bravery saved only their master; the battle of Bouvines was lost for the
Anglo-Germano-Flemish coalition.  It was still prolonged for several
hours; but in the evening it was over, and the prisoners of note were
conducted to Philip Augustus.  There were five counts, Ferrand of
Flanders, Renaud of Boulogne, William of Salisbury, a natural brother of
King John, Otho of Tecklemburg, and Conrad of Dartmund; and twenty-five
barons “bearing their own standard to battle.”  Philip Augustus spared
all their lives; sent away the Earl of Salisbury to his brother, confined
the Count of Boulogne at Peronne, where he was subjected “to very
rigorous imprisonment, with chains so short that he could scarce move one
step,” and as for the Count of Flanders, his sometime regent, Philip
dragged him in chains in his train,

[Illustration: The Battle of Bouvines----81]

It is difficult to determine, from the evidence of contemporaries, which
was the more rejoiced at and proud of this victory, king or people.  “The
same day, when evening approached,” says William the Breton, “the army
returned laden with spoils to the camp; and the king, with a heart full
of joy and gratitude, offered a thousand thanksgivings to the Supreme
King, who had vouchsaved to him a triumph over so many enemies.  And in
order that posterity might preserve forever a memorial of so great a
success, the Bishop of Senlis founded, outside the walls of that town, a
chapel, which he named Victory, and which, endowed with great possessions
and having a government according to canonical rule, enjoyed the honor of
possessing an abbot and a holy convent.  .  .  .  Who can recount,
imagine, or set down with a pen, on parchment or tablets, the cheers of
joy, the hymns of triumph, and the numberless dances of the people; the
sweet chants of the clergy; the harmonious sounds of warlike instruments;
the solemn decorations of the churches, inside and out; the streets, the
houses, the roads of all the castles and towns, hung with curtains and
tapestry of silk and covered with flowers, shrubs and green branches; all
the inhabitants of every sort, sex, and age running from every quarter to
see so grand a triumph; peasants and harvesters breaking off their work,
hanging round their necks their sickles and hoes (for it was the season
of harvest), and throwing themselves in a throng upon the roads to see in
irons that Count of Flanders, that Fernand whose arms they had formerly
dreaded!”

It was no groundless joy on the part of the people, and a spontaneous
instinct gave them a forecast of the importance of that triumph which
elicited their cheers.  The battle of Bouvines was not the victory of
Philip Augustus, alone, over a coalition of foreign princes; the victory
was the work of king and people, barons, knights, burghers, and peasants
of Ile-de-France, of Orleanness, of Picardy, of Normandy, of Champagne,
and of Burgundy.  And this union of different classes and different
populations in a sentiment, a contest, and a triumph shared in common was
a decisive step in the organization and unity of France.  The victory of
Bouvines marked the commencement of the time at which men might speak,
and indeed did speak, by one single name, of the French.  The nation in
France and the kingship in France on that day rose out of and above the
feudal system.

Philip Augustus was about the same time apprised of his son Louis’s
success on the banks of the Loire.  The incapacity and swaggering
insolence of King John had made all his Poitevine allies disgusted with
him; he had been obliged to abandon his attack upon the King of France in
the provinces, and the insurrection, growing daily more serious, of the
English barons and clergy for the purpose of obtaining Magna Charta was
preparing for him other reverses.  He had ceased to be a dangerous rival
to Philip.

No period has had better reason than our own to know how successes and
conquests can intoxicate warlike kings; but Philip, whose valor, on
occasion, was second to none, had no actual inclination towards war or
towards conquest for the sole pleasure of extending his dominion.
“Liking better, according to his custom,” says William the Breton, “to
conquer by peace than by war,” he hasted to put an end by treaties,
truces, or contracts to his quarrels with King John, the Count of
Flanders, and the principal lords made prisoners at Bouvines; discretion,
in his case, was proof against the temptations of circumstances, or the
promptings of passion, and he took care not to overtly compromise his
power, his responsibility, and the honor of his name by enterprises which
did not naturally come in his way, or which he considered without chances
of success.  Whilst still a youth, he had given, in 1191, a sure proof of
that self-command which is so rare amongst ambitious princes by
withdrawing from the crusade in which he had been engaged with Richard
Coeur de Lion; and it was still more apparent in two great events at the
latter end of his reign--the crusade against the Albigensians and his son
Louis’s expedition in England, the crown of which had, in 1215, been
offered to him by the barons at war with King John in defence of Magna
Charta.

The organization of the kingdom, the nation, and the kingship in France
was not the only great event and the only great achievement of that
epoch.  At the same time that this political movement was going on in the
State, a religious and intellectual ferment was making head in the Church
and in men’s minds.  After the conquest of the Gauls by the Franks, the
Christian clergy, sole depositaries of all lights to lighten their age,
and sole possessors of any idea of opposing the conquerors with arguments
other than those of brute force, or of employing towards the vanquished
any instrument of subjection other than violence, became the connecting
link between the nation of the conquerors and the nation of the
conquered, and, in the name of one and the same divine law, enjoined
obedience on the subjects, and, in the case of the masters, moderated the
transports of power.  But in the course of this active and salutary
participation in the affairs of the world, the Christian clergy lost
somewhat of their primitive and proper character; religion in their hands
was a means of power as well as of civilization; and its principal
members became rich, and frequently substituted material weapons for the
spiritual authority which had originally been their only reliance.  When
they were in a condition to hold their own against powerful laymen, they
frequently adopted the powerful laymen’s morals and shared their
ignorance; and in the seventh and eighth centuries the barbarism which
held the world in its clutches had made inroads upon the Church.
Charlemagne essayed to resuscitate dying civilization, and sought amongst
the clergy his chief means of success; he founded schools, filled them
with students to whom promises of ecclesiastical preferments were held
out as rewards of their merit, and, in fine, exerted himself with all his
might to restore to the Christian Church her dignity and her influence.
When Charlemagne was dead, nearly all his great achievements disappeared
in the chaos which came after him; his schools alone survived and
preserved certain centres of intellectual activity.  When the feudal
system had become established, and had introduced some rule into social
relations, when the fate of mankind appeared no longer entirely left to
the risks of force, intellect once more found some sort of employment,
and once more assumed some sort of sway.  Active and educated minds once
more began to watch with some sort of independence the social facts
before their eyes, to stigmatize vices and to seek for remedies.  The
spectacle afforded by their age could not fail to strike them.  Society,
after having made some few strides away from physical chaos, seemed in
danger of falling into moral chaos; morals had sunk far below the laws,
and religion was in deplorable contrast to morals.  It was not laymen
only who abandoned themselves with impunity to every excess of violence
and licentiousness; scandals were frequent amongst the clergy themselves;
bishoprics and other ecclesiastical benefices, publicly sold or left by
will, passed down through families from father to son, and from husband
to wife, and the possessions of the Church served for dowry to the
daughters of bishops.  Absolution was at a low quotation in the market,
and redemption for sins of the greatest enormity cost scarcely the price
of founding a church or a monastery.  Horror-stricken at the sight of
such corruption in the only things they at that time recognized as holy,
men no longer knew where to find the rule of life or the safeguard of
conscience.  But it is the peculiar and glorious characteristic of
Christianity that it is unable to bear for long, without making an effort
to check them, the vices it has been unable to prevent, and that it
always carries in its womb the vigorous germ of human regeneration.  In
the midst of their irregularities, the eleventh and twelfth centuries saw
the outbreak of a grand religious, moral, and intellectual fermentation,
and it was the Church herself that had the honor and the power of taking
the initiative in the reformation.  Under the influence of Gregory VII.
the rigor of the popes began to declare itself against the scandals of
the episcopate, the traffic in ecclesiastical benefices, and the bad
morals of the secular clergy.  At the same time, austere men exerted
themselves to rekindle the fervor of monastic life, re-established rigid
rules in the cloister, and refilled the monasteries by their preaching
and example.  St. Robert of Moleme founded the order of Citeaux; St.
Norbert that of Premontre; St. Bernard detached Clairvaux from Meaux,
which he considered too worldly; St. Bruno built Chartreuse; St. Hugo,
St. Gerard, and others besides gave the Abbey of Cluni its renown; and
ecclesiastical reform extended everywhere.  Hereupon rich and powerful
laymen, filled with ardor for their faith or fear for their eternal
welfare, went seeking after solitude, and devoted themselves to prayer in
the monasteries they had founded or enriched with their wealth; whole
families were dispersed amongst various religious houses; and all the
severities of penance hardly sufficed to quiet imaginations scared at the
perils of living in the world or at the vices of their age.  And, at the
same time, in addition to this outburst of piety, ignorance was decried
and stigmatized as the source of the prevailing evils; the function of
teaching was included amongst the duties of the religious estate; and
every newly-founded or reformed monastery became a school in which pupils
of all conditions were gratuitously instructed in the sciences known by
the name of liberal arts.  Bold spirits began to use the rights of
individual thought in opposition to the authority of established
doctrines; and others, without dreaming of opposing, strove at any rate
to understand, which is the way to produce discussion.  Activity and
freedom of thought were receiving development at the same time that
fervent faith and fervent piety were.

This great moral movement of humanity in the eleventh and twelfth
centuries arose from events very different in different parts of the
beautiful country which was not yet, but was from that time forward
tending to become, France.  Amongst these events, which cannot be here
recounted in detail, we will fix upon two, which were the most striking,
and the most productive of important consequences in the whole history of
the epoch, the quarrel of Abelard with St. Bernard and the crusade
against the Albigensians.  We shall there see how Northern France and
Southern France differed one from the other before the bloody crisis
which was to unite them in one single name and one common destiny.

In France properly so called at that time, north of the Rhone and the
Loire, the church had herself accomplished the chief part of the reforms
which had become necessary.  It was there that the most active and most
eloquent of the reforming monks had appeared, had preached, and had
founded or regenerated a great number of monasteries.  It was there that,
at first amongst the clergy, and then, through their example, amongst the
laity, Christian discipline and morals had resumed some sway.  There,
too, the Christian faith and church were, amongst the mass of the
population, but little or not at all assailed; heretics, when any
appeared, obtained support neither from princes nor people; they were
proceeded against, condemned, and burned, without their exciting public
sympathy by their presence, or public commiseration by their punishment.
It was in the very midst of the clergy themselves, amongst literates and
teachers, that, in Northern France, the intellectual and innovating
movement of the period was manifested and concentrated.  The movement was
vigorous and earnest, and it was a really studious host which thronged to
the lessons of Abelard at Paris, on Mount St. Genevieve, at Melun, at
Corbeil, and at the Paraclete; but this host contained but few of the
people; the greater part of those who formed it were either already in
the church, or soon, in various capacities, about to be.  And the
discussions raised at the meetings corresponded with the persons
attending them; there was the disputation of the schools; there was no
founding of sects; the lessons of Abelard and the questions he handled
were scientifico-religious; it was to expound and propagate what they
regarded as the philosophy of Christianity, that masters and pupils made
bold use of the freedom of thought; they made but slight war upon the
existing practical abuses of the church; they differed from her in the
interpretation and comments contained in some of her dogmas; and they
considered themselves in a position to explain and confirm faith by
reason.  The chiefs of the church, with St. Bernard at their head, were
not slow to descry, in these interpretations and comments based upon
science, danger to the simple and pure faith of the Christian; they saw
the apparition of dawning rationalism confronting orthodoxy.  They were,
as all their contemporaries were, wholly strangers to the bare notion of
freedom of thought and conscience, and they began a zealous struggle
against the new teachers; but they did not push it to the last cruel
extremities.  They had many a handle against Abelard: his private life,
the scandal of his connection with Heloise, the restless and haughty
fickleness of his character, laid him open to severe strictures; but his
stern adversaries did not take so much advantage of them as they might
have taken.  They had his doctrines condemned at the councils of Soissons
and Sens; they prohibited him from public lecturing; and they imposed
upon him the seclusion of the cloister; but they did not even harbor the
notion of having him burned as a heretic, and science and glory were
respected in his person, even when his ideas were proscribed.  Peter the
Venerable, Abbot of Cluni, one of the most highly considered and honored
prelates of the church, received him amongst his own monks, and treated
him with paternal kindness, taking care of his health, as well as of his
eternal welfare; and he who was the adversary of St. Bernard and the
teacher condemned by the councils of Soissons and Sens, died peacefully,
on the 21st of April, 1142, in the abbey of St. Marcellus, near
Chalon-sur-Saone, after having received the sacraments with much piety,
and in presence of all the brethren of the monastery.  “Thus,” wrote
Peter the Venerable to Heloise, abbess for eleven years past of the
Paraclete, “the man who, by his singular authority in science, was known
to nearly all the world, and was illustrious wherever he was known,
learned, in the school of Him who said, ‘Know that I am meek and lowly of
heart,’ to remain meek and lowly; and, as it is but right to believe, he
has thus returned to Him.”

The struggle of Abelard with the Church of Northern France and the
crusade against the Albigensians in Southern France are divided by much
more than diversity and contrast; there is an abyss between them.  In
their religious condition, and in the nature as well as degree of their
civilization, the populations of the two regions were radically
different.  In the north-east, between the Rhine, the Scheldt, and the
Loire, Christianity had been obliged to deal with little more than the
barbarism and ignorance of the German conquerors.  In the south, on the
two banks of the Rhone and the Garonne, along the Mediterranean, and by
the Pyrenees, it had encountered all manner of institutions, traditions,
religions, and disbeliefs, Greek, Roman, African, Oriental, Pagan, and
Mussulman; the frequent invasions and long stay of the Saracens in those
countries had mingled Arab blood with the Gallic, Roman, Asiatic, and
Visigothic, and this mixture of so many different races, tongues, creeds,
and ideas had resulted in a civilization more developed, more elegant,
more humane, and more liberal, but far less coherent, simple, and strong,
morally as well as politically, than the warlike, feudal civilization of
Germanic France.  In the religious order especially, the dissimilarity
was profound.  In Northern France, in spite of internal disorder, and
through the influence of its bishops, missionaries, and monastic
reformers, the orthodox Church had obtained a decided superiority and
full dominion; but in Southern France, on the contrary, all the
controversies, all the sects, and all the mystical or philosophical
heresies which had disturbed Christendom from the second century to the
ninth, had crept in and spread abroad.  In it there were Arians,
Manicheans, Gnostics, Paulicians, Cathars (the pure), and other sects of
more local or more recent origin and name, Albigensians, Vaudians, Good
People and Poor of Lyons, some piously possessed with the desire of
returning to the pure faith and fraternal organization of the primitive
evangelical Church, others given over to the extravagances of imagination
or asceticism.  The princes and the great laic lords of the country, the
Counts of Toulouse, Foix, and Comminges, the Viscount of Beziers, and
many others had not remained unaffected by this condition of the people:
the majority were accused of tolerating and even protecting the heretics;
and some were suspected of allowing their ideas to penetrate within their
own households.  The bold sallies of the critical and jeering spirit, and
the abandonment of established creeds and discipline, bring about, before
long, a relaxation of morals; and liberty requires long time and many
trials before it learns to disavow and rise superior to license.  In many
of the feudal courts and castles of Languedoc, Provence, and Aquitaine,
imaginations, words, and lives were licentious; and the charming poetry
of the troubadours and the gallant adventures of knights caused it to be
too easily forgotten that morality was but little more regarded than the
faith.  Dating from the latter half of the eleventh century, not only the
popes, but the whole orthodox Church of France and its spiritual heads,
were seriously disquieted at the state of mind of Southern France, and
the dangers it threatened to the whole of Christendom.  In 1145
St. Bernard, in all the lustre of his name and influence, undertook, in
concert with Cardinal Alberic, legate of the Pope Eugenius III., to go
and preach against the heretics in the countship of Toulouse.  “We see
here,” he wrote to Alphonse Jourdain, Count of Toulouse, “churches
without flocks, flocks without priests, priests without the respect which
is their due, and Christians without Christ; men die in their sins
without being reconciled by penance or admitted to the holy communion;
souls are sent pell-mell before the awful tribunal of God; the grace of
baptism is refused to little children; those to whom the Lord said,
‘Suffer little children to come unto Me,’ do not obtain the means of
coming to salvation.  Is it because of a belief that these little
children have no need of the Saviour, inasmuch as they are little?  Is it
then for nought that our Lord from being great became little?  What say
I?  Is it then for nought that He was scourged and spat upon, crucified
and dead?”  St. Bernard preached with great success in Toulouse itself,
but he was not satisfied with easy successes.  He had come to fight the
heretics; and he went to look for them where he was told he would find
them numerous and powerful.  “He repaired,” says a contemporary
chronicler, “to the castle of Vertfeuil (or Verfeil, in the district of
Toulouse), where flourished at that time the scions of a numerous
nobility and of a multitude of people, thinking that, if he could
extinguish heretical perversity in this place where it was so very much
spread, it would be easy for him to make head against it elsewhere.  When
he had begun preaching, in the church, against those who were of most
consideration in the place, they went out, and the people followed them;
but the holy man, going out after them, gave utterance to the word of God
in the public streets.  The nobles then hid themselves on all sides in
their houses; and as for him, he continued to preach to the common people
who came about him.  Whereupon, the others making uproar and knocking
upon the doors, so that the crowd could not hear his voice, he then,
having shaken off the dust from his feet as a testimony against them,
departed from their midst, and, looking on the town, cursed it, saying,
‘Vertfeuil, God wither thee!’  Now there were, at that time, in the
castle, a hundred knights abiding, having arms, banners, and horses, and
keeping themselves at their own expense, not at the expense of other.”

After the not very effectual mission of St. Bernard, who died in 1153,
and for half a century, the orthodox Church was several times occupied
with the heretics of Southern France, who were before long called
Albigensians, either because they were numerous in the diocese of Albi,
or because the council of Lombers, one of the first at which their
condemnation was expressly pronounced (in 1165), was held in that
diocese.  But the measures adopted at that time against them were at
first feebly executed, and had but little effect.  The new ideas spread
more and more; and in 1167 the innovators themselves held, at
St. Felix-de-Caraman, a petty council, at which they appointed bishops
for districts where they had numerous partisans.  Raymond VI., who, in
1195, succeeded his father, Raymond V., as Count of Toulouse, was
supposed to be favorably disposed towards them; he admitted them to
intimacy with him, and, it was said, allowed himself, in respect of the
orthodox Church, great liberty of thought and speech.  Meanwhile the
great days and the chief actors in the struggle commenced by St. Bernard
were approaching.  In 1198, Lothaire Conti, a pupil of the University of
Paris, was elected pope, with the title of Innocent III.; and, four or
five years later, Simon, Count of Montfort l’Amaury, came back from the
fifth crusade in the East, with a celebrity already established by his
valor and his zeal against the infidels.  Innocent III., no unworthy
rival of Gregory VII., his late predecessor in the Holy See, had the same
grandeur of ideas and the same fixity of purpose, with less headiness in
his character, and more knowledge of the world, and more of the spirit of
policy.  He looked upon the whole of Christendom as his kingdom, and upon
himself as the king whose business it was to make prevalent everywhere
the law of God.  Simon, as Count of Montfort l’Amaury, was not a powerful
lord; but he was descended, it was said, from a natural son of King
Robert his mother, who was English, had left him heir to the earldom of
Leicester, and he had for his wife Alice de Montmorency.  His social
status and his personal renown, superior as they were to his worldly
fortunes, authorized in his case any flight of ambition; and in the East
he had learned to believe that anything was allowed to him in the service
of the Christian faith.  Innocent III., on receiving the tiara, set to
work at once upon the government of Christendom.  Simon de Montfort, on
returning from Palestine, did not dream of the new crusade to which he
was soon to be summoned, and for which he was so well prepared.

Innocent III. at first employed against the heretics of Southern France
only spiritual and legitimate weapons.  Before proscribing, he tried to
convert them; he sent to them a great number of missionaries, nearly all
taken from the order of Citeaux, and of proved zeal already; many amongst
them had successively the title and power of legates; and they went
preaching throughout the whole country, communicating with the princes
and laic lords, whom they requested to drive away the heretics from their
domains, and holding with the heretics themselves conferences which
frequently drew a numerous attendance.  A knight “full of sagacity,”
 according to a contemporary chronicler, “Pons d’Adhemar, of Rodelle, said
one day to Foulques, Bishop of Toulouse, one of the most zealous of the
pope’s delegates, ‘We could not have believed that Rome had so many
powerful arguments against these folk here.’  ‘See you not,’ said the
bishop, ‘how little force there is in their objections?’  ‘Certainly,’
answered the knight.  ‘Why, then, do you not expel them from your lands?’
‘We cannot,’ answered Pons; ‘we have been brought up with them; we have
amongst them folk near and dear to us, and we see them living honestly.’”
 Some of the legates, wearied at the little effect of their preaching,
showed an inclination to give up their mission.  Peter de Castelnau
himself, the most zealous of all, and destined before long to pay for his
zeal with his life, wrote to the pope to beg for permission to return to
his monastery.  Two Spanish priests, Diego Azebes, Bishop of Osma, and
his sub-prior Dominic, falling in with the Roman legates at Montpellier,
heard them express their disgust.  “Give up,” said they to the legates,
“your retinue, your horses, and your goings in state; proceed in all
humility, afoot and barefoot, without gold or silver, living and teaching
after the example of the Divine Master.”  “We dare not take on ourselves
such things,” answered the pope’s agents; “they would seem sort of
innovation; but if some person of sufficient authority consent to precede
us in such guise, we would follow him readily.”  The Bishop of Osma sent
away his retinue to Spain, and kept with him only his companion Dominic;
and they, taking with them two of the monks of Citeaux, Peter de
Castelnau and Raoul,--the most fervent of the delegates from Rome,--began
that course of austerity and of preaching amongst the people which was
ultimately to make of the sub-prior Dominic a saint and the founder of a
great religious order, to which has often, but wrongly, been attributed
the origin, though it certainly became the principal agent, of the
Inquisition.  Whilst joining in humble and pious energy with the two
Spanish priests, the two monks of Citeaux, and Peter de Castelnau
especially, did not cease to urge amongst the laic princes the
extirpation of the heretics.  In 1205 they repaired to Toulouse to demand
of Raymond VI. a formal promise, which indeed they obtained; but Raymond
was one of those undecided and feeble characters who dare not refuse to
promise what they dare not attempt to do.  He wished to live in peace
with the orthodox Church without behaving cruelly to a large number of
his subjects.  The fanatical legate, Peter de Castelnau, enraged at his
tergiversation, instantly excommunicated him; and the pope sent the count
a threatening letter, giving him therein to understand that in case of
need stronger measures would be adopted against him.  Raymond,
affrighted, prevailed on the two legates to repair to St. Gilles, and he
there renewed his promises to them; but he always sought for and found on
the morrow some excuse for retarding the execution of them.  The legates,
after having reproached him vehemently, determined to leave St. Gilles
without further delay, and the day after their departure (January 15th,
1208), as they were getting ready to cross the Rhone, two strangers, who
had lodged the night before in the same hostelry with them, drew near,
and one of the two gave Peter de Castelnau a lance-thrust with such
force, that the legate, after exclaiming, “God forgive thee, as I do!”
 had only time to give his comrade his last instructions, and then
expired.

Great was the emotion in France and at Rome.  It was barely thirty years
since in England, after an outburst of passion on the part of King Henry
II., four knights of his court had murdered the Archbishop Thomas-a-
Becket in Canterbury Cathedral.  Was the Count of Toulouse, too, guilty
of having instigated the shedding of blood and the murder of a prelate?
Such was, in the thirteenth century, the general cry throughout the
Catholic Church and the signal for war against Raymond VI.; a war
undertaken on the plea of a personal crime, but in reality for the
extirpation of heresy in Southern France, and for the dispossession of
the native princes, who would not fully obey the decrees of the papacy,
in favor of foreign conquerors who would put them into execution.  The
crusade against the Albigensians was the most striking application of two
principles equally false and fatal, which did more than as much evil to
the Catholics as to the heretics, and to the papacy as to freedom; and
they are, the right of the spiritual power to claim for the coercion of
souls the material force of the temporal powers, and its right to strip
temporal sovereigns, in case they set at nought its injunctions, of their
title to the obedience of their people; in other words, denial of
religious liberty to conscience and of political independence to states.
It was by virtue of these two principles, at that time dominant, but not
without some opposition, in Christendom, that Innocent III., in 1208,
summoned the King of France, the great lords and the knights, and the
clergy, secular and regular, of the kingdom to assume the cross and go
forth to extirpate from Southern France the Albigensians, “worse than the
Saracens;” and that he promised to the chiefs of the crusaders the
sovereignty of such domains as they should win by conquest from the
princes who were heretics or protectors of heretics.

Throughout all France, and even outside of France, the passions of
religion and ambition were aroused at this summons.

Twelve abbots and twenty monks of Citeaux dispersed themselves in all
directions preaching the crusade; and lords and knights, burghers and
peasants, laymen and clergy, hastened to respond.  “From near and far
they came,” says the contemporary poet-chronicler, William of Tudela;
“there be men from Auvergne and Burgundy, France and Limousin; there be
men from all the world; there be Germans, Poitevines, Gascons, Rouergats,
and Saintongese.  Never did God make scribe who, whatsoever his pains,
could set them all down in writing, in two months or in three.”  The poet
reckons “twenty thousand horsemen armed at all points, and more than two
hundred thousand villeins and peasants, not to speak of burghers and
clergy.”  A less exaggerative though more fanatical writer, Peter of
Vaulx-Cernay, the chief contemporary chronicler of this crusade, contents
himself with saying that, at the siege of Carcassonne, one of the first
operations of the crusaders, “it was said that their army numbered fifty
thousand men.”  Whatever may be the truth about the numbers, the
crusaders were passionately ardent and persevering: the war against the
Albigensians lasted fifteen years (from 1208 to 1223), and of the two
leading spirits, one ordering and the other executing, Pope Innocent III.
and Simon de Montfort, neither saw the end of it.  During these fifteen
years, in the region situated between the Rhone, the Pyrenees, the
Garonne, and even the Dordogne, nearly all the towns and strong castles,
Beziers, Carcassonne, Castelnaudary, Lavaur, Gaillac, Moissae, Minerve,
Termes, Toulouse, &c., were taken, lost, retaken, given over to pillage,
sack, and massacre, and burnt by the crusaders with all the cruelty of
fanatics and all the greed of conquerors.  We do not care to dwell here
in detail upon this tragical and monotonous history; we will simply
recall some few of its characteristics.  Doubt has been thrown upon the
answer attributed to Arnauld-Amaury, Abbot of Citeaux, when he was asked,
in 1209, by the conquerors of Beziers, how, at the assault of the city,
they should distinguish the heretics from the faithful: “Slay them all;
God will be sure to know His own.”  The doubt is more charitable than
reasonable; for it is a contemporary, himself a monk of Citeaux, who
reports, without any comment, this hateful speech.  Simon de Montfort,
the hero of the crusade, employed similar language.  One day two
heretics, taken at Castres, were brought before him; one of them was
unshakable in his belief, the other expressed a readiness to turn
convert: “Burn them both,” said the count; “if this fellow mean what he
says, the fire will serve for expiation of his sins, and, if he lie, he
will suffer the penalty for his imposture.”  At the siege of the castle
of Lavaur, in 1211, Amaury, Lord of Montr6al, and eighty knights, had
been made prisoners: and “the noble Count Simon,” says Peter of Vaulx-
Cernay, decided to hang them all on one gibbet; but when Amaury, the most
distinguished amongst them, had been hanged, the gallows-poles, which,
from too great haste, had not been firmly fixed in the ground, having
come down, the count, perceiving how great was the delay, ordered the
rest to be slain.  The pilgrims therefore fell upon them right eagerly
and slew them on the spot.  Further, the count caused stones to be heaped
upon the lady of the castle, Amaury’s sister, a very wicked heretic, who
had been cast into a well.  Finally our crusaders, with extreme alacrity,
burned heretics without number.”

In the midst of these atrocious unbridlements of passions supposed to be
religious, other passions were not slow to make their appearance.
Innocent III.  had promised the crusaders the sovereignty of the domains
they might win by conquest from princes who were heretics or protectors
of heretics.  After the capture, in 1209, of Beziers and Carcassonne,
possessions of Raymond Roger, Viscount of Albi, and nephew of the Count
of Toulouse, the Abbot of Citeaux, a legate of the pope, assembled the
principal chiefs of the crusaders that they might choose one amongst them
as lord and governor of their conquests.  The offer was made,
successively, to Eudes, Duke of Burgundy, to Peter de Courtenay, Count of
Nevers, and to Walter de Chatilion, Count of St. Paul; but they all three
declined, saying that they had sufficient domains of their own without
usurping those of the Viscount of Beziers, to whom, in their opinion,
they had already caused enough loss.  The legate, somewhat embarrassed,
it is said, proposed to appoint two bishops and four knights, who, in
concert with him, should choose a new master for the conquered
territories.  The proposal was agreed to, and, after some moments of
hesitation, Simon de Montfort, being elected by this committee, accepted
the proffered domains, and took imdiate possession of them on publication
of a charter conceived as follows: “Simon, Lord of Montfort, Earl of
Leicester, Viscount of Beziers and Carcassonne.  The Lord having
delivered into my hands the lands of the heretics, an unbelieving people,
that is to say, whatsoever He hath thought fit to take from them by the
hand of the crusaders, His servants, I have accepted humbly and devoutly
this charge and administration, with confidence in His aid.”  The pope
wrote to him forthwith to confirm him in hereditary possession of his new
dominions, at the same time expressing to him a hope that, in concert
with the legates, he would continue to carry out the extirpation of the
heretics.  The dispossessed Viscount, Raymond Roger, having been put in
prison by his conqueror in a tower of Carcassonne itself, died there at
the end of three months, of disease according to some, and a violent
death according to others; but the latter appears to be a groundless
suspicion, for it was not to cowardly and secret crimes that Simon de
Montfort was inclined.

From this time forth the war in Southern France changed character, or,
rather, it assumed a double character; with the war of religion was
openly joined a war of conquest; it was no longer merely against the
Albigensians and their heresies, it was against the native princes of
Southern France and their domains that the crusade was prosecuted.  Simon
de Montfort was eminently qualified to direct and accomplish this twofold
design: sincerely fanatical and passionately ambitious; of a valor that
knew no fatigue; handsome and strong; combining tact with authority;
pitiless towards his enemies as became his mission of doing justice in
the name of the faith and the Church; a leader faithful to his friends
and devoted to their common cause whilst reckoning upon them for his own
private purposes, he possessed those natural qualities which confer
spontaneous empire over men and those abilities which lure them on by
opening a way for the fulfilment of their interested hopes.  And as for
himself, by the stealthy growth of selfishness, which is so prone to
become developed when circumstances are tempting, he every day made his
personal fortunes of greater and greater account in his views and his
conduct.  His ambitious appetite grew by the very difficulties it
encountered as well as by the successes it fed upon.  The Count of
Toulouse, persecuted and despoiled, complained loudly in the ears of the
pope; protested against the charge of favoring the heretics; offered and
actually made the concessions demanded by Rome; and, as security, gave up
seven of his principal strongholds.  But, being ever too irresolute and
too weak to keep his engagements to his subjects’ detriment no less than
to stand out against his adversaries’ requirements, he was continually
falling back into the same condition, and keeping off attacks which were
more and more urgent by promises which always remained without effect.
After having sent to Rome embassy upon embassy with explanations and
excuses, he twice went thither himself, in 1210 and in 1215; the first
time alone, the second with his young son, who was then thirteen, and who
was at a later period Raymond VII.  He appealed to the pope’s sense of
justice; he repudiated the stories and depicted the violence of his
enemies; and finally pleaded the rights of his son, innocent of all that
was imputed to himself, and yet similarly attacked and despoiled.
Innocent III. had neither a narrow mind nor an unfeeling heart; he
listened to the father’s pleading, took an interest in the youth, and
wrote, in April, 1212, and January, 1213, to his legates in Languedoc and
to Simon de Montfort, “After having led the army of the crusaders into
the domains of the Count of Toulouse, ye have not been content with
invading all the places wherein there were heretics, but ye have further
gotten possession of those where-in there was no suspicion of heresy.
.  .  .  The same ambassadors have objected to us that ye have usurped
what was another’s with so much greed and so little consideration that of
all the domains of the Count of Toulouse there remains to him barely the
town of that name, together with the castle of Montauban.  .  .  .  Now,
though the said count has been found guilty of many matters against God
and against the Church, and our legates, in order to force him to
acknowledgment thereof, have excommunicated his person, and have left his
domains to the first captor, nevertheless, he has not yet been condemned
as a heretic nor as an accomplice in the death of Peter de Castelnau, of
sacred memory, albeit he is strongly suspected thereof.  That is why we
did ordain that, if there should appear against him a proper accuser,
within a certain time, there should be appointed him a day for clearing
himself, according to the form pointed out in our letters, reserving to
ourselves the delivery of a definitive sentence thereupon: in all which
the procedure hath not been according to our orders.  We wot not,
therefore, on what ground we could yet grant to others his dominions
which have not been taken away either from him or from his heirs; and,
above all, we would not appear to have fraudulently extorted from him the
castles he hath committed to us, the will of the Apostle being that we
should refrain from even the appearance of wrong.”

But Innocent III. forgot that, in the case of either temporal or
spiritual sovereigns, when there has once been an appeal to force, there
is no stopping, at pleasure and within specified limits, the movement
that has been set going and the agents which have the work in hand.  He
had decreed war against the princes who were heretics or protectors of
heretics; and he had promised their domains to their conquerors.  He
meant to reserve to himself the right of pronouncing definitive judgment
as to the condemnation of princes as heretics, and as to dispossessing
them of their dominions; but when force had done its business on the very
spot, when the condemnation of the princes as heretics had been
pronounced by the pope’s legates and their bodily dispossession effected
by his laic allies, the reserves and regrets of Innocent III. were vain.
He had proclaimed two principles--the bodily extirpation of the heretics
and the political dethronement of the princes who were their accomplices
or protectors; but the application of the principles slipped out of his
own hands.  Three local councils assembled in 1210, 1212, and 1213, at
St. Gilles, at Arles, and at Lavaur, and presided over by the pope’s
legates, proclaimed the excommunication of Raymond VI., and the cession
of his dominions to Simon de Montfort, who took possession of them for
himself and his comrades.  Nor were the pope’s legates without their
share in the conquest; Arnauld Amaury, Abbot of Citeaux, became
Archbishop of Narbonne; and Abbot Foulques of Marseilles, celebrated in
his youth as a gallant troubadour, was Bishop of Toulouse and the most
ardent of the crusaders.  When these conquerors heard that the pope had
given a kind reception to Raymond VI. and his young son, and lent a
favorable ear to their complaints, they sent haughty warnings to Innocent
III., giving him to understand that the work was all over, and that, if
he meddled, Simon de Montfort and his warriors might probably not bow to
his decisions.  Don Pedro II., king of Aragon, had strongly supported
before Innocent III. the claims of the Count of Toulouse and of the
southern princes his allies.  “He cajoled the lord pope,” says the
prejudiced chronicler of these events, the monk Peter of Vaulx-Cernay,
“so far as to persuade him that the cause of the faith was achieved
against the heretics, they being put to distant flight and completely
driven from the Albigensian country, and that accordingly it was
necessary for him to revoke altogether the indulgence be had granted to
the crusaders.  .  .  . The sovereign pontiff, too credulously listening
to the perfidious suggestions of the said king, readily assented to his
demands, and wrote to the Count of Montfort, with orders and commands to
restore without delay to the Counts of Comminges and of Foix, and to
Gaston of Beam, very wicked and abandoned people, the lands which, by
just judgment of God and by the aid of the crusaders, he at last had
conquered.”  But, in spite of his desire to do justice, Innocent III.,
studying policy rather than moderation, did not care to enter upon a
struggle against the agents, ecclesiastical and laic, whom he had let
loose upon Southern France.  In November, 1215, the fourth Lateran
council met at Rome; and the Count of Toulouse, his son, and the Count of
Foix brought their claims before it.  “It is quite true,” says Peter of
Vaulx-Cernay, “that they found there--and, what is worse, amongst the
prelates--certain folk who opposed the cause of the faith, and labored
for the restoration of the said counts; but the counsel of Ahitophel did
not prevail, for the lord pope, in agreement with the greater and saner
part of the council, decreed that the city of Toulouse and other
territories conquered by the crusaders should be ceded to the Count of
Montfort, who, more than any other, had borne himself right valiantly and
loyally in the holy enterprise; and, as for the domains which Count
Raymond possessed in Provence, the sovereign pontiff decided that they
should be reserved to him, in order to make provision, either with part
or even the whole, for the son of this count, provided always that, by
sure signs of fealty and good behavior, he should show himself worthy of
compassion.”

This last inclination towards compassion on the part of the pope in favor
of the young Count Raymond, “provided he showed himself worthy of it,”
 remained as fruitless as the remonstrances addressed to his legates; for
on the 17th of July, 1216, seven months after the Lateran council,
Innocent III. died, leaving Simon de Montfort and his comrades in
possession of all they had taken, and the war still raging between the
native princes of Southern France and the foreign conquerors.  The
primitive, religious character of the crusade wore off more and more;
worldly ambition and the spirit of conquest became more and more
predominant; and the question lay far less between catholics and heretics
than between the old and new masters of the country, between the
independence of the southern people and the triumph of warriors come
from the north of France, that is to say, between two different races,
civilizations, and languages.  Raymond VI. and his son recovered
thenceforth certain supports and opportunities of which hitherto the
accusation of heresy and the judgments of the court of Rome had robbed
them; their neighboring allies and their secret or intimidated partisans
took fresh courage; the fortune of battle became shifty; successes and
reverses were shared by both sides; and not only many small places and
castles, but the largest towns, Toulouse amongst others, fell into the
hands of each party alternately.  Innocent III.’s successor in the Holy
See, Pope Honorius III., though at first very pronounced in his
opposition to the Albigensians, had less ability, less perseverance, and
less influence than his predecessor.  Finally, on the 20th of June, 1218,
Simon de Montfort, who had been for nine months unsuccessfully besieging
Toulouse, which had again come into the possession of Raymond VI., was
killed by a shower of stones, under the walls of the place, and left to
his son Amaury the inheritance of his war and his conquests, but not of
his vigorous genius and his warlike renown.

[Illustration: Death of De Montfort----104]

The struggle still dragged on for five years with varied fortune on each
side, but Amaury de Montfort was losing ground every day, and Raymond
VI., when he died in August, 1222, had recovered the greater part of his
dominions.  His son, Raymond VII., continued the war for eighteen months
longer, with enough of popular favor and of success to make his enemies
despair of recovering their advantages; and, on the 14th of January,
1224, Amaury de Montfort, after having concluded with the Counts of
Toulouse and Foix a treaty which seemed to have only a provisional
character, “went forth,” says the History of Languedoc, “with all the
French from Carcassonne, and left forever the country which his house had
possessed for nearly fourteen years.”  Scarcely had he arrived at the
court of Louis VIII., who had just succeeded his father, Philip Augustus,
when he ceded to the King of France his rights over the domains which the
crusaders had conquered by a deed conceived in these terms: “Know that we
give up to our Lord Louis, the illustrious King of the French, and to his
heirs forever, to dispose of according to their pleasure, all the
privileges and gifts that the Roman Church did grant unto our father
Simon of pious memory, in respect of the countship of Toulouse and other
districts in Albigeois; supposing that the pope do accomplish all the
demands made to him by the king through the Archbishop of Bourges, and
the Bishops of Langres and Chartres; else, be it known for certain that
we cede not to any one aught of all these domains.”

Whilst this cruel war lasted Philip Augustus would not take any part in
it.  Not that he had any leaning towards the Albigensian heretics on the
score of creed or religious liberty; but his sense of justice and
moderation was shocked at the violence employed against them, and he
had a repugnance to the idea of taking part in the devastation of the
beautiful southern provinces.  He took it ill, moreover, that the pope
should arrogate to himself the right of despoiling of their dominions, on
the ground of heresy, princes who were vassals of the King of France;
and, without offering any formal opposition, he had no mind to give his
assent thereto.  When Innocent III. called upon him to co-operate in the
crusade, Philip answered, “that he had at his flanks two huge and
terrible lions, the Emperor Otho, and King John of England, who were
working with all their might to bring trouble upon the kingdom of France;
that, consequently, he had no inclination at all to leave France, or even
to send his son; but it seemed to him enough, for the present, if he
allowed his barons to march against the disturbers of peace and of the
faith in the province of Narbonne.”  In 1213, when Simon de Montfort had
gained the battle of Muret, Philip allowed Prince Louis to go and look on
when possession was taken of Toulouse by the crusaders; but when Louis
came back and reported to his father, “in the presence of the princes and
barons who were, for the most part, relatives and allies of Count
Raymond, the great havoc committed by Count Simon in the city after
surrender, the king withdrew to his apartments without any ado beyond
saying to those present, ‘Sirs, I have yet hope that before very long
Count de Montfort and his brother Guy will die at their work, for God is
just, and will suffer these counts to perish thereat, because their
quarrel is unjust.’”  Nevertheless, at a little later period, when the
crusade was at its greatest heat, Philip, on the pope’s repeated
entreaty, authorized his son to take part in it with such lords as might
be willing to accompany him; but he ordered that the expedition should
not start before the spring, and, on the occurrence of some fresh
incident, he had it further put off until the following year.  He
received visits from Count Raymond VI., and openly testified good will
towards him.  When Simon de Montfort was decisively victorious, and in
possession of the places wrested from Raymond, Philip Augustus recognized
accomplished facts, and received the new Count of Toulouse as his vassal;
but when, after the death of Simon de Montfort and Innocent III., the
question was once more thrown open, and when Raymond VI., first, and then
his son Raymond VII., had recovered the greater part of their dominions,
Philip formally refused to recognize Amaury de Montfort as successor to
his father’s conquests: nay, he did more; he refused to accept the
cession of those conquests, offered to him by Amaury de Montfort and
pressed upon him by Pope Honorius III.  Philip Augustus was not a
scrupulous sovereign, nor disposed to compromise himself for the mere
sake of defending justice and humanity; but he was too judicious not to
respect and protect, to a certain extent, the rights of his vassals as
well as his own, and, at the same time, too discreet to involve himself,
without necessity, in a barbarous and dubious war.  He held aloof from
the crusade against the Albigensians with as much wisdom, and more than
as much dignity, as he had displayed, seventeen years before, in
withdrawing from the crusade against the Saracens.

He had, in 1216, another great chance of showing his discretion.  The
English barons were at war with their king, John Lackland, in defence of
Magna Charta, which they had obtained the year before; and they offered
the crown of England to the King of France, for his son, Prince Louis.
Before accepting, Philip demanded twenty-four hostages, taken from the
men of note in the country, as a guarantee that the offer would be
supported in good earnest; and the hostages were sent to him.  But Pope
Innocent III. had lately released King John from his oath in respect of
Magna Charta, and had excommunicated the insurgent barons; and he now
instructed his legate to oppose the projected design, with a threat of
excommunicating the King of France.  Philip Augustus, who in his youth
had dreamed of resuscitating the empire of Charlemagne, was strongly
tempted to seize the opportunity of doing over again the work of William
the Conqueror; but he hesitated to endanger his power and his kingdom in
such a war against King John and the pope.  The prince was urgent in
entreating his father: “Sir,” said he, “I am your liegeman for the fief
you have given me on this side of the sea; but it pertains not to you to
decide aught as to the kingdom of England; I do beseech you to place no
obstacle in the way of my departure.”  The king, “seeing his son’s firm
resolution and anxiety,” says the historian Matthew Paris, “was one with
him in feeling and desire; but, foreseeing the dangers of events to come,
he did not give his public consent, and, without any expression of wish
or counsel, permitted him to go, with the gift of his blessing.”  It was
the young and ambitious Princess Blanche of Castille, wife of Prince
Louis, and destined to be the mother of St. Louis, who, after her
husband’s departure for England, made it her business to raise troops for
him and to send him means of sustaining the war.  Events justified the
discreet reserve of Philip Augustus; for John Lackland, after having
suffered one reverse previously, died on the 19th of October, 1216; his
death broke up the party of the insurgent barons; and his son, Henry
III., who was crowned on the 28th of October, in Gloucester cathedral,
immediately confirmed the Great Charter.  Thus the national grievance
vanished, and national feeling resumed its sway in England; the French
everywhere became unpopular; and after a few months’ struggle, with equal
want of skill and success, Prince Louis gave up his enterprise and
returned to France with his French comrades, on no other conditions but a
mutual exchange of prisoners, and an amnesty for the English who had been
his adherents.

At this juncture, as well as in the crusade against the Albigensians,
Philip Augustus behaved towards the pope with a wisdom and ability hard
of attainment at any time, and very rare in his own: he constantly
humored the papacy without being subservient to it, and he testified
towards it his respect, and at the same time his independence.  He
understood all the gravity of a rupture with Rome, and he neglected
nothing to avoid one; but he also considered that Rome, herself not
wanting in discretion, would be content with the deference of the King of
France rather than get embroiled with him by exacting his submission.
Philip Augustus, in his political life, always preserved this proper
mean, and he found it succeed; but in his domestic life there came a day
when he suffered himself to be hurried out of his usual deference towards
the pope; and, after a violent attempt at resistance, he resigned himself
to submission.  Three years after the death of his first wife, Isabel of
Hainault, who had left him a son, Prince Louis, he married Princess
Ingeburga of Denmark, without knowing anything at all of her, just as it
generally happens in the case of royal marriages.  No sooner had she
become his wife than, without any cause that can be assigned with
certainty, he took such a dislike to her that, towards the end of the
same year, he demanded of and succeeded in obtaining from a French
council, held at Compiegne, nullity of his marriage on the ground of
prohibited consanguinity.  “O, naughty France! naughty France!  O, Rome!
Rome!” cried the poor Danish princess, on learning this decision; and she
did in fact appeal to Pope Celestine III.  Whilst the question was being
investigated at Rome, Ingeburga, whom Philip had in vain tried to send
back to Denmark, was marched about, under restraint, in France from
castle to castle and convent to convent, and treated with iniquitous and
shocking severity.  Pope Celestine, after examination, annulled the
decision of the council of Compiegne touching the pretended
consanguinity, leaving in suspense the question of divorce, and,
consequently, without breaking the tie of marriage between the king and
the Danish princess.  “I have seen,” he wrote to the Archbishop of Sens,
“the genealogy sent to me by the bishops, and it is due to that
inspection and the uproar caused by this scandal that I have annulled the
decree; take care now, therefore, that Philip do not marry again, and so
break the tie which still unites him to the Church.”  Philip paid no heed
to this canonical injunction; his heart was set upon marrying again; and,
after having unsuccessfully sought the band of two German princesses, on
the borders of the Rhine, who were alarmed by the fate of Ingeburga, he
obtained that of a princess, a Tyrolese by origin, Agnes (according to
others, Mary) of Merania, that is, Moravia (an Austrian province, in
German _Moehren,_ out of which the chroniclers of the time made Meranie
or Merania, the name that has remained in the history of Agnes).  She was
the daughter of Berthold, Marquis of Istria, whom, about 1180, the
Emperor Frederick Barbarossa had made Duke of Moravia.  According to all
contemporary chronicles, Agnes was not only beautiful, but charming; she
made a great impression at the court of France; and Philip Augustus,
after his marriage with her in June, 1196, became infatuated with her.
But a pope more stern and bold than Celestine III., Innocent III., had
just been raised to the Holy See, and was exerting himself, in court as
well as monastery, to effect a reformation of morals.  Immediately after
his accession, he concerned himself with the conjugal irregularity in
which the King of France was living.  “My predecessor, Celestine,” he
wrote to the Bishop of Paris, “would fain have put a stop to this
scandal, but he was unsuccessful; as for me, I am quite resolved to
prosecute his work, and obtain by all and any means fulfilment of God’s
law.  Be instant in speaking thereof to the king on my behalf; and tell
him that his obstinate refusals may probably bring upon him both the
wrath of God and the thunders of the Church.”  And indeed Philip’s
refusals were very obstinate; for the pride of the king and the feelings
of the man were equally wounded.  “I had rather lose half my domains,”
 said he, “than separate from Agnes.”  The pope threatened him with the
interdict,--that is, the suspension of all religious ceremonies,
festivals, and forms in the Church of France.  Philip resisted not only
the threat, but also the sentence of the interdict, which was actually
pronounced, first in the churches of the royal domain, and afterwards in
those of the whole kingdom.  “So wroth was the king,” says the chronicle
of St. Denis, “that he thrust from their sees all the prelates of his
kingdom, because they had assented to the interdict.”  “I had rather turn
Mussulman,” said Philip; “Saladin was a happy man, for he had no pope.”
 But Innocent III. was inflexible; he claimed respect for laws divine and
human, for the domestic hearth and public order.  The conscience of the
nation was troubled.  Agnes herself applied to the pope, urging her
youth, her ignorance of the world, the sincerity and purity of her love
for her husband.  Innocent III. was touched, and before long gave
indisputable evidence that he was, but without budging from his duty and
his right as a Christian.  For four years the struggle went on.  At last
Philip yielded to the injunction of the pope and the feeling of his
people; he sent away Agnes, and recalled Ingeburga.  The pope, in his
hour of victory, showed his sense of equity and his moral appreciation;
taking into consideration the good faith of Agnes in respect of her
marriage, and Philip’s possible mistake as to his right to marry her, he
declared the legitimacy of the two children born of their union.  Agnes
retired to Poissy, where, a few months afterwards, she died.  Ingeburga
resumed her title and rights as queen, but without really enjoying them.
Philip, incensed as well as beaten, banished her far from him and his
court, to Etampes, where she lived eleven years in profound retirement.
It was only in 1212 that, to fully satisfy the pope, Philip, more
persevering in his political wisdom than his domestic prejudices,
restored the Danish princess to all her royal station at his side.  She
was destined to survive him.

There can be little doubt but that the affection of Philip Augustus for
Agnes of Merania was sincere; nothing can be better proof of it than the
long struggle he maintained to prevent separation from her; but, to say
nothing of the religious scruples which at last, perhaps, began to prick
the conscience of the king, great political activity and the government
of a kingdom are a powerful cure for sorrows of the heart, and seldom is
there a human soul so large and so constant as to have room for
sentiments and interests so different, both of them at once, and for a
long continuance.  It has been shown with what intelligent assiduity
Philip Augustus strove to extend, or, rather, to complete the kingdom of
France; what a mixture of firmness and moderation he brought to bear upon
his relations with his vassals, as well as with his neighbors; and what
bravery he showed in war, though he preferred to succeed by the weapons
of peace.  He was as energetic and effective in the internal
administration of his kingdom as in foreign affairs.  M. Leopold Delisle,
one of the most learned French academicians, and one of the most accurate
in his knowledge, has devoted a volume of more than seven hundred pages
octavo to a simple catalogue of the official acts of Philip Augustus, and
this catalogue contains a list of two thousand two hundred and thirty-six
administrative acts of all kinds, of which M. Delisle confines himself to
merely setting forth the title and object.  Search has been made in this
long table to see what part was taken by Philip Augustus in the
establishment and interior regulation of the communes, that great fact
which is so conspicuous in the history of French civilization, and which
will before long be made the topic of discourse here.  The search brings
to light, during this reign, forty-one acts confirming certain communes
already established, or certain privileges previously granted to certain
populations, forty-three acts establishing new communes, or granting new
local privileges, and nine acts decreeing suppression of certain
communes, or a repressive intervention of the royal authority in their
internal regulation, on account of quarrels or irregularities in their
relations either with their lord, or, especially, with their bishop.
These mere figures show the liberal character of the government of Philip
Augustus, in respect of this important work of the eleventh, twelfth, and
thirteenth centuries.  Nor are we less struck by his efficient energy in
his care for the interests and material civilization of his people.  In
1185, “as he was walking one day in his palace, he placed himself at a
window whence he was sometimes pleased, by way of pastime, to watch the
Seine flowing by.  Some carts, as they passed, caused the mud with which
the streets were filled to emit a fetid smell, quite unbearable.  The
king, shocked at what was as unhealthy as it was disgusting, sent for the
burghers and provost of the city, and ordered that all the thoroughfares
and streets of Paris should be paved with hard and solid stone, for this
right Christian prince aspired to rid Paris of her ancient name, Lutetia
(Mud-town).”  It is added that, on hearing of so good a resolution, a
moneyed man of the day, named Gerard de Poissy, volunteered to contribute
towards the construction of the pavement eleven thousand silver marks.
Nor was Philip Augustus less concerned for the external security than for
the internal salubrity of Paris.  In 1190, on the eve of his departure
for the crusade, “he ordered the burghers of Paris to surround with a
good wall, flanked by towers, the city he loved so well, and to make
gates thereto;” and in twenty years this great work was finished on both
sides of the Seine.  “The king gave the same orders,” adds the historian
Rigord, “about the towns and castles of all his kingdom; “and indeed it
appears from the catalogue of M. Leopold Delisle, at the date of 1193,
“that, at the request of Philip Augustus, Peter de Courtenai, Count of
Nevers, with the aid of the church-men, had the walls of the town of
Auxerre built.”  And Philip’s foresight went beyond such important
achievements.  “He had a good wall built to enclose the wood of
Vincennes, heretofore open to any sort of folk.  The King of England, on
hearing thereof, gathered a great mass of fawns, hinds, does, and bucks,
taken in his forests in Normandy and Aquitaine; and having had them
shipped aboard a large covered vessel, with suitable fodder, he sent them
by way of the Seine to King Philip Augustus, his liege-lord at Paris.
King Philip received the gift gladly, had his parks stocked with the
animals, and put keepers over them.”  A feeling, totally unconnected with
the pleasures of the chase, caused him to order an enclosure very
different from that of Vincennes.  “The common cemetery of Paris, hard by
the Church of the Holy Innocents, opposite the street of St. Denis, had
remained up to that time open to all passers, man and beast, without
anything to prevent it from being confounded with the most profane spot;
and the king, hurt at such indecency, had it enclosed by high stone
walls, with as many gates as were judged necessary, which were closed
every night.”  At the same time he had built, in this same quarter, the
first great municipal market-places, enclosed, likewise, by a wall, with
gates shut at night, and surmounted by a sort of covered gallery.  He was
not quite a stranger to a certain instinct, neither systematic nor of
general application, but practical and effective on occasion, in favor of
the freedom of industry and commerce.  Before his time, the ovens
employed by the baking trade in Paris were a monopoly for the profit of
certain religious or laic establishments; but when Philip Augustus
ordered the walling in of the new and much larger area of the city “he
did not think it right to render its new inhabitants subject to these old
liabilities, and he permitted all the bakers to have ovens wherein to
bake their bread, either for themselves, or for all individuals who might
wish to make use of them.”  Nor were churches and hospitals a whit less
than the material interests of the people an object of solicitude to him.
His reign saw the completion, and, it might almost be said, the
construction of _Notre-Dame de Paris,_ the frontage of which, in
particular, was the work of this epoch.  At the same time the king had
the palace of the Louvre repaired and enlarged; and he added to it that
strong tower in which he kept in captivity for more than twelve years
Ferrand, Count of Flanders, taken prisoner at the battle of Bouvines.  It
would be a failure of justice and truth not to add to these proofs of
manifold and indefatigable activity on the part of Philip Augustus the
constant interest he testified in letters, science, study, the University
of Paris, and its masters and pupils.  It was to him that in 1200, after
a violent riot, in which they considered they had reason to complain of
the provost of Paris, the students owed a decree, which, by regarding
them as clerics, exempted them from the ordinary criminal jurisdiction,
so as to render them subject only to ecclesiastical authority.  At that
time there was no idea how to efficiently protect freedom save by
granting some privilege.

A death which seems premature for a man as sound and strong in
constitution as in judgment struck down Philip Augustus at the age of
only fifty-eight, as he was on his way from Pacy-sur-Eure to Paris to be
present at the council which was to meet there and once more take up the
affair of the Albigensians.  He had for several months been battling with
an incessant fever; he was obliged to halt at Mantes, and there he died
on the 14th of January, 1223, leaving the kingdom of France far more
extensive and more compact, and the kingship in France far stronger and
more respected than he had found them.  It was the natural and
well-deserved result of his life.  At a time of violence and irregular
adventure, he had shown to Europe the spectacle of an earnest,
far-sighted, moderate, and able government, and one which in the end,
under many hard trials, had nearly always succeeded in its designs,
during a reign of forty-three years.

He disposed, by will, of a considerable amount amassed without parsimony,
and even, historians say, in spite of a royal magnificence.  We will take
from that will but two paragraphs, the first two:--

“We will and prescribe first of all that, without any gainsaying, our
testamentary executors do levy and set aside, out of our possessions,
fifty thousand livres of Paris, in order to restore, as God shall inspire
them with wisdom, whatsoever may be due to those from whom they shall
recognize that we have unjustly taken or extorted or kept back aught; and
we do ordain this most strictly.”

“We do give to our dear spouse _Isamber_ (evidently _Inyeburya_), Queen
of the French, ten thousand livres of Paris.  We might have given more to
the said queen, but we have confined ourselves to this sum in order that
we might make more complete restitution and reparation of what we have
unjustly levied.”

There is in these two cases of testamentary reparation, to persons
unknown on the one hand and to a lady long maltreated on the other, a
touch of probity and honorable regret for wrong-doing which arouses for
this great king, in his dying hour, more moral esteem than one would
otherwise be tempted to feel for him.

His son, Louis VIII., inherited a great kingdom, an undisputed crown, and
a power that was respected.  It was matter of general remark, moreover,
that, by his mother, Isabel of Hainault, he was descended in the direct
line from Hermengarde, Countess of Namur, daughter of Charles of
Lorraine, the last of the Carlovingians.  Thus the claims of the two
dynasties of Charlemagne and of Hugh Capet were united in his person;
and, although the authority of the Capetians was no longer disputed,
contemporaries were glad to see in Louis VIII. this two-fold heirship,
which gave him the perfect stamp of a legitimate monarch.  He was,
besides, the first Capetian whom the king his father had not considered
it necessary to have consecrated during his own life so as to impress
upon him in good time the seal of religion.  Louis was consecrated at
Rheims no earlier than the 6th of August, 1223, three weeks after the
death of Philip Augustus; and his consecration was celebrated, at Paris
as well as at Rheims, with rejoicings both popular and magnificent.
But in the condition in which France was during the thirteenth century,
amidst a civilization still so imperfect and without the fortifying
institutions of a free government, no accidental good fortune could make
up for a king’s want of personal merit; and Louis VIII. was a man of
downright mediocrity, without foresight, volatile in his resolves and
weak and fickle in the execution of them.  He, as well as Philip
Augustus, had to make war on the King of England, and negotiate with the
pope on the subject of the Albigensians; but at one time he followed,
without well understanding it, his father’s policy, at another he
neglected it for some whim, or under some temporary influence.  Yet he
was not unsuccessful in his wax-like enterprises; in his campaign against
Henry III., King of England, he took Niort, St. Jean d’Angely, and
Rochelle; he accomplished the subjection of Limousin and Perigord; and
had he pushed on his victories beyond the Garonne, he might perhaps have
deprived the English of Aquitaine, their last possession in France; but
at the solicitation of Pope Honorius III., he gave up this war, to resume
the crusade against the Albigensians.  Philip Augustus had foreseen this
mistake.  After my death,” he had said, “the clergy will use all their
efforts to entangle my son Louis in the matters of the Albigensians; but
he is in weak and shattered health; he will be unable to bear the
fatigue; he will soon die, and then the kingdom will be left in the hands
of a woman and children; and so there will be no lack of dangers.”  The
prediction was realized.  The military campaign of Louis VIII. on the
Rhone was successful; after a somewhat difficult siege, he took Avignon;
the principal towns in the neighborhood, Nimes and Arles, amongst others,
submitted; Amaury de Montfort had ceded to him all his rights over his
father’s conquests in Languedoc; and the Albigensians were so completely
destroyed or dispersed or cowed that, when it seemed good to make a
further example amongst them of the severity of the Church against
heretics, it was a hard matter to rout out in the diocese of Narbonne one
of their former preachers, Peter Isarn, an old man hidden in an obscure
retreat, from which he was dragged to be burned in solemn state.  This
was Louis VIII.’s last exploit in Southern France.  He was displeased
with the pope, whom he reproached with not keeping all his promises; his
troops were being decimated by sickness; and he was deserted by Theobald
IV., Count of Champagne, after serving, according to feudal law, for
forty days.

Louis, incensed, disgusted, and ill, himself left his army, to return to
his own Northern France; but he never reached it, for fever compelled him
to halt at Montpensier, in Auvergne, where he died on the 8th of
November, 1226, after a reign of three years, adding to the history of
France no glory save that of having been the son of Philip Augustus, the
husband of Blanche of Castille, and the father of St. Louis.

We have already perused the most brilliant and celebrated amongst the
events of St. Louis’s reign, his two crusades against the Mussulmans; and
we have learned to know the man at the same time with the event, for it
was in these warlike outbursts of his Christian faith that the king’s
character, nay, his whole soul, was displayed in all its originality and
splendor.  It was his good fortune, moreover, to have at that time as his
comrade and biographer, Sire de Joinville, one of the most sprightly and
charming writers of the nascent French language.  It is now of Louis in
France and of his government at home that we have to take note.  And in
this part of his history he is not the only royal and really regnant
personage we encounter: for of the forty-four years of St. Louis’s reign,
nearly fifteen, with a long interval of separation, pertained to the
government of Queen Blanche of Castille rather than that of the king her
son.  Louis, at his accession in 1226, was only eleven; and he remained a
minor up to the age of twenty-one, in 1236, for the time of majority in
the case of royalty was not yet specially and rigorously fixed.  During
those ten years Queen Blanche governed France; not at all, as is commonly
asserted, with the official title of regent, but simply as guardian of
the king her son.  With a good sense really admirable in a person so
proud and ambitious, she saw that official power was ill suited to her
woman’s condition, and would weaken rather than strengthen her; and she
screened herself from view behind her son.  He it was who, in 1226, wrote
to the great vassals, bidding them to his consecration; he it was who
reigned and commanded; and his name alone appeared on royal decrees and
on treaties.  It was not until twenty-two years had passed, in 1248, that
Louis, on starting for the crusade, officially delegated to his mother
the kingly authority, and that Blanche, during her son’s absence, really
governed with the title of regent, up to the 1st of December, 1252, the
day of his death.

During the first period of his government, and so long as her son’s
minority lasted, Queen Blanche had to grapple with intrigues, plots,
insurrections, and open war, and, what was still worse for her, with the
insults and calumnies of the crown’s great vassals, burning to seize once
more, under a woman’s government, the independence and power which had
been effectually disputed with them by Philip Augustus.  Blanche resisted
their attempts, at one time with open and persevering energy, at another
dexterously with all the tact, address, and allurements of a woman.
Though she was now forty years of age, she was beautiful, elegant,
attractive, full of resources, and of grace in her conversation as well
as her administration, endowed with all the means of pleasing, and
skilful in availing herself of them with a coquetry which was
occasionally more telling than discreet.  The malcontents spread the
most odious scandals about her.  It so happened that one of the most
considerable amongst the great vassals of France, Theobald IV., Count of
Champagne, a brilliant and gay knight, an ingenious and prolific poet,
had conceived a passion for her; and it was affirmed not only that she
had yielded to his desires, in order to keep him bound to her service,
but that she had, a while ago, in concert with him, murdered her husband,
King Louis VIII.  In 1230, some of the greatest barons of the kingdom,
the Count of Brittany, the Count of Boulogne, and the Count of St. Pol
formed a coalition for an attack upon Count Theobald, and invaded
Champagne.  Blanche, taking with her the young king her son, went to
the aid of Count Theobald, and, on arriving near Troyes, she had orders
given, in the king’s name, for the barons to withdraw: “If you have
plaint to make,” said she, “against the Count of Champagne, present
before me your claim, and I will do you justice.”  “We will not plead
before you,” they answered, “for the custom of women is to fix their
choice upon him, in preference to other men, who has slain their
husband.”  But in spite of this insulting defiance, the barons did
withdraw.  Five years later, in 1235, the Count of Champagne had, in his
turn, risen against the king, and was forced, as an escape from imminent
defeat, to accept severe terms.

An interview took place between Queen Blanche and him; and “‘Pardie,
Count Theobald,’ said the queen, ‘you ought not to have been against us;
you ought surely to have remembered the kindness shown you by the king my
son, who came to your aid, to save your land from the barons of France
when they would fain have set fire to it all and laid it in ashes.’  The
count cast a look upon the queen, who was so virtuous and so beautiful
that at her great beauty he was all abashed, and answered her, ‘By my
faith, madame, my heart and my body and all my land is at your command,
and there is nothing which to please you I would not readily do; and
against you or yours, please God, I will never go.’  Thereupon he went
his way full pensively, and often there came back to his remembrance the
queen’s soft glance and lovely countenance.  Then his heart was touched
by a soft and amorous thought.  But when he remembered how high a dame
she was, so good and pure that he could never enjoy her, his soft thought
of love was changed to a great sadness.  And because deep thoughts
engender melancholy, it was counselled unto him by certain wise men that
he should make his study of canzonets for the viol and soft delightful
ditties.  So made he the most beautiful canzonets and the most delightful
and most melodious that at any time were heard.”  (_Histoire des Dues et
des Comtes de Champagne,_ by M. d’Arbois de Jubainville, t. iv.  pp. 249,
280; _Chroniques de Saint-Denis,_ in the _Recueil des Historiens des
Gaules et de France,_ t. xxi.  pp. 111, 112.)

Neither in the events nor in the writings of the period is it easy to
find anything which can authorize the accusations made by the foes of
Queen Blanche.  There is no knowing whether her heart were ever so little
touched by the canzonets of Count Theobald; but it is certain that
neither the poetry nor the advances of the count made any difference in
the resolutions and behavior of the queen.  She continued her resistance
to the pretensions and machinations of the crown’s great vassals, whether
foes or lovers, and she carried forward, in the face and in the teeth of
all, the extension of the domains and the power of the kingship.  We
observe in her no prompting of enthusiasm, of sympathetic charitableness,
or of religious scrupulousness, that is, none of those grand moral
impulses which are characteristic of Christian piety, and which were
predominant in St. Louis.  Blanche was essentially politic and concerned
with her temporal interests and successes; and it was not from her
teaching or her example that her son imbibed those sublime and
disinterested feelings which stamped him the most original and the rarest
on the roll of glorious kings.  What St. Louis really owed to his mother
--and it was a great deal--was the steady triumph which, whether by arms
or by negotiation, Blanche gained over the great vassals, and the
preponderance which, amidst the struggles of the feudal system, she
secured for the kingship of her son in his minority.  She saw by profound
instinct what forces and alliances might be made serviceable to the
kingly power against its rivals.  When, on the 29th of November, 1226,
only three weeks after the death of her husband, Louis VIII., she had her
son crowned at Rheims, she bade to the ceremony not only the prelates and
grandees of the kingdom, but also the inhabitants of the neighboring
communes; wishing to let the great lords see the people surrounding the
royal child.  Two years later, in 1228, amidst the insurrection of the
barons, who were assembled at Corbeil, and who meditated seizing the
person of the young king during his halt at Montlhery on his march to
Paris, Queen Blanche had summoned to her side, together with the faithful
chivalry of the country, the burghers of Paris and of the neighborhood;
and they obeyed the summons with alacrity.  “They went forth all under
arms, and took the road to Montlhery, where they found the king, and
escorted him to Paris, all in their ranks and in order of battle.  From
Montlhery to Paris, the road was lined, on both sides, by men-at-arms and
others, who loudly besought Our Lord to grant the young king long life
and prosperity, and to vouchsafe him protection against all his enemies.
As soon as they set out from Paris, the lords, having been told the news,
and not considering themselves in a condition to fight so great a host,
retired each to his own abode; and by the ordering of God, who disposes
as he pleases Him of times and the deeds of men, they dared not undertake
anything against the king during the rest of this year.”  (_Vie de Saint
Louis,_ by Lenain de Tillemont, t. i.  pp. 429, 478.)

Eight years later, in 1236, Louis IX. attained his majority, and his
mother transferred to him a power respected, feared, and encompassed by
vassals always turbulent and still often aggressive, but disunited,
weakened, intimidated, or discredited, and always outwitted, for a space
of ten years, in their plots.

When she had secured the political position of the king her son, and as
the time of his majority approached, Queen Blanche gave her attention to
his domestic life also.  She belonged to the number of those who aspire
to play the part of Providence towards the objects of their affection,
and to regulate their destiny in everything.  Louis was nineteen; he was
handsome, after a refined and gentle style which spoke of moral worth
without telling of great physical strength; he had delicate and chiselled
features, a brilliant complexion, and light hair, abundant and glossy,
which, through his grandmother Isabel, he inherited from the family of
the Counts of Hainault.  He displayed liveliness and elegance in his
tastes; he was fond of amusements, games, hunting, hounds and
hawking-birds, fine clothes, magnificent furniture.  A holy man, they
say, even reproached the queen his mother with having winked at certain
inclinations evinced by him towards irregular connections.  Blanche
determined to have him married; and had no difficulty in exciting in him
so honorable a desire.  Raymond Beranger, Count of Provence, had a
daughter, his eldest, named Marguerite, “who was held,” say the
chronicles, “to be the most noble, most beautiful, and best educated
princess at that time in Europe.  .  .  .  By the advice of his mother
and of the wisest persons in his kingdom,” Louis asked for her hand in
marriage.  The Count of Provence was overjoyed at the proposal; but he
was somewhat anxious about the immense dowry which, it was said, he would
have to give his daughter.  His intimate adviser was a Provencal
nobleman, named Romeo de Villeneuve, who said to him, “Count, leave it to
me, and let not this great expense cause you any trouble.  If you marry
your eldest high, the more consideration of the alliance will get the
others married better and at less cost.”  Count Raymond listened to
reason, and before long acknowledged that his adviser was right.  He had
four daughters, Marguerite, Eleanor, Sancie, and Beatrice; and when
Marguerite was Queen of France, Eleanor became Queen of England, Sancie
Countess of Cornwall and afterwards Queen of the Romans, and Beatrice
Countess of Anjou and Provence, and ultimately Queen of Sicily.  Princess
Marguerite arrived in France escorted by a brilliant embassy, and the
marriage was celebrated at Sens, on the 27th of May, 1234, amidst great
rejoicings and abundant largess to the people.  As soon as he was married
and in possession of happiness at home, Louis of his own accord gave up
the worldly amusements for which he had at first displayed a taste; his
hunting establishment, his games, his magnificent furniture and dress,
gave place to simpler pleasures and more Christian occupations.  The
active duties of the kingship, the fervent and scrupulous exercise of
piety, the pure and impassioned joys of conjugal life, the glorious plans
of a knight militant of the cross, were the only things which took up the
thoughts and the time of this young king, who was modestly laboring to
become a saint and a hero.

There was one heartfelt discomfort which disturbed and troubled sometimes
the sweetest moments of his life.  Queen Blanche, having got her son
married, was jealous of the wife and of the happiness she had conferred
upon her; jealous as mother and as queen, a rival for affection and for
empire.  This sad and hateful feeling hurried her into acts as devoid of
dignity as they were of justice and kindness.  “The harshness of Queen
Blanche towards Queen Marguerite,” says Joinville, “was such that Queen
Blanche would not suffer, so far as her power went, that her son should
keep his wife’s company.  Where it was most pleasing to the king and the
queen to live was at Pontoise, because the king’s chamber was above and
the queen’s below.  And they had so well arranged matters that they held
their converse on a spiral staircase which led down from the one chamber
to the other.  When the ushers saw the queen-mother coming into the
chamber of the king her son, they knocked upon the door with their
staves, and the king came running into his chamber, so that his mother
might find him there; and so, in turn, did the ushers of Queen
Marguerite’s chamber when Queen Blanche came thither, so that she might
find Queen Marguerite there.  One day the king was with the queen his
wife, and she was in great peril of death, for that she had suffered from
a child of which she had been delivered.  Queen Blanche came in, and took
her son by the hand, and said to him, ‘Come you away; you are doing no
good here.’  When Queen Marguerite saw that the queen-mother was taking
the king away, she cried, ‘Alas! neither dead nor alive will you let me
see my lord; and thereupon she swooned, and it was thought that she was
dead.  The king, who thought she was dying, came back, and with great
pains she was brought round.”

Louis gave to his wife consolation and to his mother support.  Amongst
the noblest souls and in the happiest lives there are wounds which cannot
be healed and sorrows which must be borne in silence.

When Louis reached his majority, his entrance upon personal exercise of
the kingly power produced no change in the conduct of public affairs.
There was no vain seeking after innovation on purpose to mark the
accession of a new master, and no reaction in the deeds and words of the
sovereign or in the choice and treatment of his advisers; the kingship of
the son was a continuance of the mother’s government.  Louis persisted in
struggling for the preponderance of the crown against the great vassals;
succeeded in taming Peter Mauclerc, the turbulent Count of Brittany;
wrung from Theobald IV., Count of Champagne, the rights of suzerainty in
the countships of Chartres, Blois, and Sancerre, and the viscountship of
Chateaudun, and purchased the fertile countship of Macon from its
possessor.  It was almost always by pacific procedure, by negotiations
ably conducted, and conventions faithfully executed, that he accomplished
these increments of the kingly domain; and when he made war on any of the
great vassals, he engaged therein only on their provocation, to maintain
the rights or honor of his crown, and he used victory with as much
moderation as he had shown before entering upon the struggle.  In 1241,
he was at Poitiers, where his brother Alphonso, the new Count of Poitou,
was to receive, in his presence, the homage of the neighboring lords
whose suzerain he was.  A confidential letter arrived, addressed not to
Louis himself, but to Queen Blanche, whom many faithful subjects
continued to regard as the real regent of the kingdom, and who probably
continued also to have her own private agents.  An inhabitant of
Rochelle, at any rate, wrote to inform the queen-mother that a great
plot was being hatched amongst certain powerful lords, of La Marche,
Saintonge, Angoumois, and perhaps others, to decline doing homage to the
new Count of Poitou, and thus to enter into rebellion against the king
himself.  The news was true, and was given with circumstantial detail.
Hugh de Lusignan, Count of La Marche, and the most considerable amongst
the vassals of the Count of Poitiers, was, if not the prime mover, at any
rate the principal performer in the plot.  His wife, Joan (Isabel) of
Angouleme, widow of the late King of England, John Lackland, and mother
of the reigning king, Henry III., was indignant at the notion of becoming
a vassal of a prince himself a vassal of the King of France, and so
seeing herself--herself but lately a queen, and now a king’s widow and a
king’s mother--degraded, in France, to a rank below that of the Countess
of Poitiers.  When her husband, the Count of La Marche, went and rejoined
her at Angouleme, he found her giving way alternately to anger and tears,
tears and anger.  “Saw you not,” said she, “at Poitiers, where I waited
three days to please your king and his queen, how that when I appeared
before them, in their chamber, the king was seated on one side of the
bed, and the queen, with the Countess of Chartres, and her sister, the
abbess, on the other side: They did not call me nor bid me sit with them,
and that purposely, in order to make me vile in the eyes of so many folk.
And neither at my coming in nor at my going out did they rise just a
little from their scats, rendering me vile, as you did see yourself.  I
cannot speak of it, for grief and shame.  And it will be my death, far
more even than the less of our land which they have unworthily wrested
from us; unless, by God’s grace, they do repent them, and I see them in
their turn reduced to desolation, and losing somewhat of their own lands.
As for me, either I will lose all I have for that end or I will perish in
the attempt.”  Queen Blanche’s correspondent added, “The Count of La
Marche, whose kindness you know, seeing the countess in tears, said to
her, ‘Madam, give your commands: I will do all I can; be assured of
that.’  ‘Else,’ said she, ‘you shall not come near my person, and I will
never see you more.’  Then the count declared, with many curses, that he
would do what his wife desired.”

And he was as good as his word.  That same year, 1241, at the end of the
autumn, “the new Count of Poitiers, who was holding his court for the
first time, did not fail to bid to his feasts all the nobility of his
appanage, and, amongst the very first, the Count and Countess of La
Marche.  They repaired to Poitiers; but, four days before Christmas, when
the court of Count Alphonso had received all its guests, the Count of La
Marche, mounted on his war-horse, with his wife on the crupper behind
him, and escorted by his men-at-arms also mounted, cross-bow in hand and
in readiness for battle, was seen advancing to the prince’s presence.
Every one was on the tiptoe of expectation as to what would come next.
Then the Count of La Marche addressed himself in a loud voice to the
Count of Poitiers, saying, ‘I might have thought, in a moment of
forgetfulness and weakness, to render thee homage; but now I swear to
thee, with a resolute heart, that I will never be thy liegeman; thou dost
unjustly dub thyself my lord; thou didst shamefully filch this countship
from my step-son, Earl Richard, whilst he was faithfully fighting for God
in the Holy Land, and was delivering our captives by his discretion and
his compassion.’  After this insolent declaration, the Count of La Marche
violently thrust aside, by means of his men-at-arms, all those who barred
his passage; hasted, by way of parting insult, to fire the lodging
appointed for him by Count Alphonso, and, followed by his people, left
Poitiers at a gallop.”  (_Histoire de Saint Louis,_ by M. Felix Faure,
t. i.  p. 347.)

[Illustration: De la Marche’s parting Insult----126]

This meant war; and it burst out at the commencement of the following
spring.  It found Louis equally well prepared for it and determined to
carry it through.  But in him prudence and justice were as little to seek
as resolution; he respected public opinion, and he wished to have the
approval of those whom he called upon to commit themselves for him and
with him.  He summoned the crown’s vassals to a parliament; and, “What
think you,” he asked them, “should be done to a vassal who would fain
hold land without owning a lord, and who goeth against the fealty and
homage due from him and his predecessors?”  The answer was, that the lord
ought in that case to take back the fief as his own property.  “As my
name is Louis,” said the king, “the Comet of La Marche doth claim to hold
land in such wise, land which hath been a fief of France since the days
of the valiant King Clovis, who won all Aquitaine from King Alaric, a
pagan without faith or creed, and all the country to the Pyrenean mount.”
 And the barons promised the king their energetic co-operation.

The war was pushed on zealously by both sides.  Henry III., King of
England, sent to Louis messengers charged to declare to him that his
reason for breaking the truce concluded between them was, that he
regarded it as his duty towards his step-father, the Count of La Marche,
to defend him by arms.  Louis answered that, for his own part, he had
scrupulously observed the truce, and had no idea of breaking it; but he
considered that he had a perfect right to punish a rebellious vassal.  In
this young King of France, this docile son of an able mother, none knew
what a hero there was, until he revealed himself on a sudden.  Near two
towns of Saintonge, Taillebourg and Saintes, at a bridge which covered
the approaches of one and in front of the walls of the other, Louis, on
the 21st and 22d of July, delivered two battles, in which the brilliancy
of his personal valor and the affectionate enthusiasm he excited in his
troops secured victory and the surrender of the two places.  “At sight of
the numerous banners, above which rose the oriflamme, close to
Taillebourg, and of such a multitude of tents, one pressing against
another and forming as it were a large and populous city, the King of
England turned sharply to the Count of La Marche, saying, ‘My father, is
this what you did promise me?  Is yonder the numerous chivalry that you
did engage to raise for me, when you said that all I should have to do
would be to get money together?’  ‘That did I never say,’ answered the
count.  ‘Yea, verily,’ rejoined Richard, Earl of Cornwall, brother of
Henry III.: ‘for yonder I have amongst my baggage writing of your own to
such purport.’  And when the Count of La Marche energetically denied that
he had ever signed or sent such writing, Henry III. reminded him bitterly
of the messages he had sent to England, and of his urgent exhortations to
war.  ‘It was never done with my consent,’ cried the Count of La Marche,
with an oath; ‘put the blame of it upon your mother, who is my wife; for,
by the gullet of God, it was all devised without my knowledge.’”

It was not Henry III. alone who was disgusted with the war in which his
mother had involved him; the majority of the English lords who had
accompanied him left him, and asked the King of France for permission to
pass through his kingdom on their way home.  There were those who would
have dissuaded Louis from compliance; but, “Let them go,” said he;
“I would ask nothing better than that all my foes should thus depart
forever far away from my abode.”  Those about him made merry over Henry
III., a refugee at Bordeaux, deserted by the English and plundered by the
Gascons.  “Hold! hold! said Louis; “turn him not into ridicule, and make
me not hated of him by reason of your banter; his charities and his piety
shall exempt him from all contumely.”  The Count of La Marche lost no
time in asking for peace; and Louis granted it with the firmness of a
far-seeing politician and the sympathetic feeling of a Christian.  He
required that the domains he had just wrested from the count should
belong to the crown, and to the Count of Poitiers, under the suzerainty
of the crown.  As for the rest of his lands, the Count of La Marche, his
wife and children, were obliged to beg a grant of them at the good
pleasure of the king, to whom the count was, further, to give up, as
guarantee for fidelity in future, three castles, in which a royal
garrison should be kept at the count’s expense.  When introduced into the
king’s presence, the count, his wife, and children, “with sobs, and
sighs, and tears, threw themselves upon their knees before him, and began
to cry aloud, ‘Most gracious sir, forgive us thy wrath and thy
displeasure, for we have done wickedly and pridefully towards thee.’
And the king, seeing the Count of La Marche such humble guise before him,
could not restrain his compassion amidst his wrath, but made him rise up,
and forgave him graciously all the evil he had wrought against him.”

A prince who knew so well how to conquer and how to treat the conquered
might have been tempted to make an unfair use, alternately, of his
victories and of his clemency, and to pursue his advantages beyond
measure; but Louis was in very deed a Christian.  When War was not either
a necessity or a duty, this brave and brilliant knight, from sheer equity
and goodness of heart, loved peace rather than war.  The successes he had
gained in his campaign of 1242 were not for him the first step in an
endless career of glory and conquest; he was anxious only to consolidate
them whilst securing, in Western Europe, for the dominions of his
adversaries, as well as for his own, the benefits of peace.  He entered
into negotiations, successively, with the Count of La Marche, the King of
England, the Count of Toulouse, the King of Aragon, and the various
princes and great feudal lords who had been more or less engaged in the
war; and in January, 1213, says the latest and most enlightened of his
biographers, “the treaty of Lorris marked the end of feudal troubles for
the whole duration of St. Louis’s reign.  He drew his sword no more, save
only against the enemies of the Christian faith and Christian
civilization, the Mussulmans.”  (_Histoire de St. Louis,_ by M. Felix
Faure, t. i.  p. 388.)

Nevertheless there was no lack of opportunities for interfering with a
powerful arm amongst the sovereigns his neighbors, and for working their
disagreements to the profit of his ambition, had ambition guided his
conduct.  The great struggle between the Empire and the Papacy, in the
persons of Frederick II., Emperor of Germany, and the two popes, Gregory
IX. and Innocent IV., was causing violent agitation in Christendom, the
two powers setting no bounds to their aspirations of getting the dominion
one over the other, and of disposing one of the other’s fate.  Scarcely
had Louis reached his majority when, in 1237, he tried his influence with
both sovereigns to induce them to restore peace to the Christian world.
He failed; and thenceforth he preserved a scrupulous neutrality towards
each.  The principles of international law, especially in respect of a
government’s interference in the contests of its neighbors, whether
princes or peoples, were not, in the thirteenth century, systematically
discussed and defined as they are nowadays with us; but the good sense
and the moral sense of St. Louis caused him to adopt, on this point, the
proper course, and no temptation, not even that of satisfying his fervent
piety, drew him into any departure from it.  Distant or friendly, by
turns, towards the two adversaries, according as they tried to intimidate
him or win him over to them, his permanent care was to get neither the
State nor the Church of France involved in the struggle between the
priesthood and the empire, and to maintain the dignity of his crown and
the liberties of his subjects, whilst employing his influence to make
prevalent throughout Christendom a policy of justice and peace.

That was the policy required, in the thirteenth century more than ever,
by the most urgent interests of entire Christendom.

She was at grips with two most formidable foes and perils.  Through the
crusades she had, from the end of the eleventh century, become engaged in
a deadly struggle against the Mussulmans in Asia; and in the height of
this struggle, and from the heart of this same Asia, there spread,
towards the middle of the thirteenth century, over Eastern Europe, in
Russia, Poland, Hungary, Bohemia, and Germany, a barbarous and very
nearly pagan people, the Mongol Tartars, sweeping onward like an
inundation of blood, ravaging and threatening with complete destruction
all the dominions which were penetrated by their hordes.  The name and
description of these barbarians, the fame and dread of their
devastations, ran rapidly through the whole of Christian Europe.  “What
must we do in this sad plight?” asked Queen Blanche of the king, her son.
“We must, my mother,” answered Louis (with sorrowful voice, but not
without divine inspiration, adds the chronicler), “we must be sustained
by a heavenly consolation.  If these Tartars, as we call them, arrive
here, either we will hurl them back to Tartarus, their home, whence they
are come, or they shall send us up to Heaven.”  About the same period,
another cause of disquietude and another feature of attraction came to be
added to all those which turned the thoughts and impassioned piety of
Louis towards the East.  The perils of the Latin empire of
Constantinople, founded, as has been already mentioned, in 1204, under
the headship of Baldwin, Count of Flanders, were becoming day by day more
serious.  Greeks, Mussulmans, and Tartars were all pressing it equally
hard.  In 1236, the emperor, Baldwin II., came to solicit in person the
support of the princes of Western Europe, and especially of the young
King of France, whose piety and chivalrous ardor were already celebrated
everywhere.  Baldwin possessed a treasure, of great power over the
imaginations and convictions of Christians, in the crown of thorns worn
by Jesus Christ during His passion.  He had already put it in pawn at
Venice for a considerable loan advanced to him by the Venetians; and he
now offered it to Louis in return for effectual aid in men and money.
Louis accepted the proposal with transport.  He had been scared, a short
time ago, at the chance of losing another precious relic deposited in the
abbey of St. Denis, one of the nails which, it was said, had held Our
Lord’s body upon the cross.  It had been mislaid one ceremonial day
whilst it was being exhibited to the people; and, when he recovered it,
“I would rather,” said Louis, “that the best city in my kingdom had been
swallowed up in the earth.”  After having taken all the necessary
precautions for avoiding any appearance of a shameful bargain, he
obtained the crown of thorns, all expenses included, for eleven thousand
livres of Paris, that is, they say, about twenty-six thousand dollars of
our money.  Our century cannot have any fellow-feeling with such ready
credulity, which is not required by Christian faith or countenanced by
sound criticism; but we can and we ought to comprehend such sentiments in
an age when men not only had profound faith in the facts recorded in the
Gospels, but could not believe themselves to be looking upon the smallest
tangible relic of those facts without experiencing an emotion and a
reverence as profound as their faith.  It is to such sentiments that we
owe one of the most perfect and most charming monuments of the middle
ages, _the Holy Chapel,_ which St. Louis had built between 1245 and 1248
in order to deposit there the precious relics he had collected.  The
king’s piety had full justice and honor done it by the genius of the
architect, Peter de llontreuil, who, no doubt, also shared his faith.

It was after the purchase of the crown of thorns and the building of _the
Holy Chapel_ that Louis, accomplishing at last the desire of his soul,
departed on his first crusade.  We have already gone over the
circumstances connected with his determination, his departure, and his
life in the East, during the six years of pious adventure and glorious
disaster he passed there.  We have already seen what an impression of
admiration and respect was produced throughout his kingdom when he was
noticed to have brought back with him from the Holy Land “a fashion of
living and doing superior to his former behavior, although in his youth
he had always been good and innocent and worthy of high esteem.”  These
expressions of his confessor are fully borne out by the deeds and laws,
the administration at home and the relations abroad, by the whole
government, in fact, of St. Louis during the last fifteen years of his
reign.  The idea which was invariably conspicuous and constantly
maintained during his reign was not that of a premeditated and ambitious
policy, ever tending towards an interested object which is pursued with
more or less reasonableness and success, and always with a large amount
of trickery and violence on the part of the prince, of unrighteousness in
his deeds, and of suffering on the part of the people.  Philip Augustus,
the grandfather, and Philip the Handsome, the grandson, of St. Louis, the
former with the moderation of an able man, the latter with headiness and
disregard of right or wrong, labored both of them without cessation to
extend the domains and power of the crown, to gain conquests over their
neighbors and their vassals, and to destroy the social system of their
age, the feudal system, its rights as well as its wrongs and tyrannies,
in order to put in its place pure monarchy, and to exalt the kingly
authority above all liberties, whether of the aristocracy or of the
people.  St. Louis neither thought of nor attempted anything of the kind;
he did not make war, at one time openly, at another secretly, upon the
feudal system; he frankly accepted its principles, as he found them
prevailing in the facts and the ideas of his times.  Whilst fully bent on
repressing with firmness his vassals’ attempts to shake themselves free
from their duties towards him, and to render themselves independent of
the crown, he respected their rights, kept his word to them scrupulously,
and required of them nothing but what they really owed him.  Into his
relations with foreign sovereigns, his neighbors, he imported the same
loyal spirit.  “Certain of his council used to tell him,” reports
Joinville, “that he did not well in not leaving those foreigners to their
warfare; for, if he gave them his good leave to impoverish one another,
they would not attack him so readily as if they were rich.  To that the
king replied that they said not well; for, quoth he, if the neighboring
princes perceived that I left them to their warfare, they might take
counsel amongst themselves, and say, ‘It is through malice that the king
leaves us to our warfare; then it might happen that by cause of the
hatred they would have against me, they would come and attack me, and I
might be a great loser there-by.  Without reckoning that I should thereby
earn the hatred of God, who says, ‘Blessed be the peacemakers!’  So well
established was his renown as a sincere friend of peace and a just
arbiter in great disputes between princes and peoples that his
intervention and his decisions were invited wherever obscure and
dangerous questions arose.  In spite of the brilliant victories which, in
1212, he had gained at Taillebourg and Saintes over Henry III., King of
England, he himself perceived, on his return from the East, that the
conquests won by his victories might at any moment become a fresh cause
of new and grievous wars, disastrous, probably, for one or the other of
the two peoples.  He conceived, therefore, the design of giving to a
peace which was so desirable a more secure basis by founding it upon a
transaction accepted on both sides as equitable.  And thus, whilst
restoring to the King of England certain possessions which the war of
1242 had lost to him, he succeeded in obtaining from him in return “as
well in his own name as in the names of his sons and their heirs, a
formal renunciation of all rights that he could pretend to over the duchy
of Normandy, the countships of Anjou, Maine, Touraine, Poitou, and,
generally, all that his family might have possessed on the continent,
except only the lands which the King of France restored to him by the
treaty and those which remained to him in Gascony.  For all these last
the King of England undertook to do liege-homage to the King of France,
in the capacity of peer of France and Duke of Aquitaine and to faithfully
fulfil the duties attached to a fief.”  When Louis made known this
transaction to his counsellors, “they were very much against it,” says
Joinville.  “It seemeth to us, sir,” said they to the king, “that, if you
think you have not a right to the conquest won by you and your
antecessors from the King of England, you do not make proper restitution
to the said king in not restoring to him the whole; and if you think you
have a right to it, it seemeth to us that you are a loser by all you
restore.”  “Sirs,” answered Louis, “I am certain that the antecessors of
the King of England did quite justly lose the conquest which I hold; and
as for the land I give him, I give it him not as a matter in which I am
bound to him or his heirs, but to make love between my children and his,
who are cousins-german.  And it seemeth to me that what I give him I turn
to good purpose, inasmuch as he was not my liegeman, and he hereby cometh
in amongst my liegeman.”  Henry III., in fact, went to Paris, having with
him the ratification of the treaty, and prepared to accomplish the
ceremony of homage.  “Louis received him as a brother, but without
sparing him aught of the ceremony, in which, according to the ideas of
the times, there was nothing humiliating any more than in the name of
vassal, which was proudly borne by the greatest lords.  It took place on
Thursday, December 4, 1259, in the royal enclosure stretching in front of
the palace, on the spot where at the present day is the Place Dauphine.
There was a great concourse of prelates, barons, and other personages
belonging to the two courts and the two nations.  The King of England,
on his knees, bareheaded, without cloak, belt, sword, or spurs, placed
his folded hands in those of the King of France his suzerain, and said to
him, ‘Sir, I become your liegeman with mouth and hands, and I swear and
promise you faith and loyalty, and to guard your right according to my
power, and to do fair justice at your summons or the summons of your
bailiff, to the best of my wit.’  Then the king kissed him on the mouth
and raised him up.”

[Illustration: ST. LOUIS MEDIATING BETWEEN HENRY III. AND HIS BARONS----
136]

Three years later Louis gave not only to the King of England, but to the
whole English nation, a striking proof of his judicious and true-hearted
equity.  An obstinate civil war was raging between Henry III. and his
barons.  Neither party, in defending its own rights, had any notion of
respecting the rights of its adversaries, and England was alternating
between a kingly and an aristocratic tyranny.  Louis, chosen as arbiter
by both sides, delivered solemnly, on the 23d of January, 1264, a
decision which was favorable to the English kingship, but at the same,
time expressly upheld the Great Charter and the traditional liberties of
England.  He concluded his decision with the following suggestions of
amnesty: “We will also that the King of England and his barons do forgive
one another mutually, that they do forget all the resentments that may
exist between them; by consequence of the matters submitted to our
arbitration, and that henceforth they do refrain reciprocally from an
offence and injury on account of the same matters.”  But when men have
had their ideas, passions, and interests profoundly agitated and made to
clash, the wisest decisions and the most honest counsels in the world are
not sufficient to re-establish peace; the cup of experience has to be
drunk to the dregs; and the parties are not resigned to peace until on or
the other, or both, have exhausted themselves in the struggle and
perceive the absolute necessity of accepting either defeat compromise.
In spite of the arbitration of the King of France the civil war continued
in England; but Louis did not seek any way to profit by it so as to
extend, at the expense of his neighbors, his own possessions or power;
he held himself also from their quarrels, and followed up by honest
neutrality ineffectual arbitration.  Five centuries afterwards the great
English historian, Hume, rendered him due homage in these terms: “Every
time this virtuous prince interfered in the affairs of England, it was
invariably with the view of settling differences between the king and the
nobility.  Adopting an admirable course of conduct, as politic probably
as it certainly was just, he never interposed his good offices save to
put an end the disagreements of the English; he seconded all the measures
which could give security to both parties, and he made persistent
efforts, though without success, to moderate the fiery ambition of the
Earl of Leicester.”  (Hume, _History of England,_ t. ii.  p. 465.)

It requires more than political wisdom, more even than virtue, to enable
a king, a man having in charge the government of men, to accomplish his
mission and to really deserve the title of Most Christian; it requires
that he should be animated by a sentiment of affection, and that he
should, in heart as well as mind, be in sympathy with those multitudes of
creatures over whose lot he exercises so much influence.  St. Louis more
perhaps than any other king was possessed of this generous and humane
quality: spontaneously and by the free impulse of his nature he loved his
people, loved mankind, and took a tender and comprehensive interest in
their fortunes, their joys, or their miseries.  Being seriously ill in
1259, and desiring to give his eldest son, Prince Louis, whom he lost in
the following year, his last and most heartfelt charge, “Fair son,” said
he, “I pray thee make thyself beloved of the people of thy kingdom, for
verily I would rather a Scot should come from Scotland and govern our
people well and loyally than have thee govern it ill.”  To watch over the
position and interests of all parties in his dominions, and to secure to
all his subjects strict and prompt justice, this was what continually
occupied the mind of Louis IX.  There are to be found in his biography
two very different but equally striking proofs of his solicitude in this
respect.  M. Felix Faure has drawn up a table of all the journeys made by
Louis in France, from 1254 to 1270, for the better cognizance of matters
requiring his attention, and another of the parliaments which he held,
during the same period, for considering the general affairs of the
kingdom and the administration of justice.  Not one of these sixteen
years passed without his visiting several of his provinces, and the year
1270 was the only one in which he did not hold a parliament.  (_Histoire
de Saint Louis,_ by M. Felix Faure, t. ii.  pp. 120, 339.) Side by side
with this arithmetical proof of his active benevolence we will place a
moral proof taken from Joinville’s often-quoted account of St. Louis’s
familiar intervention in his subjects’ disputes about matters of private
interest.  “Many a time,” says he, “it happened in summer that the king
went and sat down in the wood of Vincennes after mass, and leaned against
an oak, and made us sit down round about him.  And all those who had
business came to speak to him without restraint of usher or other folk.
And then he demanded of them with his own mouth, ‘Is there here any who
hath a suit?’ and they who had their suit rose up; and then he said,
‘Keep silence, all of ye; and ye shall have despatch one after the
other.’  And then he called my Lord Peter de Fontaines and my Lord
Geoffrey de Villette (two learned lawyers of the day and counsellors of
St. Louis), and said to one of them, ‘Despatch me this suit.’  And when
he saw aught to amend in the words of those who were speaking for
another, he himself amended it with his own mouth.  I sometimes saw in
summer that, to despatch his people’s business, he went into the Paris
garden, clad in camlet coat and linsey surcoat without sleeves, a mantle
of black taffety round his neck, hair right well combed and without coif,
and on his head a hat with white peacock’s plumes.  And he had carpets
laid for us to sit round about him.  And all the people who had business
before him set themselves standing around him; and then he had their
business despatched in the manner I told you of before as to the wood of
Vincennes.”  (Joinville, chap.  xii.)

The active benevolence of St. Louis was not confined to this paternal
care for the private interests of such subjects as approached his person;
he was equally attentive and zealous in the case of measures called for
by the social condition of the times and the general interests of the
kingdom.  Amongst the twenty-six government ordinances, edicts, or
letters, contained under the date of his reign in the first volume of the
_Recueil des Ordonnances des Rois de France,_ seven, at the least, are
great acts of legislation and administration of a public kind; and these
acts are all of such a stamp as to show that their main object is not to
extend the power of the crown or subserve the special interests of the
kingship at strife with other social forces; they are real reforms, of
public and moral interest, directed against the violence, disturbances,
and abuses of the feudal system.  Many other of St. Louis’s legislative
and administrative acts have been published either in subsequent volumes
of the _Recueil des Ordonnances des Rois,_ or in similar collections, and
the learned have drawn attention to a great number of them still
remaining unpublished in various archives.  As for the large collection
of legislative enactments known by the name of _Etailissements de Saint
Louis,_ it is probably a lawyer’s work, posterior, in great part at
least, to his reign, full of incoherent and even contradictory
enactments, and without any claim to be considered as a general code of
law of St. Louis’s date and collected by his order, although the
paragraph which serves as preface to the work is given under his name and
as if it had been dictated by him.

Another act, known by the name of the Pragmatic Sanction, has likewise
got placed, with the date of March, 1268, in the _Recueil des Ordonnances
des Rois de France,_ as having originated with St. Louis.  Its object is,
first of all, to secure the rights, liberties, and canonical rules,
internally, of the Church of France; and, next, to interdict “the
exactions and very heavy money-charges which have been imposed or may
hereafter be imposed on the said Church by the court of Rome, and by the
which our kingdom hath been miserably impoverished; unless they take
place for reasonable, pious, and very urgent cause, through inevitable
necessity, and with our spontaneous and express consent and that of the
Church of our kingdom.”  The authenticity of this act, vigorously
maintained in the seventeenth century by Bossuet (in his _Defense de la
Declaration du Clerge de France de 1682,_ chap. ix.  t. xliii.  p. 26),
and in our time by M. Daunou (in the _Histoire litteraire de la France,
continuee par des Hembres de l’Institut,_ t. xvi.  p. 75, and t. xix.
p. 169), has been and still is rendered doubtful for strong reasons,
which M. Felix Faure, in his _Histoire de Saint Louis_ (t. ii.  p. 271),
has summed up with great clearness.  There is no design of entering here
upon an examination of this little historical problem; but it is a
bounden duty to point out that, if the authenticity of the Pragmatic
Sanction, as St. Louis’s, is questionable, the act has, at bottom,
nothing but what bears a very strong resemblance to, and is quite in
conformity with, the general conduct of that prince.  He was profoundly
respectful, affectionate, and faithful towards the papacy, but, at the
same time, very careful in upholding both the independence of the crown
in things temporal, and its right of superintendence in things spiritual.
Attention has been drawn to his posture of reserve during the great
quarrel between the priestdom and the empire, and his firmness in
withstanding the violent measures adopted by Gregory IX. and Innocent IV.
against the Emperor Frederick II.  Louis carried his notions, as to the
independence of his judgment and authority, very far beyond the cases in
which that policy went hand in hand with interest, and even into purely
religious questions.  The Bishop of Auxerre said to him one day, in the
name of several prelates, “‘Sir, these lords which be here, archbishops
and bishops, have told me to tell you that Christianity is perishing in
your hands.’  The king crossed himself and said,  Well, tell me how that
is made out!’  ‘Sir,’ said the bishop, ‘it is because nowadays so little
note is taken of excommunications, that folk let death overtake them
excommunicate without getting absolution, and have no mind to make
atonement to the Church.  These lords, therefore, do pray you, sir, for
the love of God and because you ought to do so, to command your provosts
and bailiffs that all those who shall remain a year and a day
excommunicate be forced, by seizure of their goods, to get themselves
absolved.’  Whereto the king made answer that he would willingly command
this in respect of the excommunicate touching whom certain proofs should
be given him that they were in the wrong.  The bishop said that the
prelates would not have this at any price, and that they disputed the
king’s right of jurisdiction in their causes.  And the king said that he
would not do it else; for it would be contrary to God and reason if he
should force folks to get absolution when the clergy had done them wrong.
As to that,’ said the king, ‘I will give you the example of the Count of
Brittany, who for seven years, being fully excommunicate, was at pleas
with the prelates of Brittany; and he prevailed so far that the pope
condemned them all.  If, then, I had forced the Count of Brittany, the
first year, to get absolution, I should have sinned against God and
against him.’  Then the prelates gave up; and never since that time have
I heard that a single demand was made touching the matters above spoken
of.”  (Joinville, chap.  xiii.  p.  43.)

One special fact in the civil and municipal administration of St. Louis
deserves to find a place in history.  After the time of Philip Augustus
there was malfeasance in the police of Paris.  The provostship of Paris,
which comprehended functions analogous to those of prefect, mayor, and
receiver-general, became a purchasable office, filled sometimes by two
provosts at a time.  The burghers no longer found justice or security in
the city where the king resided.  At his return from his first crusade,
Louis recognized the necessity for applying a remedy to this evil; the
provostship ceased to be a purchasable office; and he made it separate
from the receivership of the royal domain.  In 1258 he chose as provost
Stephen Boileau, a burgher of note and esteem in Paris; and in order to
give this magistrate the authority of which he had need, the king
sometimes came and sat beside him when he was administering justice at
the Chatelet.  Stephen Boileau justified the king’s confidence, and
maintained so strict a police that he had his own godson hanged for
theft.  His administrative foresight was equal to his judicial severity.
He established registers wherein were to be inscribed the rules
habitually followed in respect of the organization and work of the
different corporations of artisans, the tariffs of the dues charged, in
the name of the king, upon the admittance of provisions and merchandise,
and the titles on which the abbots and other lords founded the privileges
they enjoyed within the walls of Paris.  The corporations of artisans,
represented by their sworn masters or prud’hommes, appeared one after the
other before the provost to make declaration of the usages in practice
amongst their communities, and to have them registered in the book
prepared for that purpose.  This collection of regulations relating to
the arts and trades of Paris in the thirteenth century, known under the
name of _Livre des Metiers d’Etienne Boileau,_ is the earliest monument
of industrial statistics drawn up by the French administration, and it
was inserted, for the first time in its entirety, in 1837, amongst the
_Collection des Documents relatifs d l’Histoire de France,_ published
during M. Guizot’s ministry of public instruction.

St. Louis would be but very incompletely understood if we considered him
only in his political and kingly aspect; we must penetrate into his
private life, and observe his personal intercourse with his family, his
household, and his people, if we would properly understand and appreciate
all the originality and moral worth of his character and his life.
Mention has already been made of his relations towards the two queens,
his mother and his wife; and, difficult as they were, they were
nevertheless always exemplary.  Louis was a model of conjugal fidelity,
as well as of filial piety.  He had by Queen Marguerite eleven children,
six sons and five daughters; he loved her tenderly, he never severed
himself from her, and the modest courage she displayed in the first
crusade rendered her still dearer to him.  But he was not blind to her
ambitious tendencies, and to the insufficiency of her qualifications for
government.  When he made ready for his second crusade, not only did he
not confide to Queen Marguerite the regency of the kingdom, but he even
took care to regulate her expenses, and to curb her passion for
authority.  He forbade her to accept any present for herself or her
children, to lay any commands upon the officers of justice, and to choose
any one for her service, or for that of her children, without the consent
of the council of the regency.  And he had reason so to act; for, about
this same time, Queen Marguerite, emulous of holding in the state the
same place that had been occupied by Queen Blanche, was giving all her
thoughts to what her situation would be after her husband’s death, and
was coaxing her eldest son, Philip, then sixteen years old, to make her a
promise on oath to remain under her guardianship up to thirty years of
age, to take to himself no counsellor without her approval, to reveal to
her all designs which might be formed against her, to conclude no treaty
with his uncle, Charles of Anjou, King of Sicily, and to keep as a secret
the oath she was thus making him take.  Louis was probably informed of
this strange promise by his young son Philip himself, who got himself
released from it by Pope Urban IV.  At any rate, the king had a
foreshadowing of Queen Marguerite’s inclinations, and took precautions
for rendering them harmless to the crown and the state.

As for his children, Louis occupied himself in thought and deed with
their education and their future, moral and social, showing as much
affection and assiduity as could have been displayed by any father of a
family, even the most devoted to this single task.  “After supper they
followed him into his chamber, where he made them sit down around him;
he instructed them in their duties, and then sent them away to bed.  He
drew their particular attention to the good and evil deeds of princes.
He, moreover, went to see then in their own apartment when he had any
leisure, informed himself as to the progress they were making, and, like
another Tobias, gave them excellent instructions.  .  .  .  On Holy
Thursday his sons used to wash, just as he used, the feet of thirteen of
the poor, give them a considerable sum as alms, and then wait upon them
at table.  The king having been minded to carry the first of the poor
souls to the Hotel-Dieu, at Compiegne, with the assistance of his son-in-
law, King Theobald of Navarre, whom he loved as a son, his two eldest
sons, Louis and Philip, carried the second thither.”  They were wont to
behave towards him in the most respectful manner.  He would have all of
them, even Theobald, yield him strict obedience in that which he enjoined
upon them.  He desired anxiously that the three children born to him in
the East, during his first crusade, John Tristan, Peter, and Blanche, and
even Isabel, his eldest daughter, should enter upon the cloistered life,
which he looked upon as the safest for their salvation.  He exhorted them
thereto, especially his daughter Isabel, many and many a time, in letters
equally tender and pious; but, as they testified no taste for it, he made
no attempt to force their inclinations, and concerned himself only about
having them well married, not forgetting to give them good appanages,
and, for their life in the world, the most judicious counsels.  The
instructions, written with his own hand in French, which he committed to
his eldest son, Philip, as soon as he found himself so seriously ill
before Tunis, are a model of virtue, wisdom, and tenderness on the part
of a father, a king, and a Christian.

Pass we from the king’s family to the king’s household, and from the
children to the servitors of St. Louis.  We have here no longer the
powerful tie of blood, and of that feeling, at the same time personal and
yet disinterested, which is experienced by parents on seeing themselves
living over again in their children.  Far weaker motives, mere kindness
and custom, unite masters to their servants, and stamp a moral character
upon the relations between them; but with St. Louis, so great was his
kindness, that it resembled affection, and caused affection to spring up
in the hearts of those who were the objects of it.  At the same time that
he required in his servitors an almost austere morality, he readily
passed over in silence their little faults, and treated them, in such
cases, not only with mildness, but with that consideration which, in the
humblest conditions, satisfies the self-respect of people, and elevates
them in their own eyes.  “Louis used to visit his domestics when they
were ill; and when they died he never failed to pray for them, and to
commend them to the prayers of the faithful.  He had the mass for the
dead, which it was his custom to hear every day, sung for them.”  He had
taken back an old servitor of his grandfather, Philip Augustus, whom that
king had dismissed because his fire sputtered, and John, whose duty it
was to attend to it, did not know how to prevent that slight noise.
Louis was, from time to time, subject to a malady, during which his right
leg, from the ankle to the calf, became inflamed, as red as blood, and
painful.  One day, when he had an attack of this complaint, the king, as
he lay, wished to make a close inspection of the redness in his leg; as
John was clumsily holding a lighted candle close to the king, a drop of
hot grease fell on the bad leg; and the king, who had sat up on his bed,
threw himself back, exclaiming, “Ah! John, John, my grandfather turned
you out of his house for a less matter!” and the clumsiness of John drew
down upon him no other chastisement save this exclamation.  (_Vie de
Saint Louis,_ by Queen Marguerite’s confessor; _Recueiz des Historiens de
France,_ t. xx.  p. 105; _Vie de Saint Louis,_ by Lenain de Tillemont,
t. v.  p. 388.)

Far away from the king’s household and service, and without any personal
connection with him, a whole people, the people of the poor, the infirm,
the sick, the wretched, and the neglected of every sort occupied a
prominent place in the thoughts and actions of Louis.  All the
chroniclers of the age, all the historians of his reign, have celebrated
his charity as much as his piety; and the philosophers of the eighteenth
century almost forgave him his taste for relics, in consideration of his
beneficence.  And it was not merely legislative and administrative
beneficence; St. Louis did not confine himself to founding and endowing
hospitals, hospices, asylums, the Hotel-Dieu at Pontoise, that at Vernon,
that at Compiegne, and, at Paris, the house of Quinze-Vingts, for three
hundred blind, but he did not spare his person in his beneficence, and
regarded no deed of charity as beneath a king’s dignity.  Every day,
wherever the king went, one hundred and twenty-two of the poor received
each two loaves, a quart of wine, meat or fish for a good dinner, and a
Paris denier.  The mothers of families had a loaf more for each child.
Besides these hundred and twenty-two poor having out-door relief,
thirteen others were every day introduced into the hotel, and there lived
as the king’s officers; and three of them sat at table at the same time
with the king, in the same hall as he, and quite close.”  .  .  .  “Many
a time,” says Joinville, “I saw him cut their bread, and give them to
drink.  He asked me one day if I washed the feet of the poor on Holy
Thursday.  ‘Sir,’ said I, ‘what a benefit!  The feet of those knaves!
Not I.’  ‘Verily,’ said he, ‘that is ill said, for you ought not to hold
in disdain what God did for our instruction.  I pray you, therefore, for
love of me accustom yourself to wash them.’”  Sometimes, when the king
had leisure, he used to say, “Come and visit the poor in such and such a
place, and let us feast them to their hearts’ content.”  Once when he
went to Chateauneuf-sur-Loire, a poor old woman, who was at the door of
her cottage, and held in her hand a loaf, said to him, “Good king, it is
of this bread, which comes of thine alms, that my husband, who lieth sick
yonder indoors, doth get sustenance.”  The king took the bread, saying,
“It is rather hard bread.”  And he went into the cottage to see with his
own eyes the sick man.

[Illustration: “It is rather hard Bread.”----146]

When he was visiting the churches one Holy Friday, at Compiegne, as he
was going that day barefoot according to his custom, and distributing
alms to the poor whom he met, he perceived, on the yonder side of a miry
pond which filled a portion of the street, a leper, who, not daring to
come near, tried, nevertheless, to attract the king’s attention.  Louis
walked through the pond, went up to the leper, gave him some money, took
his hand and kissed it.  “All present,” says the chronicler, “crossed
themselves for admiration at seeing this holy temerity of the king, who
had no fear of putting his lips to a hand that none would have dared to
touch.”  In such deeds there was infinitely more than the goodness and
greatness of a kingly sold; there was in them that profound Christian
sympathy which is moved at the sight of any human creature suffering
severely in body or soul, and which, at such times, gives heed to no
fear, shrinks from no pains, recoils with no disgust, and has no other
thought but that of offering some fraternal comfort to the body or the
soul that is suffering.

He who thus felt and acted was no monk, no prince enwrapt in mere
devoutness and altogether given up to works and practices of piety; he
was a knight, a warrior, a politician, a true king, who attended to the
duties of authority as well as to those of charity, and who won respect
from his nearest friends as well as from strangers, whilst astonishing
them at one time by his bursts of mystic piety and monastic austerity,
at another by his flashes of the ruler’s spirit and his judicious
independence, even towards the representatives of the faith and Church
with whom he was in sympathy.  “He passed for the wisest man in all his
council.”  In difficult matters and on grave occasions none formed a
judgment with more sagacity, and what his intellect so well apprehended
he expressed with a great deal of propriety and grace.  He was, in
conversation, the nicest and most agreeable of men; “he was gay,” says
Joinville, “and when we were private at court, he used to sit at the foot
of his bed; and when the preachers and cordeliers who were there spoke to
him of a book he would like to hear, he said to them, ‘Nay, you shall not
read to me, for there is no book so good, after dinner, as talk _ad
libitum,_ that is, every one saying what he pleases.’ “Not that he was at
all averse from books and literates: “He was sometimes present at the
discourses and disputations of the University; but he took care to search
out for himself the truth in the word of God and in the traditions of the
Church.  .  .  .  Having found out, during his travels in the East, that
a Saracenic sultan had collected a quantity of books for the service of
the philosophers of his sect, he was shamed to see that Christians had
less zeal for getting instructed in the truth than infidels had for
getting themselves made dexterous in falsehood; so much so that, after
his return to France, he had search made in the abbeys for all the
genuine works of St. Augustin, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Gregory, and
other orthodox teachers, and, having caused copies of them to be made, he
had them placed in the treasury of Sainte-Chapelle.  He used to read them
when he had any leisure, and he readily lent them to those who might get
profit from them for themselves or for others.  Sometimes, at the end of
the afternoon meal, he sent for pious persons with whom he conversed
about God, about the stories in the Bible and the histories of the
saints, or about the lives of the Fathers.”  He had a particular
friendship for the learned Robert of Sorbon, founder of the Sorbonne,
whose idea was a society of secular ecclesiastics, who, living in common
and having the necessaries of life, should give themselves up entirely to
study and gratuitous teaching.  Not only did St. Louis give him every
facility and every aid necessary for the establishment of his learned
college, but he made him one of his chaplains, and often invited him to
his presence and his table in order to enjoy his conversation.  “One day
it happened,” says Joinville, “that Master Robert was taking his meal
beside me, and we were talking low.  The king reproved us, and said,
‘Speak up, for your company think that you may be talking evil of them.
If you speak, at meals, of things which should please us, speak up; if
not, be silent.’  “Another day, at one of their reunions, with the king
in their midst, Robert of Sorbon reproached Joinville with being “more
bravely clad than the king; for,” said he, “you do dress in furs and
green cloth, which the king doth not.”  Joinville defended himself
vigorously, in his turn attacking Robert for the elegance of his dress.
The king took the learned doctor’s part, and when he had gone, “My lord
the king,” says Joinville, “called his son, my lord Philip, and King
Theobald, sat him down at the entrance of his oratory, placed his hand on
the ground and said, ‘Sit ye down here close by me, that we be not
overheard;’ and then he told me that he had called us in order to confess
to us that he had wrongfully taken the part of Master Robert; for, just
as the seneschal [Joinville] saith, ye ought to be well and decently
clad, because your womankind will love you the better for it, and your
people will prize you the more; for, saith the wise man, it is right so
to bedeck one’s self with garments and armor that the proper men of this
world say not that there is too much made thereof, nor the young folk too
little.”  (Joinville, ch.  cxxxv.  p. 301; ch. v. and vi.  pp. 12 16;
t. v.  pp. 326, 364, and 368.)

Assuredly there was enough in such and so free an exercise of mind, in
such a rich abundance of thoughts and sentiments, in such a religious,
political, and domestic life, to occupy and satisfy a soul full of energy
and power.  But, as has already been said, an idea cherished with a
lasting and supreme passion, the idea of the crusade took entire
possession of St. Louis.  For seven years, after his return from the
East, from 1254 to 1261, he appeared to think no more of it; and there is
nothing to show that he spoke of it even to his most intimate confidants.
But, in spite of apparent tranquillity, he lived, so far, in a ferment of
imagination and a continual fever, resembling in that respect, though the
end aimed at was different, those great men, ambitious warriors or
politicians, of natures forever at boiling point, for whom nothing is
sufficient, and who are constantly fostering, beyond the ordinary course
of events, some vast and strange desire, the accomplishment of which
becomes for them a fixed idea and an insatiable passion.  As Alexander
and Napoleon were incessantly forming some new design, or, to speak more
correctly, some new dream of conquest and dominion, in the same way St.
Louis, in his pious ardor, never ceased to aspire to a re-entry of
Jerusalem, to the deliverance of the Holy Sepulchre, and to the victory
of Christianity over Mohammedanism in the East, always flattering himself
that some favorable circumstance would recall him to his interrupted
work.  It has already been told, at the termination, in the preceding
chapter, of the crusaders’ history, how he had reason to suppose, in
1261, that circumstances were responding to his desire; how he first of
all prepared, noiselessly and patiently, for his second crusade; how,
after seven years’ labor, less and less concealed as days went on, he
proclaimed his purpose, and swore to accomplish it in the following year;
and how at last, in the month of March, 1270, against the will of France,
of the pope, and even of the majority of his comrades, he actually set
out--to go and die, on the 25th of the following August, before Tunis,
without having dealt the Mussulmans of the East even the shadow of an
effectual blow, having no strength to do more than utter, from time to
time, as he raised himself on his bed, the cry of Jerusalem!  Jerusalem!
and, at the last moment, as he lay in sackcloth and ashes, pronouncing
merely these parting words: “Father, after the example of our Divine
Master, into Thy hands I commend my spirit!”  Even the crusader was
extinct in St. Louis; and only the Christian remained.

The world has seen upon the throne greater captains, more profound
politicians, vaster and more brilliant intellects, princes who have
exercised, beyond their own lifetime, a more powerful and a more lasting
influence than St. Louis; but it has never seen a rarer king, never seen
a man who could possess, as he did, sovereign power without contracting
the passions and vices natural to it, and who, in this respect, displayed
in his government human virtues exalted to the height of Christian.  For
all his moral sympathy, and superior as he was to his age, St. Louis,
nevertheless, shared, and even helped to prolong, two of its greatest
mistakes; as a Christian he misconceived the rights of conscience in
respect of religion, and, as a king, he brought upon his people
deplorable evils and perils for the sake of a fruitless enterprise.  War
against religious liberty was, for a long course of ages, the crime of
Christian communities and the source of the most cruel evils as well as
of the most formidable irreligious reactions the world has had to
undergo.  The thirteenth century was the culminating period of this fatal
notion and the sanction of it conferred by civil legislation as well as
ecclesiastical teaching.  St. Louis joined, so far, with sincere
conviction, in the general and ruling idea of his age; and the jumbled
code which bears the name of _Etablissements de Saint Louis,_ and in
which there are collected many ordinances anterior or posterior to his
reign, formally condemns heretics to death, and bids the civil judges to
see to the execution, in this respect, of the bishops’ sentences.  In
1255 St. Louis himself demanded of Pope Alexander IV. leave for the
Dominicans and Franciscans to exercise, throughout the whole kingdom, the
inquisition already established, on account of the Albigensians, in the
old domains of the Counts of Toulouse.  The bishops, it is true, were to
be consulted before condemnation could be pronounced by the inquisitors
against a heretic; but that was a mark of respect for the episcopate and
for the rights of the Gallican Church rather than a guarantee for liberty
of conscience; and such was St. Louis’s feeling upon this subject, that
liberty, or rather the most limited justice, was less to be expected from
the kingship than from the episcopate.  St. Louis’s extreme severity
towards what he called the knavish oath (_vilain serment_), that is,
blasphemy, an offence for which there is no definition save what is
contained in the bare name of it, is, perhaps, the most striking
indication of the state of men’s minds, and especially of the king’s, in
this respect.  Every blasphemer was to receive on his mouth the imprint
of a red-hot iron.  “One day the king had a burgher of Paris branded in
this way; and violent murmurs were raised in the capital and came to the
king’s ears.  He responded by declaring that he wished a like brand might
mark his lips, and that he might bear the shame of it all his life, if
only the vice of blasphemy might disappear from his kingdom.  Some time
afterwards, having had a work of great public utility executed, he
received, on that occasion, from the landlords of Paris numerous
expressions of gratitude.  ‘I expect,’ said he, ‘a greater recompense
from the Lord for the curses brought upon me by that brand inflicted upon
blasphemers than for the blessings I get because of this act of general
utility.’ “(Joinville, chap.  cxxxviii.; _Histoire de Saint Louis,_ by M.
Felix Faure, t. ii.  p. 300.)

Of all human errors those most in vogue are the most dangerous, for they
are just those from which the most superior minds have the greatest
difficulty in preserving themselves.  It is impossible to see, without
horror, into what aberrations of reason and of moral sense men otherwise
most enlightened and virtuous may be led away by the predominant ideas of
their age.  And the horror becomes still greater when a discovery is made
of the iniquities, sufferings, and calamities, public and private,
consequent upon the admission of such aberrations amongst the choice
spirits of the period.  In the matter of religious liberty, St. Louis is
a striking example of the vagaries which may be fallen into, under the
sway of public feeling, by the most equitable of minds and the most
scrupulous of consciences.  A solemn warning, in times of great
intellectual and popular ferment, for those men whose hearts are set on
independence in their thoughts as well as in their conduct, and whose
only object is justice and truth.

As for the crusades, the situation of Louis was with respect to them
quite different and his responsibility far more personal.  The crusades
had certainly, in their origin, been the spontaneous and universal
impulse of Christian Europe towards an object lofty, disinterested, and
worthy of the devotion of men; and St. Louis was, without any doubt, the
most lofty, disinterested, and heroic representative of this grand
Christian movement.  But towards the middle of the thirteenth century the
moral complexion of the crusades had already undergone great alteration;
the salutary effect they were to have exercised for the advancement of
European civilization still loomed obscurely in the distance; whilst
their evil results were already clearly manifesting themselves, and they
had no longer that beauty lent by spontaneous and general feeling which
had been their strength and their apology.  Weariness, doubt, and common
sense had, so far as this matter was concerned, done their work amongst
all classes of the feudal community.  As Sire de Joinville, so also had
many knights, honest burghers, and simple country-folks recognized the
flaws in the enterprise, and felt no more belief in its success.  It is
the glory of St. Louis that he was, in the thirteenth century, the
faithful and virtuous representative of the crusade such as it was when
it sprang from the womb of united Christendom, and when Godfrey de
Bouillon was its leader at the end of the eleventh.  It was the
misdemeanor of St. Louis, and a great error in his judgment, that he
prolonged, by his blindly prejudiced obstinacy, a movement which was more
and more inopportune and illegitimate, for it was becoming day by day
more factitious and more inane.

In the long line of kings of France, called Most Christian Kings, only
two, Charlemagne and Louis IX., have received the still more august title
of Saint.  As for Charlemagne, we must not be too exacting in the way of
proofs of his legal right to that title in the Catholic Church; he was
canonized, in 1165 or 1166, only by the anti-pope Pascal III., through
the influence of Frederick Barbarossa; and since that time, the
canonization of Charlemagne has never been officially allowed and
declared by any popes recognized as legitimate.  They tolerated and
tacitly admitted it, on account, no doubt, of the services rendered by
Charlemagne to the papacy.  But Charlemagne had ardent and influential
admirers outside the pale of popes and emperors; he was the great man and
the popular hero of the Germanic race in Western Europe.  His saintship
was welcomed with acclamation in a great part of Germany, where it had
always been religiously kept up.  Prom the earliest date of the
University of Paris, he had been the patron there of all students of the
German race.  In France, nevertheless, his position as a saint was still
obscure and doubtful, when Louis XI., towards the end of the fifteenth
century, by some motive now difficult to unravel, but probably in order
to take from his enemy, Charles the Rash, Duke of Burgundy, who was in
possession of the fairest provinces of Charlemagne’s empire, the
exclusive privilege of so great a memory, ordained that there should be
rendered to the illustrious emperor the honors due to the saints; and he
appointed the 28th of January for his feast-day, with a threat of the
penalty of death against all who should refuse conformity with the order.
Neither the command nor the threat of Louis XI. had any great effect.
It does not appear that, in the Church of France, the saintship of
Charlemagne was any the more generally admitted and kept up; but the
University of Paris faithfully maintained its traditions, and some two
centuries after Louis XI., in 1661, without expressly giving to
Charlemagne the title of saint, it loudly proclaimed him its patron, and
made his feast-day an annual and solemn institution, which, in spite of
some hesitation on the part of the parliament of Paris, and in spite of
the revolutions of our time, still exists as the grand feast-day
throughout the area of our classical studies.  The University of France
repaid Charlemagne for the service she had received from him; she
protected his saintship as he had protected her schools and her scholars.

The saintship of Louis IX. was not the object of such doubt, and had no
such need of learned and determined protectors.  Claimed as it was on the
very morrow of his death, not only by his son Philip III., called The
Bold, and by the barons and prelates of the kingdom, but also by the
public voice of France and of Europe, it at once became the subject of
investigations and deliberations on the part of the Holy See.  For
twenty-four years, new popes, filling in rapid succession the chair of
St. Peter (Gregory X., Innocent V., John XXI., Nicholas III., Martin IV.,
Honorius IV., Nicholas IV., St. Celestine V., and Boniface VIII.),
prosecuted the customary inquiries touching the faith and life, the
virtues and miracles, of the late king; and it was Boniface VIII., the
pope destined to carry on against Philip the Handsome, grandson of St.
Louis, the most violent of struggles, who decreed, on the 11th of August,
1297, the canonization of the most Christian amongst the kings of France,
and one of the truest Christians, king or simple, in France and in
Europe.

St. Louis was succeeded by his son, Philip III., a prince, no doubt, of
some personal valor, since he has retained in history the nickname of The
Bold, but not otherwise beyond mediocrity.  His reign had an unfortunate
beginning.  After having passed several months before Tunis, in slack and
unsuccessful continuation of his father’s crusade, he gave it up, and
re-embarked in November, 1270, with the remnants of an army anxious to
quit “that accursed land,” wrote one of the crusaders, “where we languish
rather than live, exposed to torments of dust, fury of winds, corruption
of atmosphere, and putrefaction of corpses.”  A tempest caught the fleet
on the coast of Sicily; and Philip lost, by it several vessels, four or
five thousand men, and all the money he had received from the Mussulmans
of Tunis as the price of his departure.  Whilst passing through Italy, at
Cosenza, his wife, Isabel of Aragon, six months gone with child, fell
from her horse, was delivered of a child which lived barely a few hours,
and died herself a day or two afterwards, leaving her husband almost as
sick as sad.  He at last arrived at Paris, on the 21st of May, 1271,
bringing back with him five royal biers, that of his father, that of his
brother, John Tristan, Count of Nevers, that of his brother-in-law, Theo-
bald King of Navarre, that of his wife, and that of his son.  The day
after his arrival he conducted them all in state to the Abbey of St.
Denis, and was crowned at Rheims, not until the 30th of August following.
His reign, which lasted fifteen years, was a period of neither repose nor
glory.  He engaged in war several times over in Southern France and in
the north of Spain, in 1272, against Roger Bernard, Count of Foix, and in
1285 against Don Pedro III., King of Aragon, attempting conquests and
gaining victories, but becoming easily disgusted with his enterprises and
gaining no result of importance or durability.  Without his taking
himself any official or active part in the matter, the name and credit of
France were more than once compromised in the affairs of Italy through
the continual wars and intrigues of his uncle Charles of Anjou, King of
Sicily, who was just as ambitious, just as turbulent, and just as
tyrannical as his brother St. Louis was scrupulous, temperate, and just.
It was in the reign of Philip the Bold that there took place in Sicily,
on the 30th of March, 1282, that notorious massacre of the French which
is known by the name of Sicilian Vespers, which was provoked by the
unbridled excesses of Charles of Anjou’s comrades, and through which many
noble French families had to suffer cruelly.

[Illustration: THE SICILIAN VESPERS----156]

At the same time, the celebrated Italian Admiral Roger de Loria
inflicted, by sea, on the French party in Italy, the Provincal navy, and
the army of Philip the Bold, who was engaged upon incursions into Spain,
considerable reverses and losses.  At the same period the foundations
were being laid in Germany and in the north of Italy, in the person of
Rudolph of Hapsburg, elected emperor, of the greatness reached by the
House of Austria, which was destined to be so formidable a rival to
France.  The government of Philip III. showed hardly more ability at home
than in Europe; not that the king was himself violent, tyrannical, greedy
of power or money, and unpopular; he was, on the contrary, honorable,
moderate in respect of his personal claims, simple in his manners,
sincerely pious and gentle towards the humble; but he was at the same
time weak, credulous, very illiterate, say the chroniclers, and without
penetration, foresight, or intelligent and determined will.  He fell
under the influence of an inferior servant of his house, Peter de la
Brosse, who had been surgeon and barber first of all to St. Louis and
then to Philip III., who made him, before long, his chancellor and
familiar counsellor.  Being, though a skilful and active intriguer,
entirely concerned with his own personal fortunes and those of his
family, this barber-mushroom was soon a mark for the jealousy and the
attacks of the great lords of the court.  And he joined issue with them,
and even with the young queen, Maria of Brabant, the second wife of
Philip III.  Accusations of treason, of poisoning and peculation, were
raised against him, and, in 1276, he was hanged at Paris, on the thieves’
gibbet, in presence of the Dukes of Burgundy and Brabant, the Count of
Artois, and many other personages of note, who took pleasure in
witnessing his execution.  His condemnation, “the cause of which remained
unknown to the people,” says the chronicler William of Nangis, “was a
great source of astonishment and grumbling.”  Peter de la Brosse was one
of the first examples, in French history, of those favorites who did not
understand that, if the scandal caused by their elevation were not to
entail their ruin, it was incumbent upon them to be great men.

In spite of the want of ability and the weakness conspicuous in the
government of Philip the Bold, the kingship in France had, in his reign,
better fortunes than could have been expected.

The death, without children, of his uncle Alphonso, St. Louis’s brother,
Count of Poitiers and also Count of Toulouse, through his wife, Joan,
daughter of Raymond VII., put Philip in possession of those fair
provinces.  He at first possessed the count-ship of Toulouse merely with
the title of count, and as a private domain which was not definitively
incorporated with the crown of France until a century later.  Certain
disputes arose between England and France in respect of this great
inheritance; and Philip ended them by ceding Agenois to Edward I., King
of England, and keeping Quercy.  He also ceded to Pope Urban IV. the
county of Venaissin, with its capital Avignon, which the court of Rome
claimed by virtue of a gift from Raymond VII., Count of Toulouse, and
which, through a course of many disputations and vicissitudes, remained
in possession of the Holy See until it was reunited to France on the 19th
of February, 1797, by the treaty of Tolentino.  But, notwithstanding
these concessions, when Philip the Bold died, at Perpignan, the 5th of
October, 1285, on his return from his expedition in Aragon, the
sovereignty in Southern France, as far as the frontiers of Spain, had
been won for the kingship of France.

A Flemish chronicler, a monk at Egmont, describes the character of Philip
the Bold’s successor in the following words: “A certain King of France,
also named Philip, eaten up by the fever of avarice and cupidity.”  And
that was not the only fever inherent in Philip IV., called The Handsome;
he was a prey also to that of ambition, and, above all, to that of power.
When he mounted the throne, at seventeen years of age, he was handsome,
as his nickname tells us, cold, taciturn, harsh, brave at need, but
without fire or dash, able in the formation of his designs, and obstinate
in prosecuting them by craft or violence, by means of bribery or cruelty,
with wit to choose and support his servants, passionately vindictive
against his enemies, and faithless and unsympathetic towards his
subjects, but from time to time taking care to conciliate them, either by
calling them to his aid in his difficulties or his dangers, or by giving
them protection against other oppressors.  Never, perhaps, was king
better served by circumstances or more successful in his enterprises;
but he is the first of the Capetians who had a scandalous contempt for
rights, abused success, and thrust the king-ship, in France, upon the
high road of that arrogant and reckless egotism which is sometimes
compatible with ability and glory, but which carries with it in the germ,
and sooner or later brings out in full bloom, the native vices and fatal
consequences of arbitrary and absolute power.

Away from his own kingdom, in his dealings with foreign countries, Philip
the Handsome had a good fortune, which his predecessors had lacked, and
which his successors lacked still more.  Through William the Conqueror’s
settlement in England and Henry II.’s marriage with Eleanor of Aquitaine,
the Kings of England had, by reason of their possessions and their claims
in France, become the natural enemies of the Kings of France, and war was
almost incessant between the two kingdoms.  But Edward I., King of
England, ever since his accession to the throne, in 1272, had his ideas
fixed upon, and his constant efforts directed towards, the conquests of
the countries of Wales and Scotland, so as to unite under his sway the
whole island of Great Britain.  The Welsh and the Scotch, from prince to
peasant, offered an energetic resistance in defence of their
independence; and it was only after seven years’ warfare, from 1277 to
1284, that the conquest of Wales by the English was accomplished, and the
style of Prince of Wales became the title of the heir to the throne of
England.  Scotland, in spite of dissensions at home, made a longer and a
more effectual resistance; and though it was reduced to submission, it
was not conquered by Edward I.  Two national heroes, William Wallace and
Robert Bruce, excited against him insurrections which were often
triumphant and always being renewed; and after having, during eighteen
years of strife, maintained a precarious dominion in Scotland, Edward I.
died, in 1307, without having acquired the sovereignty of it.  But his
persevering ardor in this two-fold enterprise kept him out of war with
France; he did all he could to avoid it, and when the pressure of
circumstances involved him in it for a time, he was anxious to escape
from it.  Being summoned to Paris by Philip the Handsome, in 1286, to
swear fealty and homage on account of his domains in France, he repaired
thither with a good grace, and, on his knees before his souzerain,
repeated to him the solemn form of words, “I become your liegeman for the
lands I hold of you this side the sea, according to the fashion of the
peace which was made between our ancestors.”  The conditions of this
peace were confirmed, and, by a new treaty between the two princes, the
annual payment of fifty thousand dollars to the King of England, in
exchange for his claims over Normandy, was guaranteed to him, and Edward
renounced his pretensions to Querey in consideration of a yearly sum of
three thousand livres of Tours.  In 1292, a quarrel and some hostilities
at sea between the English and Norman commercial navies grew into a war
between the two kings; and it dragged its slow length along for four
years in the south-west of France.  Edward made an alliance, in the
north, with the Flemish, who were engaged in a deadly struggle with
Philip the Handsome, and thereby lost Aquitaine for a season; but, in
1296, a truce was concluded between the belligerents, and though the
importance of England’s commercial relations with Flanders decided Edward
upon resuming his alliance with the Flemish, when, in 1300, war broke out
again between them and France, he withdrew from it three years
afterwards, and made a separate peace with Philip the Handsome, who gave
him back Aquitaine.  In 1306, fresh differences arose between the two
kings; but before they had rekindled the torch of war, Edward I. died at
the opening of a new campaign in Scotland, and his successor, Edward II.,
repaired to Boulogne, where he, in his turn, did homage to Philip the
Handsome for the duchy of Aquitaine, and espoused Philip’s daughter
Isabel, reputed to be the most beautiful woman in Europe.  In spite,
then, of frequent interruptions, the reign of Edward I. was on the whole
a period of peace between England and France, being exempt, at any rate,
from premeditated and obstinate hostilities.

In Southern France, at the foot of the Pyrenees, Philip the Handsome,
just as his father, Philip the Bold, was, during the first years of his
reign, at war with the Kings of Aragon, Alphonso III.  and Jayme II.; but
these campaigns, originating in purely local quarrels, or in the ties
between the descendants of St. Louis and of his brother, Charles of
Anjou, King of the Two Sicilies, rather than in furtherance of the
general interests of France, were terminated in 1291 by a treaty
concluded at Tarascon between the belligerents, and have remained without
historical importance.

The Flemish were the people with whom Philip the Handsome engaged in and
kept up, during the whole of his reign, with frequent alternations of
defeat and success, a really serious war.  In the thirteenth century,
Flanders was the most populous and the richest country in Europe.  She
owed the fact to the briskness of her manufacturing and commercial
undertakings, not only amongst her neighbors, but throughout Southern and
Eastern Europe, in Italy, in Spain, in Sweden, in Norway, in Hungary, in
Russia, and even as far as Constantinople, where, as we have seen,
Baldwin I., Count of Flanders, became, in 1204, Latin Emperor of the
East.  Cloth, and all manner of woollen stuffs, were the principal
articles of Flemish production, and it was chiefly from England that
Flanders drew her supply of Wool, the raw material of her industry.
Thence arose between the two countries commercial relations which could
not fail to acquire political importance.  As early as the middle of the
twelfth century, several Flemish towns formed a society for founding in
England a commercial exchange, which obtained great privileges, and,
under the name of the Flemish hanse of London, reached rapid development.
The merchants of Bruges had taken the initiative in it; but soon all the
towns of Flanders--and Flanders was covered with towns--Ghent, Lille,
Ypres, Courtrai, Furnes, Alost, St. Omer, and Douai, entered the
confederation, and made unity as well as extension of liberties in
respect of Flemish commerce the object of their joint efforts.  Their
prosperity became celebrated; and its celebrity gave it increase.  It was
a burgher of Bruges who was governor of the hanse of London, and he was
called the Count of the Hanse.  The fair of Bruges, held in the month of
May, brought together traders from the whole world.  “Thither came for
exchange,” says the most modern and most enlightened historian of
Flanders (Baron Kervyn de Lettenhove, _Histoire de Flandre,_ t. ii.
p. 300), “the produce of the North and the South, the riches collected in
the pilgrimages to Novogorod, and those brought over by the caravans from
Samarcand and Bagdad, the pitch of Norway and the oils of Andalusia, the
furs of Russia and the dates from the Atlas, the metals of Hungary and
Bohemia, the figs of Granada, the honey of Portugal, the wax of Morocco,
and the spice of Egypt; whereby, says an ancient manuscript, no land is
to be compared in merchandise to the land of Flanders.”  At Ypres, the
chief centre of cloth fabrics, the population increased so rapidly that,
in 1247, the sheriffs prayed Pope Innocent IV. to augment the number of
parishes in their city, which contained, according to their account,
about two hundred thousand persons.  So much prosperity made the Counts
of Flanders very puissant lords.  “Marguerite II., called the Black,
Countess of Flanders and Hainault, from 1244 to 1280, was extremely
rich,” says a chronicler, “not only in lands, but in furniture, jewels,
and money; and, as is not customary with women, she was right liberal and
right sumptuous, not only in her largesses, but in her entertainments,
and whole manner of living; insomuch that she kept up the state of queen
rather than countess.”  Nearly all the Flemish towns were strongly
organized communes, in which prosperity had won liberty, and which became
before long small republics sufficiently powerful not only for the
defence of their municipal rights against the Counts of Flanders, their
lords, but for offering an armed resistance to such of the sovereigns
their neighbors as attempted to conquer them or to trammel them in their
commercial relations, or to draw upon their wealth by forced
contributions or by plunder.  Philip Augustus had begun to have a taste
of their strength during his quarrels with Count Ferdinand of Portugal,
whom he had made Count of Flanders by marrying him to the Countess Joan,
heiress of the countship, and whom, after the battle of Bouvines, he had
confined for thirteen years in the tower of the Louvre.  Philip the
Handsome laid himself open to and was subjected by the Flemings to still
rougher experiences.

At the time of the latter king’s accession to the throne, Guy de
Dampierre, of noble Champagnese origin, had been for five years Count of
Flanders, as heir to his mother, Marguerite II.  He was a prince who did
not lack courage, or, on a great emergency, high-mindedness and honor;
but he was ambitious, covetous, as parsimonious as his mother had been
munificent, and above all concerned to get his children married in a
manner conducive to his own political importance.  He had by his two
wives, Matilda of Bethune and Isabel of Luxembourg, nine sons and eight
daughters, offering free scope for combinations and connections, in
respect of which Guy de Dampierre was not at all scrupulous about the
means of success.  He had a quarrel with his son-in-law, Florent V.,
Count of Holland, to whom he had given his daughter Beatrice in marriage;
and another of his sons-in-law, John I., Duke of Brabant, married to
another of his daughters, the Princess Marguerite, offered himself as
mediator in the difference.  The two brothers-in-law went together to see
their father-in-law; but, on their arrival, Guy de Dampierre seized the
person of the Count of Holland, and would not release him until the Duke
of Brabant offered to become prisoner in his place, and found himself
obliged, in order to obtain his liberty, to pay his father-in-law a tough
ransom.  It was not long before Guy himself suffered from the same sort
of iniquitous surprise that he had practised upon his sons-in-law.  In
1293 he was secretly negotiating the marriage of Philippa, one of his
daughters, with Prince Edward, eldest son of the King of England.  Philip
the Handsome, having received due warning, invited the Count of Flanders
to Paris, “to take counsel with him and the other barons touching the
state of the king-dom.”  At first Guy hesitated; but he dared not refuse,
and he repaired to Paris, with his sons John and Guy.  As soon as he
arrived he bashfully announced to the king the approaching union of his
daughter with the English prince, protesting, “that he would never cease,
for all that, to serve him loyally, as every good and true man should
serve his lord.”  “In God’s name, Sir Count,” said the enraged king,
“this thing will never do; you have made alliance with my foe, without my
wit; wherefore you shall abide with me;” and he had him, together with
his sons, marched off at once to the tower of the Louvre, where Guy
remained for six months, and did not then get out save by leaving as
hostage to the King of France his daughter Philippa herself, who was
destined to pass in this prison her young and mournful life.  On once
more entering Flanders, Count Guy oscillated for two years between the
King of France and the King of England, submitting to the exactions of
the former, at the same time that he was privily renewing his attempts to
form an intimate alliance with the latter.  Driven to extremity by the
haughty severity of Philip, he at last came to a decision, concluded a
formal treaty with Edward I., affianced to the English crown-prince the
most youthful of his daughters, Isabel of Flanders, youngest sister of
Philippa, the prisoner in the tower of the Louvre, and charged two
ambassadors to go to Paris, as the bearers of the following declaration:
“Every one doth know in how many ways the King of France hath misbehaved
towards God and justice.  Such is his might and his pride, that he doth
acknowledge nought above himself, and he hath brought us to the necessity
of seeking allies who may be able to defend and protect us.  .  .  .  By
reason whereof we do charge our ambassadors to declare and say, for us
and from us, to the above said king, that because of his misdeeds and
defaults of justice, we hold ourselves unbound, absolved, and delivered
from all bonds, all alliances, obligations, conventions, subjections,
services, and dues whereby we may have been bounden towards him.”

[Illustration: THE TOWN AND FORTRESS OF LILLE----164]

This meant war.  And it was prompt and sharp on the part of the King of
France, slow and dull on the part of the King of England, who was always
more bent upon the conquest of Scotland than upon defending, on the
Continent, his ally, the Count of Flanders.  In June, 1297, Philip the
Handsome, in person, laid siege to Lille, and, on the 13th of August,
Robert, Count of Artois, at the head of the French chivalry, gained at
Furnes, over the Flemish army, a victory which decided the campaign.
Lille capitulated.  The English re-enforcements arrived too late, and
served no other purpose but that of inducing Philip to grant the Flemings
a truce for two years.  A fruitless attempt was made, with the help of
Pope Boniface VIII., to change the truce into a lasting peace.  The very
day on which it expired, Charles, Count of Valois, and brother of Philip
the Handsome, entered Flanders with a powerful army, surprised Douai,
passed through Bruges, and, on arriving at Ghent, gave a reception to its
magistrates, who came and offered him the keys.  “The burghers of the
towns of Flanders,” says a chronicler of the age, “were all bribed by
gifts or promises from the King of France, who would never have dared to
invade their frontiers, had they been faithful to their count.”  Guy de
Dampierre, hopelessly beaten, repaired, with two of his sons, and fifty-
one of his faithful knights, to the camp of the Count of Valois, who gave
him a kind reception, and urged him to trust himself to the king’s
generosity, promising at the same time to support his suit.  Guy set out
for Paris with all his retinue.  On approaching the City-palace which was
the usual residence of the kings, he espied at one of the windows Queen
Joan of Navarre, who took a supercilious pleasure in gazing upon the
humiliation of the victim of defeat.  Guy drooped his head, and gave no
greeting.  When he was close to the steps of the palace, he dismounted
from his horse, and placed himself and all his following at the mercy of
the king.  The Count of Valois said a few words in his favor, but Philip,
cutting his brother short, said, addressing himself to Guy, “I desire no
peace with you, and if my brother has made any engagements with you, he
had no right to do so.”  And he had the Count of Flanders taken off
immediately to Compiegne, “to a strong tower, such that all could see
him,” and his comrades were distributed amongst several towns, where they
were strictly guarded.  The whole of Flanders submitted; and its
principal towns, Ypres, Audenarde, Ter-monde, and Cassel, fell
successively into the hands of the French.  Three of the sons of Count
Guy retired to Namur.  The constable Raoul of Nesle “was lieutenant for
the King of France in his newly-won country of Flanders.”  Next year, in
the month of May, 1301, Philip determined to pay his conquest a visit;
and the queen, his wife, accompanied him.  There is never any lack of
galas for conquerors.  After having passed in state through Tournai,
Courtrai, Audenarde, and Ghent, the King and Queen of France made their
entry into Bruges.  All the houses were magnificently decorated; on
platforms covered with the richest tapestry thronged the ladies of
Bruges; there was nothing but haberdashery and precious stones.  Such an
array of fine dresses, jewels, and riches, excited a woman’s jealousy in
the Queen of France: “There is none but queens,” quoth she, “to be seen
in Bruges; I had thought that there was none but I who had a right to
royal state.”  But the people of Bruges remained dumb; and their silence
scared Philip the Handsome, who vainly attempted to attract a concourse
of people about him by the proclamation of brilliant jousts.  “These
galas,” says the historian Villani, who was going through Flanders at
this very time, “were the last whereof the French knew aught in our time,
for Fortune, who till then had shown such favor to the King of France, on
a sudden turned her wheel, and the cause thereof lay in the unrighteous
captivity of the innocent maid of Flanders, and in the treason whereof
the Count of Flanders and his sons had been the victims.”  There were
causes, however, for this new turn of events of a more general and more
profound character than the personal woes of Flemish princes.  James de
Chiltillon, the governor assigned by Philip the Handsome to Flanders, was
a greedy oppressor of it; the municipal authorities whom the victories or
the gold of Philip had demoralized became the objects of popular hatred;
and there was an outburst of violent sedition.  A simple weaver, obscure,
poor, undersized, and one-eyed, but valiant, and eloquent in his Flemish
tongue, one Peter Deconing, became the leader of revolt in Bruges;
accomplices flocked to him from nearly all the towns of Flanders; and he
found allies amongst their neighbors.  In 1302 war again broke out; but
it was no longer a war between Philip the Handsome and Guy de Dampierre:
it was a war between the Flemish communes and their foreign oppressors.
Everywhere resounded the cry of insurrection: “Our bucklers and our
friends for the lion of Flanders!  Death to all Walloons!  “Philip the
Handsome precipitately levied an army of sixty thousand men, says
Villani, and gave the command of it to Count Robert of Artois, the hero
of Furnes.  The forces of the Flemings amounted to no more than twenty
thousand fighting men.  The two armies met near Courtrai.  The French
chivalry were full of ardor and confidence; and the Italian archers in
their service began the attack with some success.  My lord,” said one of
his knights to the Count of Artois, “these knaves will do so well that
they will gain the honor of the day; and, if they alone put an end to the
war, what will be left for the noblesse to do?”  “Attack, then!”
 answered the prince.  Two grand attacks succeeded one another; the first
under the orders of the Constable Raoul of Nesle, the second under those
of the Count of Artois in person.  After two hours’ fighting, both failed
against the fiery national passion of the Flemish communes, and the two
French leaders, the Constable and the Count of Artois, were left, both of
them, lying on the field of battle amidst twelve or fifteen thousand of
their dead.  “I yield me!  I yield me!” cried the Count of Artois; but,
“We understand not thy lingo,” ironically answered in their own tongue
the Flemings who surrounded him; and he was forthwith put to the sword.
Too late to save him galloped up a noble ally of the insurgents, Guy of
Namur.  “From the top of the towers of our monastery,” says the Abbot of
St. Martin’s of Tournai, “we could see the French flying over the roads,
across fields and through hedges, in such numbers that the sight must
have been seen to be believed.  There were in the outskirts of our town
and in the neighboring villages, so vast a multitude of knights and men-
at-arms tormented with hunger, that it was a matter horrible to see.
They gave their arms to get bread.”

[Illustration: The Battle of Courtrai----167]

A French knight, covered with wounds, whose name has remained unknown,
hastily scratched a few words upon a scrap of parchment dyed with blood;
and that was the first account Philip the Handsome received of the battle
of Courtrai, which was fought and lost on the 11th of July, 1302.

The news of this great defeat of the French spread rapidly throughout
Europe, and filled with joy all those who were hostile to or jealous of
Philip the Handsome.  The Flemings celebrated their victory with
splendor, and rewarded with bounteous gifts their burgher heroes, Peter
Deconing amongst others, and those of their neighbors who had brought
them aid.  Philip, greatly affected and a little alarmed, sent for his
prisoner, the aged Guy de Dampierre, and loaded him with reproaches, as
if he had to thank him for the calamity; and, forthwith levying a fresh
army, “as numerous,” say the chroniclers, “as the grains of sand on the
borders of the sea from Propontis to the Ocean,” he took up a position at
Arras, and even advanced quite close to Douai; but he was of those in
whom obstinacy does not extinguish prudence, and who, persevering all the
while in their purposes, have wit to understand the difficulties and
clangers of them.  Instead of immediately resuming the war, he entered
into negotiations with the Flemings; and their envoys met him in a ruined
church beneath the walls of Douai.  John of Chalons, one of Philip’s
envoys, demanded, in his name, that the king should be recognized as lord
of all Flanders, and authorized to punish the insurrection of Bruges,
with a promise, however, to spare the lives of all who had taken part in
it.  “How!” said a Fleming, Baldwin de Paperode; “our lives would be left
us, but only after our goods had been pillaged and our limbs subjected to
every torture!”  “Sir Castellan,” answered John of Chalons, “why speak
you so?  A choice must needs be made; for the king is determined to lose
his crown rather than not be avenged.”  Another Fleming, John de Renesse,
who, leaning on the broken altar, had hitherto kept silence, cried,
“Since so it is, let answer be made to the king that we be come hither to
fight him, and not to deliver up to him our fellow-citizens;” and the
Flemish envoys withdrew.  Still Philip did not give up negotiating, for
the purpose of gaining time and of letting the edge wear off the
Flemings’ confidence.  He returned to Paris, fetched Guy de Dampierre
from the tower of the Louvre, and charged him to go and negotiate peace
under a promise of returning to his prison if he were unsuccessful.  Guy,
respected as he was throughout Flanders on account of his age and his
long misfortunes, failed in his attempt, and, faithful to his word, went
back and submitted himself to the power of Philip.  “I am so old,” said
he to his friends, “that I am ready to die whensoever it shall please
God.”  And he did die, on the 7th of March, 1304, in the prison of
Compiegne, to which he had been transferred.  Philip, all the while
pushing forward his preparations for war, continued to make protestation
of pacific intentions.  The Flemish communes desired the peace necessary
for the prosperity of their commerce; but patriotic anxieties wrestled
with material interests.  A burgher of Ghent was quietly fishing on the
banks of the Scheldt, when an old man acosted him, saying sharply,
“Knowest thou not, then, that the king is assembling all his armies?  It
is time the Ghentese shook off their sloth; the lion of Flanders must no
longer slumber.”  In the spring of 1304, the cry of war resounded
everywhere.  Philip had laid an impost extraordinary upon all real
property in his kingdom; regulars and reserves had been summoned to
Arras, to attack the Flemings by land and sea.  He had taken into his pay
a Genoese fleet commanded by Regnier de Grimaldi, a celebrated Italian
admiral; and it arrived in the North Sea, and blockaded Zierikzee, a
maritime town of Zealand.  On the 10th of August, 1304, the Flemish fleet
which was defending the place was beaten and dispersed.  Philip hoped for
a moment that this reverse would discourage the Flemings; but it was not
so at all.  A great battle took place on the 17th of August between the
two land armies at Mons-en-Puelle (or, Mont-en-Pevele, according to the
true local spelling), near Lille; the action was for some time
indecisive, and even after it was over both sides hesitated about
claiming the victory; but when the Flemings saw their camp swept off and
rifled, and when they no longer found in it, say the chroniclers, “their
fine stuffs of Bruges and Ypres, their wines of Rochelle, their beers of
Cambrai, and their cheeses of Bethune,” they declared that they would
return to their hearths; and their leaders, unable to restrain them, were
obliged to shut themselves up in Lille, whither Philip, who had himself
retired at first to Arras, came to besiege them.  When the first days of
downheartedness were over, and at sight of the danger which threatened
Lille and the remains of the Flemish army assembled within its walls, all
Flanders rushed to arms.  “The labors of the workshop and the field were
everywhere suspended,” say contemporary Historians: “the women kept guard
in the towns: you might traverse the country without meeting a single
man, for they were all in the camp at Courtrai, to the number of twelve
hundred thousand, according to popular exaggeration, swearing one to
another that they would rather die fighting than live in slavery.”
 Philip was astounded.  “I thought the Flemings,” said he, “were
destroyed; but they seem to rain from heaven; “and he resumed his
protestations and pacific overtures.  Circumstances were favorable to
him: old Guy de Dampierre was dead; Robert of Bethune, his eldest son and
successor, was still the prisoner of Philip the Handsome, who set him at
liberty after having imposed conditions upon him.  Robert, timid in
spirit and weak of heart, accepted them, in spite of the grumblings of
the Flemish populations, always eager to recommence war after a short
respite from its trials.  The burghers of Bruges had made themselves a
new seal, whereon the old symbol of the bridge of their city on the Reye
was replaced by the lion of Flanders wearing the crown and armed with the
cross, with this inscription: “The lion hath roared and burst his fetters
“(_Rugiit leo, vincula fregit_).  During ten years, from 1305 to 1314,
there was between France and Flanders a continual alternation of
reciprocal concessions and retractations, of treaties concluded and of
renewed insurrections, without decisive and ascertained results.  It was
neither peace nor war; and, after the death of Philip the Handsome, his
successors were destined, for a long time to come, to find again and
again amongst the Flemish communes deadly enmities and grievous perils.

At the same time that he was prosecuting this interminable war against
the Flemings, Philip was engaged, in this case also beyond the boundaries
of his kingdom, in a struggle which was still more serious, owing to the
nature of the questions which gave rise to it and to the quality of his
adversary.  In 1294 a new pope, Cardinal Benedetto Gaetani, had been
elected under the name of Boniface VIII.  He had been for a long time
connected with the French party in Italy, and he owed his elevation to
the influence, especially, of Charles II., King of Naples and Sicily,
grandson of St. Louis and cousin-german of Philip the Handsome.  Shortly
before his election, Benedetto Gaetani said to that prince, “Thy pope
(Celestine V.) was willing and able to serve thee, only he knew not how;
as for me, if thou make me pope, I shall be willing and able and know how
to be useful to thee.”  The long quarrel between the popes and the
Emperors of Germany, who, as Kings of the Romans, aspired to invade or
dominate Italy, had made the Kings of France natural allies of the
papacy, and there had been a saying ever since, arising from a popular
instinct, which had already found its way into poetry,--

               “‘Tis a goodly match as match can be,
               To marry the Church and the fleurs-de-lis:
               Should either mate a-straying go,
               Then each--too late--will own ‘twas so.”

Boniface VIII. did not seem fated to withdraw from this policy; he was
old (sixty-six); his party-engagements were of long standing; his
personal fortune was made; three years before his election he possessed
twelve ecclesiastical benefices, of which seven were in France; by his
accession to the Holy See his ambition was satisfied; and as legate in
France in 1290 he had made the acquaintance there of the young king,
Philip the Handsome, and had conceived a liking for him.  King Philip
must have considered that he had ground for seeing in him a faithful and
useful ally.

Neither of the two sovereigns took into account the changes that had
come, during two centuries past, over the character of their power, and
of the influence which these changes must exercise upon their posture and
their relations one towards the other.  Louis the Fat in the first
instance, and then in a special manner Philip Augustus and St. Louis,
each with very different sentiments and by very different processes, had
disentangled the kingship in France from the feudal system, and had
acquired for it a sovereignty of its own, beyond and above the rights of
the suzerain over his vassals.  The popes, for their part, Gregory VII.
and Innocent III. amongst others, had raised the papacy to a region of
intellectual and moral supremacy whence it looked down upon all the
terrestrial powers.  Gregory VII., the most disinterested of all
ambitious men in high places, had dedicated his stormy life to
establishing the dominion of the Church over the world, kings as well as
people, and also to reforming internally the Church herself, her morals
and her discipline.  “I have loved justice and hated iniquity; and that
is why I am dying in exile,” he had said on his death-bed: but his works
survived him, and a hundred years after him, in spite of the troubles
which had disturbed the Church under eighteen mediocre and transitory
popes, Innocent III., whilst maintaining, only with more moderation and
prudence, the same principles as Gregory VII.  had maintained, exercised
peacefully, for a space of eighteen years, the powers of the right
divine, whilst Philip Augustus was extending and confirming the kingly
power in France.  This parallel progress of the kingship and the papacy
had its critics and its supporters.  Learned lawyers, on the authority of
the maxims and precedents of the Roman empire, proclaimed the king’s
sovereignty in the State; and profound theologians, on the authority of
the divine origin of Christianity, laid down as a principle the right
divine of the papacy in the Church and in the dealings of the Church with
the State.

Thus, at the end of the thirteenth century, there were found face to face
two systems, one laic and the other ecclesiastical, of absolute power.
But the teachers of the doctrine of the right divine do not expunge from
human affairs the passions, errors, and vices of the individuals who put
their systems in practice; and absolute power, which is the greatest of
all demoralizers, entails before long upon communities, whether civil or
religious, the disorders, abuses, faults, and evils which it is the
special province of governments to prevent or keep under.  The French
kingship and the papacy, the representatives of which had but lately been
great and glorious princes, such as Philip Augustus and St. Louis,
Gregory VII.  and Innocent III., were, at the end of the thirteenth
century, vested in the persons of men of far less moral worth and less
political wisdom, Philip the Handsome and Boniface VIII.  We have already
had glimpses of Philip the Handsome’s greedy, ruggedly obstinate, haughty
and tyrannical character; and Boniface VIII. had the same defects, with
more hastiness and less ability.  The two great poets of Italy in that
century, Dante and Petrarch, who were both very much opposed to Philip
the Handsome, paint Boniface VIII. in similar colors.  “He was,” says
Petrarch (_Epistoloe Ramiliares,_ bk.  ii.  letter 3), “an inexorable
sovereign, whom it was very hard to break by force, and impossible to
bend by humility and caresses; “and Dante (_Inferno,_ canto xix.
v. 45 57) makes Pope Nicholas III. say, “Already art thou here and
proudly upstanding, O Boniface?  Hast thou so soon been sated with that
wealth for which thou didst not fear to deceive that fair dame (the
Church) whom afterwards thou didst so disastrously govern?  “Two men so
deeply imbued with evil and selfish passions could not possibly meet
without clashing; and it was not long before facts combined to produce
between them an outburst of hatred and strife which revealed the latent
vices and fatal results of the two systems of absolute power of which
they were the representatives.

Philip the Handsome had been nine years king when Boniface VIII. became
pope.  On his accession to the throne he had testified an intention of
curtailing the privileges and power of the Church.  He had removed the
clergy from judicial functions, in the domains of the lords as well as in
the domain of the king, and he had everywhere been putting into the hands
of laymen the administration of civil justice.  He had considerably
increased the percentage to be paid on real property acquired by the
Church (called possessions in mortmain), by way of compensation for the
mutation-dues which their fixity caused the State to lose.  At the time
of the crusades the property of the clergy had been subjected to a
special tax of a tenth of the revenues, and this tax had been several
times renewed for reasons other than the crusades.  The Church recognized
her duty of contributing towards the defence of the kingdom, and the
chapter-general of the order of Citeaux wrote to Philip the Handsome
himself, “On all grounds of natural equity and rules of law we ought to
bear our share of such a burden out of the goods which God hath given
us.”  In every instance, the question had been as to the necessity for
and the quota of the ecclesiastical contribution, which was at one time
granted by the bishops and local clergy, at another expressly authorized
by the papacy.  There is nothing to show that Boniface VIII., at the time
of his elevation to the Holy See, was opposed to these augmentations and
demands on the part of the French crown; he was at that time too much
occupied by his struggle against his own enemies at Rome, the family of
the Colonnas, and he felt the necessity of remaining on good terms with
France; but in 1296, Philip the Handsome, at war with the King of England
and the Flemings, imposed upon the clergy two fresh tenths.  The bishops
alone were called upon to vote them; and the order of Citeaux refused to
pay them, and addressed to the pope a protest, with a comparison between
Philip and Pharaoh.  Boniface not only entertained the protest, but
addressed to the king a bull (called _Clericis laicos,_ from its first
two words), in which, led on by his zeal to set forth the generality and
absoluteness of his power, he laid down as a principle that churches and
ecclesiastics could not be taxed save with the permission of the
sovereign pontiff, and that “all emperors, kings, dukes, counts, barons,
or governors whatsoever, who should violate this principle, and all
prelates or other ecclesiastics who should through weakness lend
themselves to such violation, would by this mere fact incur
excommunication, and would be incapable of release therefrom, save in
_articulo mortis,_ unless by a special decision of the Holy See.”  This
was going far beyond the traditions of the French Church, and, in the
very act of protecting it, to strike a blow at its independence in its
dealings with the French State.  Philip was mighty wroth, but he did not
burst out; he confined himself to letting the pope perceive his
displeasure by means of divers administrative measures, amongst others by
forbidding the exportation from the kingdom of gold, silver, and valuable
articles, which found their way chiefly to Rome.  Boniface, on his side,
was not slow to perceive that he had gone too far, and that his own
interests did not permit him to give so much offence to the King of
France.  A year after the bull _Clericis laicos,_ he modified it by a new
bull, which not only authorized the collection of the two tenths voted by
the French bishops, but recognized the right of the King of France to tax
the French clergy with their consent and without authorization from the
Holy See, whenever there was a pressing necessity for it.  Philip, on his
side, testified to the pope his satisfaction at this concession by
himself making one at the expense of the religious liberty of his
subjects.  In 1292 he had ordered the seneschal of Carcassonne to place
limits to the power of the inquisitors in Languedoc by taking from them
the right of having their sentences against heretics executed without
appeal; and in 1298 he issued an ordinance to the effect that “to further
the proceedings of the Inquisition against heretics, for the glory of God
and for the augmentation of the faith, he laid his injunctions upon all
dukes, counts, barons, seneschals, bailiffs, and provosts of his kingdom,
to obey the diocesan bishops and the inquisitors deputed by the Holy See
in handing over to them, whenever they should be requested, all heretics
and their creed-fellows, favorers, and harborers, and to see to the
immediate execution of sentences passed by the judges of the Church,
notwithstanding any appeal and any complaint on the part of heretics and
their favorers.”

Thus the two absolute sovereigns changed their policy and made temporary
sacrifice of their mutual pretensions, according as it suited them to
fight or to agree.  But there arose a question in respect of which this
continual alternation of pretensions and compromises, of quarrels and
accommodations, was no longer possible; in order to keep up their
position in the eyes of one another, they were obliged to come to a
deadly clash; and in this struggle, perilous for both, Boniface VIII.
was the aggressor, and with Philip the Handsome remained the victory.

On the 2d of February, 1300, Boniface VIII., who had much at heart the
lustre and popularity of the Holy See, published a bull which granted
indulgences to the pilgrims who should that year, and every centenary to
come, visit the church of the apostles St. Peter and St. Paul at Rome.
At this first celebration of the centenarian Christian jubilee the
concourse was immense; the most moderate historians say that there were
never fewer than a hundred thousand pilgrims at Rome; others put the
numbers as high as two hundred thousand, and contemporary poetry as well
as history has celebrated this pious assemblage of Christians of every
nation, language, and age around the tomb of their fathers in the faith.
“The old man with white hair goeth far away,” says Petrarch (Sonnet
xiv.), “from the sweet haunts where his life hath been passed, and from
his little family astonished to find their dear father missing.  As for
him, in the last days of his age, broken down by weight of years and
a-weary of the road, he draggeth along as best he may by force of willing
spirit his old and tottering limbs, and cometh to Rome to fulfil his
desire of seeing the image of Him whom he hopeth to see ere long up
yonder in the heavens.”  The success of the measure and the solemn homage
of Christendom filled with joy and proud confidence the heart of the
septuagenarian pontiff.  He had three years before decreed to Louis IX.,
the most Christian of the Kings of France, the honors of canonization and
the title of Saint.  Being chosen as mediator, in 1298, by the Kings of
France and England in a war which pressed heavily on both, the decree of
arbitration which he pronounced, favorable rather to Philip than to
Edward I., had been accepted by both of them; and the pope, on laying his
injunctions upon them with some severity of language, had exhibited
authority in a manner salutary for both kingdoms.  Everything seemed at
that time to smile on Boniface, and to invite him to believe himself the
real sovereign of Christendom.

An opportunity for a splendid confirmation of his universal supremacy in
the Christian world came to tempt him.  A quarrel had arisen between
Philip and the Archbishop of Narbonne on the subject of certain dues
claimed by both in that great diocese.  Boniface was loud in his advocacy
of the archbishop against the officers of the king: “If, my son, thou
tolerate such enterprises against the Churches of thy kingdom,” he wrote
to Philip (on the 18th of July, 1300), “thou mayest thereafter have
reasonable fear lest God, the author of judgments and the King of kings,
exact vengeance for it; and assuredly His vicar will not, in the long
run, keep silence.  Though he wait a while patiently, in order not to
close the door to compassion, there will be full need at last that he
rouse himself for the punishment of the wicked and the glory of the
good.”  Nor did Boniface content himself with writing: he sent to Paris,
to support his words, Bernard de Saisset, whom he, on his own authority,
had just appointed Bishop of Pamiers.  The choice of bishops was not yet,
at that time, subject to any fixed and generally recognized rule: most
often it was the chapter of the diocese that elected its bishop, with a
subsequent application for the approbation of the king and the pope;
sometimes the king and also the pope made such appointments directly and
independently.  Boniface VIII. had quite recently created a new bishopric
at Pamiers in order to immediately appoint to it Bernard de Saisset,
hitherto simple Abbot of St. Antonine in that city.  Bernard, who was
devoted to his patron, was, further, a passionate Languedocian and a foe
to the dominion of the French kings of the North over Southern France;
and he gave himself out as a personal descendant of the last Counts of
Toulouse.  On arriving in Paris as the pope’s legate, he made use there
of violent and inconsiderate language; he even affirmed, it was said,
that St. Louis had predicted the disappearance of his line in the third
generation, and that King Philip was only an illegitimate descendant of
Charlemagne.  He was accused of having incessantly labored to excite
revolts against the king in the south, at one time for the advantage of
the local lords, at another in favor of foreign enemies of the kingdom.
Being summoned before the king and his council at Senlis (October 14,
1301), he denied, but with an air of arrogance and aggression, the
accusations against him.  Philip had, at that time, as his chief
councillors, lay-lawyers, servants passionately attached to the kingship.
They were Peter Flotte his chancellor, William of Nogaret, judge-major at
Beaucaire, and William of Plasian, Lord of Vezenobre, the two latter
belonging, as Bernard de Saisset belonged, to Southern France, and
determined to withstand, in the south as well as the north, the
domination of ecclesiastics.  They, in their turn, rose up against the
doctrine and language of the Bishop of Pamiers.  He was arrested and
committed to the keeping of the Archbishop of Narbonne; and Philip sent
to Rome his chancellor Peter Flotte himself and William of Nogaret, with
orders to demand of the pope “that he should avenge the wrongs of God,
the king, and the whole kingdom, by depriving of his orders and every
clerical privilege that man whose longer life would taint the places he
inhabited; and this in order that the king might make of him a sacrifice
to God in the way of justice, for there could be no hope of his amendment
if he were suffered to live, seeing that, from his youth up, he had
always lived ill, and that baseness and abandonment only became more and
more confirmed in him by inveterate habit.”

To this violent and threatening language Boniface replied by changing the
venue to his own personal tribunal in the case of the Bishop of Pamiers.
“We do bid thy majesty,” he wrote to the king, “to give this bishop free
leave to depart and come to us, for we do desire his presence.  We do
warn thee to have all his goods restored to him, not to stretch out for
the future thy rapacious hands towards the like things, and not to offend
the Divine Majesty or the dignity of the Apostolic See, lest we be forced
to employ some other remedy; for thou must know that, unless thou canst
allege some excuse founded on reason and truth, we do not see how thou
shouldest escape the sentence of the holy canons for having laid rash
hands on this bishop.”

“My power,--the spiritual power,”--said the pope to the Chancellor of
France, “embraces the temporal, and includes it.”  “Be it so,” answered
Peter Flotte; “but your power is nominal, the king’s real.”

Here was a coarse challenge hurled by the crown at the tiara: and
Boniface VIII. unhesitatingly accepted it.  But, instead of keeping the
advantage of a defensive position by claiming, in the name of lawful
right, the liberties and immunities of the Church, he assumed the
offensive against the kingship by proclaiming the supremacy of the Holy
See in things temporal as well as spiritual, and by calling upon Philip
the Handsome to acknowledge it.  On the 5th of December, 1301, he
addressed to the king, commencing with the words, “Hearken, most dear
son” (_Ausculta, carissime fili_), a long bull, in which, with
circumlocutions and expositions full of obscurity and subtlety, he laid
down and affirmed, at bottom, the principle of the final sovereignty of
the spiritual power, being of divine origin, over every temporal power,
being of human creation.  “In spite of the insufficiency of our deserts,”
 said he, “God hath established us above kings and kingdoms by imposing
upon us, in virtue of the Apostolic office, the duty of plucking away,
destroying, dispersing, dissipating, building up and planting in His name
and according to His doctrine; to the end that, in tending the flock of
the Lord, we may strengthen the weak, heal the sick, bind up the broken
limbs, raise the fallen, and pour wine and oil into all wounds.  Let
none, then, most dear son, persuade thee that thou hast no superior, and
that thou art not subject to the sovereign head of the ecclesiastical
hierarchy; for he who so thinketh is beside himself; and if he
obstinately affirm any such thing, he is an infidel, and hath no place
any longer in the fold of the good Shepherd.”  At the same time Boniface
summoned the bishops of France to a council at Rome, “in order to labor
for the preservation of the liberties of the Catholic Church, the
reformation of the kingdom, the amendment of the king, and the good
government of France.”

Philip the Handsome and his councillors did not misconceive the tendency
of such language, however involved and full of specious reservations it
might be.  The final supremacy of the pope in the body politic, and over
all sovereigns, meant the absorption of the laic community in the
religious, and the abolition of the State’s independence, not in favor of
the national Church, but to the advantage of the foreign head of the
universal Church.  The defenders of the French kingship formed a better
estimate than was formed at Rome of the effect which would be produced by
such doctrine on France, in the existing condition of the French mind;
they entered upon no theological and abstract polemics; they confined
themselves entirely to setting in a vivid light the pope’s pretensions
and their consequences, feeling sure that, by confining themselves to
this question, they would enlist in their opposition not only all laymen,
nobles, and commoners, but the greater part of the French ecclesiastics
themselves, who were no strangers to the feeling of national patriotism,
and to whom the pope’s absolute power in the body politic was scarcely
more agreeable than the king’s.  In order to make a strong impression
upon the public mind, there was published at Paris, as the actual text of
the pope’s bull, a very short summary of his long bull, “Hearken, most
dear Son,” in the following terms: “Boniface, bishop, servant of the
servants of God, to Philip, King of the French.  Fear thou God, and keep
His commandments.  We would have thee to know that thou art subject unto
us in things spiritual and temporal.  The presentation to benefices and
prebends appertaineth to thee in no wise.  If thou have the keeping of
certain vacancies, thou art bound to reserve the revenues of them for the
successors to them.  If thou have made any presentations, we declare them
void, and revoke them.  We consider as heretics all those who believe
otherwise.”  Together with this document there was put in circulation the
king’s answer to the pope, in the following terms: “Philip, by the grace
of God, King of the French, to Boniface, who giveth himself out for
sovereign pontiff, little or no greeting.  Let thy Extreme Fatuity know
that we be subject to none in things temporal, that the presentation to
churches and prebends that be vacant belongeth to us of kingly right,
that the revenues therefrom be ours, that presentations already made or
to be made be valid both now and hereafter, that we will firmly support
the possessors of them to thy face and in thy teeth, and that we do hold
as senseless and insolent those who think otherwise.”  The pope
disavowed, as a falsification, the summary of his long bull; and there is
nothing to prove that the unseemly and insulting letter of Philip the
Handsome was sent to Rome.  But, at bottom, the situation of affairs
remained the same; indeed, it did not stop where it was.  On the 11th of
February, 1302, the bull, Hearken, most dear Son, was solemnly burned at
Paris in presence of the king and a numerous multitude.  Philip convoked,
for the 8th of April following, an assembly of the barons, bishops, and
chief ecclesiastics, and of deputies from the communes to the number of
two or three for each city, all being summoned “to deliberate on certain
affairs which in the highest degree concern the king, the kingdom, the
churches, and all and sundry.”  This assembly, which really met on the
10th of April, at Paris, in the church of Notre-Dame, is reckoned in
French history as the first “states-general.”  The three estates wrote
separately to Rome; the clergy to the pope himself, the nobility and the
deputies of the communes to the cardinals, all, however, protesting
against the pope’s pretensions in matters temporal, the two laic orders
writing in a rough and threatening tone, the clergy making an appeal “to
the wisdom and paternal clemency of the Holy Father, with tearful
accents, and sobs mingled with their tears.”  The king evidently had on
his side the general feeling of the nation: and the news from Rome was
not of a kind to pacify him.  In spite of the king’s formal prohibition,
forty-five French bishops had repaired to the council summoned by the
pope for All Saints’ day, 1302, and, after this meeting, a papal decree
of November 18 had declared, “There be two swords, the temporal and the
spiritual; both are in the power of the Church, but one is held by the
Church herself, the other by kings only with the assent and by sufferance
of the sovereign pontiff.  Every human being is subject to the Roman
pontiff; and to believe this is necessary to salvation.”  Philip made a
seizure of the temporalities of such bishops as had been present at that
council, and renewed his prohibition forbidding them to leave the
kingdom.  Boniface ordered those who had not been to Rome to attend there
within three months; and the cardinal of St. Marcellinus, legate of the
Holy See, called a fresh council in France itself, without the king’s
knowledge.  On both sides, there were at one time words of conciliation
and attempts to keep up appearances of respect, at another new explosions
of complaints and threats; but, amidst all these changes of language, the
struggle was day by day becoming more violent, and preparations were
being made by both parties for something other than threats.

On the 12th of March and the 13th of June, 1303, at two assemblies of
barons, prelates, and legists held at the Louvre, in presence of the
king, which several historians have considered to have been states-
general, one of the crown’s most intimate advisers, William of Plasian,
proposed, against Boniface, a form of accusation which imputed to him,
beyond his ambition and his claims to absolutism, crimes as improbable as
they were hateful.  It was demanded that the Church should be governed by
a lawful pope, and the king, as defender of the faith, was pressed to
appeal to the convocation of a general council.  On the 24th of June, in
the palace-garden, a great crowd of people assembled; and, after a sermon
preached in French, the form of accusation against Boniface, and the
appeal to the future council, were solemnly made public.  The pope
meanwhile did not remain idle; he protested against the imputations of
which he was the subject.  “Forty years ago,” he said, “we were admitted
a doctor of laws, and learned that both powers, the temporal and the
spiritual, be ordained of God.  Who can believe that such fatuity can
have entered into our mind?  But who can also deny that the king is
subject unto us on the score of sin?  .  .  .  We be disposed to grant
unto him every grace.  .  .  .  So long as I was cardinal, I was French
in heart; since then, we have testified how we do love the king.  .  .  .
Without us, he would not have even one foot on the throne.  We do know
all the secrets of the kingdom.  We do know how the Germans, the
Burgundians, and the folks who speak the Oc tongue do love the king.  If
he mend not, we shall know how to chastise him, and treat him as a little
boy (_sicut unum garcionem_), though greatly against our will.”  On the
13th of April, Boniface declared Philip excommunicate if he persisted in
preventing the prelates from attending at Rome.  Philip, being warned,
effected the arrest at Troyes of the priest who was bringing the pope’s
letter to his legate in France.  The legate took to flight.  Boniface,
on his side, being warned that the king was appealing against him to an
approaching council, declared by a bull, on the 15th of August, that it
appertained to him alone to summon a council.  After this bull, there was
full expectation that another would be launched, which would pronounce
the deposition of the king.  And a new bull was actually prepared at Rome
on the 5th of September, and was to be published on the 8th.  It did not
expressly depose the king; it merely announced that measures would be
taken more serious even than excommunication.  Philip had taken his
precautions.  He had demanded and obtained from the great towns,
churches, and universities more than seven hundred declarations of
support in his appeal to the future council, and an engagement to take no
notice of the decree which might be issued by the pope to release the
king’s subjects from their oath of allegiance.  Only a few, and amongst
them the Abbot of Citeaux, gave him a refusal.  The order of the Templars
gave only a qualified support.  At the approaching advent of the new bull
which was being anticipated, the king resolved to act still more roughly
and speedily.  Notification must be sent to the pope of the king’s appeal
to the future council.  Philip could no longer confide this awkward
business to his chancellor, Peter Flotte; for he had fallen at Courtrai,
in the battle against the Flemings.  William of Nogaret undertook it, at
the same time obtaining from the king a sort of blank commission
authorizing and ratifying in advance all that, under the circumstances,
he might consider it advisable to do.  Notification of the appeal had to
be made to the pope at Anagni, his native town, whither he had gone for
refuge, and the people of which, being zealous in his favor, had already
dragged in the mud the lilies and the banner of France.  Nogaret was
bold, ruffianly, and clever.  He repaired in haste to Florence, to the
king’s banker, got a plentiful supply of money, established
communications in Anagni, and secured, above all, the co-operation of
Sciarra Colonna, who was passionately hostile to the pope, had been
formerly proscribed by him, and, having fallen into the hands of
corsairs, had worked at the oar for them during many a year rather than
reveal his name and be sold to Boniface Gaetani.  On the 7th of
September, 1303, Colonna and his associates introduced Nogaret and his
following into Anagni, with shouts of “Death to Pope Boniface!  Long live
the King of France!”  The populace, dumbfounded, remained motionless.
The pope, deserted by all, even by his own nephew, tried to touch the
heart of Colonna himself, whose only answer was a summons to abdicate,
and to surrender at discretion.  “Those be hard words,” said Boniface,
and burst into tears.  But this old man, seventy-five years of age, had a
proud spirit, and a dignity worthy of his rank.  “Betrayed, like Jesus,”
 said he, “shall I die; but I will die pope.”  He donned the cloak of St.
Peter, put the crown of Constantine upon his head, took in his hands the
keys and the cross, and, as his enemies drew nigh, he said to them, “Here
is my neck, and here is my head.”  There is a tradition, of considerable
trustworthiness, that Sciarra Colonna would have killed him, and did with
his mailed hand strike him in the face.  Nogaret, however, prevented the
murder, and confined himself to saying, “Thou caitiff pope, confess, and
behold the goodness of my lord, the King of France, who, though so far
away from thee in his own kingdom, both watcheth over and defendeth thee
by my hand.”  “Thou art of heretic family,” answered the pope: “at thy
hands I look for martyrdom.”

[Illustration: Colonna striking the Pope----185]

The captivity of Boniface VIII., however, lasted only three days; for the
people of Anagni, having recovered themselves, and seeing the scanty
numbers of the foreigners, rose and delivered the pope.  The old man was
conducted to the public square, crying like a child.  “Good folks,” said
he to the crowd around him, “ye have seen that mine enemies have robbed
me of all my goods and those of the Church.  Behold me here as poor as
Job.  Nought have I either to eat or drink.  If there be any good woman
who would give me an alms of wine and bread, I would bestow upon her
God’s blessing and mine.”  All the people began to shout, “Long live the
Holy Father!”  He was reconducted into his palace: “and women thronged
together thither, bringing him bread, wine, and water.  Finding no proper
vessels, they poured them into a chest.  .  .  .  Any one who liked went
in, and talked with the pope, as with any other beggar.”  So soon as the
agitation was somewhat abated, Boniface set out for Rome, with a great
crowd following him; but he was broken down in spirit and body.  Scarcely
had he arrived when he fell into a burning fever, which traditions,
probably invented and spread by his enemies, have represented as a fit of
mad rage.  He died on the 11th of October, 1303, without having recovered
his reason.  It is reported that his predecessor, Celestine V., had said
of him, “Thou risest like a fox; thou wilt rule like a lion, and die like
a dog.”  The last expression was unjustified.  Boniface VIII. was a
fanatic, ambitious, proud, violent, and crafty, but with sincerity at the
bottom of his prejudiced ideas, and stubborn and blind in his fits of
temper: his death was that of an old lion at bay.

We were bound to get a good idea and understanding of this violent
struggle between the two sovereigns of France and Rome, not only because
of its dramatic interest, but because it marks an important period in the
history of the papacy and its relations with foreign governments.  From
the tenth century and the accession of the Capetians the policy of the
Holy See had been enterprising, bold, full of initiative, often even
aggressive, and more often than not successful in the prosecution of its
designs.  Under Innocent III. it had attained the apogee of its strength
and fortune.  At that point its motion forward and upward came to a stop.
Boniface had not the wit to recognize the changes which had taken place
in European communities, and the decided progress which had been made by
laic influences and civil powers.  He was a stubborn preacher of maxims
he could no longer practise.  He was beaten in his enterprise; and the
papacy, even on recovering from his defeat, found itself no longer what
it had been before him.  Starting from the fourteenth century we find no
second Gregory VII., or Innocent III.  Without expressly abandoning their
principles, the policy of the Holy See became essentially defensive and
conservative, more occupied in the maintenance than the aggrandizement of
itself, and sometimes even more stationary and stagnant than was required
by necessity or recommended by foresight.  The posture assumed and the
conduct adopted by the earliest successors of Boniface VIII. showed how
far the situation of the papacy was altered, and how deep had been the
penetration of the stab which, in this conflict between the two aspirants
to absolute power, Philip the Handsome had inflicted on his rival.

On the 22d of October, 1303, eleven days after the death of Boniface
VIII., Benedict XI., son of a simple shepherd, was elected at Rome to
succeed him.  Philip the Handsome at once sent his congratulations, but
by William of Plasian, who had lately been the accuser of Boniface, and
who was charged to hand to the new pope, on the king’s behalf, a very
bitter memorandum touching his predecessor.  Philip at the same time
caused an address to be presented to himself in his own kingdom and in
the vulgar tongue, called a supplication from the people of France to the
King against Boniface.  Benedict XI. exerted himself to give satisfaction
to the conqueror; he declared the Colonnas absolved; he released the
barons and prelates of France from the excommunications pronounced
against them; and he himself wrote to the king to say that he would
behave towards him as the good shepherd in the parable, who leaves ninety
and nine sheep to go after one that is lost.  Nogaret and the direct
authors of the assault at Anagni were alone excepted from this amnesty.
The pope reserved for a future occasion the announcement of their
absolution, when he should consider it expedient.  But on the 7th of
June, 1304, instead of absolving them, he launched a fresh bull of
excommunication against “certain wicked men who had dared to commit a
hateful crime against a person of good memory, Pope Boniface.”  A month
after this bull Benedict XI. was dead.  It is related that a young woman
had put before him at table a basket of fresh figs, of which he had eaten
and which had poisoned him.  The chroniclers of the time impute this
crime to William of Nogaret, to the Colonnas, and to their associates at
Anagni; a single one names King Philip.  Popular credulity is great in
matters of poisoning; but one thing is certain, namely, that no
prosecution was ordered.  There is no proof of Philip’s complicity; but,
full as he was of hatred and dissimulation, he was of those who do their
best to profit by crimes which they have not ordered.  It is clear that
such a pope as Benedict XI. would not do either for his passions or his
purposes.

He found one, however, from whom he flattered himself, not without
reason, that he would get more complete and efficient co-operation.  The
cardinals, after being assembled in conclave for six months at Perouse,
were unable to arrive at an agreement about a choice of pope.  As a way
out of their embarrassment, they entered into a secret convention to the
effect that one of them, a confidant of Philip the Handsome, should make
known to him that the Archbishop of Bordeaux, Bertrand de Goth, was the
candidate in respect of whom they could agree.  He was a subject of the
King of England and a late favorite of Boniface VIII., who had raised him
from the bishopric of Comminges to the archbishopric of Bordeaux.  He was
regarded as an enemy of France; but Philip knew what may be done with an
ambitious man, whose fortune is only half made, by offering to advance
him to his highest point.  He, therefore, appointed a meeting with the
archbishop.  “Hearken,” said he: “I have in my grasp wherewithal to make
thee pope if I please; and provided that thou promise me to do six things
I demand of thee, I will confer upon thee that honor; and to prove to
thee that I have the power, here be letters and advices I have received
from Rome.”  After having heard and read, “the Gascon, overcome with
joy,” says the contemporary historian Villani, “threw himself at the
king’s feet, saying, ‘My lord, now know I that thou art my best friend,
and that thou wouldest render me good for evil.  It is for thee to
command and for me to obey: such will ever be my disposition.’”  Philip
then set before him his six demands, amongst which there were only two
which could have caused the archbishop any uneasiness.  The fourth
purported that he should condemn the memory of Pope Boniface.  “The
sixth, which is important and secret, I keep to myself,” said Philip, “to
make known to thee in due time and place.”  The archbishop bound himself
by oath taken on the sacred host to accomplish the wishes of the king, to
whom, furthermore, he gave as hostages his brother and his two nephews.
Six weeks after this interview, on the 5th of June, 1305, Bertrand de
Goth was elected pope, under the name of Clement V.

It was not long before he gave the king the most certain pledge of his
docility.  After having held his pontifical court at Bordeaux and
Poitiers he declared that he would fix his residence in France, in the
county of Venaissin, at Avignon, a territory which Philip the Bold had
remitted to Pope Gregory X. in execution of a deed of gift from Raymond
VII., Count of Toulouse.  It was renouncing, in fact, if not in law, the
practical independence of the papacy to thus place it in the midst of the
dominions and under the very thumb of the King of France.  “I know the
Gaseous,” said the old Italian Cardinal Matthew Rosso, dean of the Sacred
College, when he heard of this resolution; “it will be long ere the
Church comes back to Italy.”  And, indeed, it was not until sixty years
afterwards, under Pope Gregory XI., that Italy regained possession of the
Holy See; and historians called this long absence the Babylonish
captivity.  Philip lost no time in profiting by his propinquity to make
the full weight of his power felt by Clement V.  He claimed from him the
fulfilment of the fourth promise Bertrand de Goth had made in order to
become pope, which was the condemnation of Boniface VIII.; and he
revealed to him the sixth, that “important and secret one which he kept
to himself to make known to him in clue time and place;” and it was the
persecution and abolition of the order of the Templars.  The pontificate
of Clement V. at Avignon was, for him, a nine years’ painful effort, at
one time to elude and at another to accomplish, against the grain, the
heavy engagements he had incurred towards the king.

He found the condemnation of Boniface VIII. rather an embarrassment than
a danger.  He shrank, on becoming pope, from condemning the pope his
predecessor, who had appointed him archbishop and cardinal.  Instead of
an official condemnation, he offered the king satisfaction in various
ways.  It was only from headstrong pride and to cloak himself in the eyes
of his subjects that Philip clung to the condemnation of the memory of
Boniface; and, after a long period of mutual tergiversation, it was
agreed in the end to let bygones be bygones.  The principal promoter of
the assault at Anagni, William of Nogaret, was the sole exception to the
amnesty; and the pope imposed upon him, by way of penance, merely the
obligation of making a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, which he never
fulfilled.  On the contrary he remained, in great favor, about the person
of King Philip, who made him his chancellor, and gave him, in Languedoc,
some rich lands, amongst others those of Calvisson, Massillargues, and
Manduel.  For Philip knew how to liberally reward and faithfully support
his servants.

And he knew still better how to persecute and ruin his foes.  He had no
reason, of a public kind, to consider the Templars his enemies.  It is
true that they had given him a merely qualified support on his appeal to
the council against Boniface VIII.; but, both before and after that
occurrence, Philip had shown them marks of the most friendly regard.  He
had asked to be affiliated to their order; and he had borrowed their
money.  During a violent outbreak of the populace at Paris, in 1306, on
the occasion of a fresh tax, he had sought and found a refuge in the very
palace of the Temple, where the chapters-general were held and where its
treasures were kept.  It is said that the sight of these treasures
kindled the longings of Philip, and his ardent desire to get hold of
them.  At the time of the formation of the order, in 1119, after the
first crusade, the Templars were far from being rich.  Nine knights had
joined together to protect the arrival and sojourning of pilgrims in
Palestine; and Baldwin II., the third Christian King of Jerusalem, had
given them a lodging in his own palace, to the east of Solomon’s temple,
whence they had assumed the name of “Poor United Champions of Christ and
the Temple.”  Their valor and pious devotion had soon rendered them
famous in the West as well as the East; and St. Bernard had commended
them to the Christian world.  At the council of Troyes, in 1123, Pope
Honorius II. had recognized their order, and regulated their dress, a
white mantle, on which Pope Eugenius III. placed a red cross.  In 1172
the rules of the order were drawn up in seventy-two articles, and the
Templars began to exempt themselves from the jurisdiction of the
patriarch of Jerusalem, recognizing that of the pope only.  Their number
and their importance rapidly increased.  In 1130 the Emperor Lothaire II.
gave them lands in the Duchy of Brunswick.  They received other gifts in
the Low Countries, in Spain, and in Portugal.  After a voyage to the
West, Hugh des Payens, the chief of the nine Templars, returned to the
East with three hundred knights enlisted in his order; and a hundred and
fifty years after its foundation the order of the Temple, divided into
fourteen or fifteen provinces,--four in the East and ten or eleven in the
West,--numbered, it is said, eighteen or twenty thousand knights, mostly
French, and nine thousand commanderies or territorial benefices, the
revenue of which is calculated at fifty-four millions of francs (about
ten and a half million dollars).  It was an army of monks, once poor men
and hard-working soldiers, but now rich and idle, and abandoned to all
the temptations of riches and idleness.  There was still some fine talk
about Jerusalem, pilgrims, and crusades.  The popes still kept these
words prominent, either to distract the Western Christians from intestine
quarrels, or to really promote some new Christian effort in the East.
The Isle of Cyprus was still a small Christian kingdom, and the warrior-
monks, who were vowed to the defence of Christendom in the East, the
Templars and the Hospitallers, had still in Palestine, Syria, Armenia,
and the adjacent lands, certain battles to fight and certain services to
render to the Christian cause.  But these were events too petty and too
transitory to give serious employment to the two great religious and
military orders, whose riches and fame were far beyond the proportions of
their public usefulness and their real strength; a position fraught with
perils for them, for it inspired the sovereign powers of the state with
the spirit rather of jealousy than fear of them.

In 1303 the king and the pope simultaneously summoned from Cyprus to
France the Grand Master of the Templars, James do Molay, a Burgundian
nobleman, who had entered the order when he was almost a child, had
valiantly fought the infidels in the East, and fourteen years ago had
been unanimously elected Grand Master.  For several months he was well
treated, to all appearance, by the two monarchs.  Philip said he wished
to discuss with him a new plan of crusade, and asked him to stand
godfather to one of his children; and Molay was pall-bearer at the burial
of the king’s sister-in-law.  Meanwhile the most sinister reports, the
gravest imputations, were bruited abroad against the Templars; they were
accused “of things distasteful, deplorable, horrible to think on,
horrible to hear, of betraying Christendom for the profit of the
infidels, of secretly denying the faith, of spitting upon the cross, of
abandoning themselves to idolatrous practices and the most licentious
lives.”  In 1307, in the month of October, Philip the Handsome and
Clement V. had met at Poitiers; and the king asked the pope to authorize
an inquiry touching the Templars and the accusations made against them.
James de Molay was forthwith arrested at Paris with a hundred and forty
of his knights; sixty met the same fate at Beaucaire; many others all
over France; and their property was put in the king’s keeping for the
service of the Holy Land.  On the 12th of August, 1308, a papal bull
appointed a grand commission of inquiry charged to conduct, at Paris, an
examination of the matter “according as the law requires.”  The
Archbishops of Canterbury in England and of Mayence, Cologne, and Troves
in Germany, were also named commissioners, and the pope announced that he
would deliver his judgment within two years, at a general council held at
Vienne, in Dauphiny, territory of the Empire.  Twenty-six princes and
laic lords, the Dukes of Burgundy and Brittany, the Counts of Flanders,
Nevers, and Auxerre, and the Count of Talleyrand de Perigord, offered
themselves as the Templars’ accusers, and gave powers of attorney to act
in their names.  On the 22d of November, 1309, the Grand Master, Molay,
was, called before the commission.  At first he firmly denied all that
his order had been accused of; afterwards he became confused and
embarrassed, said that he had not the ability to undertake the defence of
his order, that he was but a poor, unlettered knight, that the pope had
reserved to himself the decision in the case, and that, for his part,
he only wished the pope would summon him as soon as possible before him.
On the 28th of March, 1310, five hundred and forty-six knights, who had
declared their readiness to defend their order, appeared before the
commission; and they were called upon to choose proctors to speak in
their name.  We ought also, then,” said they, “to have been tortured by
proxy only.”  The prisoners were treated with the uttermost rigor and
reduced to the most wretched plight: “out of their poor pay of twelve
deniers per diem they were obliged to pay for their passage by water to
go and submit to their examination in the city, and to give money besides
to the man who undid and riveted their fetters.”  In October, 1310, at a
council held at Paris, a large number of Templars were examined, several
acquitted, some subjected to special penances, and fifty-four condemned
as heretics to the stake, and burned the same day in a field close to the
abbey of St. Anthony; and nine others met the same fate at the hands of a
council held at Senlis the same year: “They confessed under their
tortures,” says Bossuet, “but they denied at their execution.”  The
business dragged slowly on; different decisions were pronounced,
according to the place of decision; the Templars were pronounced
innocent, on the 17th of June, 1310, at Ravenna, on the 1st of July at
Mayence, and on the 21st of October at Salamanca; and in Aragon they made
a successful resistance.  Europe began to be wearied at the uncertainty
of such judgments and at the sight of such horrible spectacles; and
Clement V. felt some shame at thus persecuting monks who, on more than
one occasion, had shown devotion to the Holy See.

But Philip the Handsome had attained his end: he was in possession of the
Templars’ riches.  On the 11th of June, 1311, the commission of inquiry
terminated its sittings, and the report of its labors concluded as
follows: “For further precaution, we have deposited the said procedure,
drawn up by notaries in authentic form, in the treasury of Notre-Dame, at
Paris, to be shown to none without special letters from Your Holiness.”
 The council-general, announced in 1308 by the pope, to decide
definitively upon this great case, was actually opened at Vienne, in
October, 1311; more than three hundred bishops assembled; and nine
Templars presented themselves for the defence of their order, saying that
there were at Lyons, or in the neighborhood, fifteen hundred or two
thousand of their brethren, ready to support them.  The pope had the nine
defenders arrested, adjourned the decision once more, and, on the 22d of
March in the following year, at a mere secret consistory, made up of the
most docile bishops and a few cardinals, pronounced, solely on his
pontifical authority, the abolition of the order of the Temple: and it
was subsequently proclaimed officially, on the 3d of April, 1312, in
presence of the king and the council.  And not a soul protested.

The Grand Master, James de Molay, in confinement at Gisors, survived his
order.  The pope had reserved to himself the task of trying him; but,
disgusted with the work, he committed the trial to ecclesiastical
commissioners assembled at Paris, before whom Molay was brought, together
with three of the principal leaders of the Temple, survivors like
himself.  They had read over to them, from a scaffold erected in the
forecourt of Notre-Dame, the confessions they had made, but lately, under
torture, and it was announced to them that they were sentenced to
perpetual imprisonment.  Remorse had restored to the Grand Master all his
courage; he interrupted the reading, and disavowed his avowals,
protesting that torture alone had made him speak so falsely, and
maintaining that

               “Of his grand order nought he wist
               ‘Gainst honor and the laws of Christ.”

One of his three comrades in misfortune, the commander of Normandy, made
aloud a similar disavowal.  The embarrassed judges sent the two Templars
back to the provost of Paris, and put off their decision to the following
day; but Philip the Handsome, without waiting for the morrow, and without
consulting the judges, ordered the two Templars to be burned the same
evening, March 11, 1314, at the hour of vespers, in Ile-de-la-Cite, on
the site of the present Place Dauphine.  A poet-chronicler, Godfrey of
Paris, who was a witness of the scene, thus describes it: “The Grand
Master, seeing the fire prepared, stripped himself briskly; I tell just
as I saw; he bared himself to his shirt, light-heartedly and with a good
grace, without a whit of trembling, though he was dragged and shaken
mightily.  They took hold of him to tie him to the stake, and they were
binding his hands with a cord, but he said to them, ‘Sirs, suffer me to
fold my hands a while, and make my prayer to God, for verily it is time.
I am presently to die; but wrongfully, God wot.  Wherefore woe will come,
ere long, to those who condemn us without a cause.  God will avenge our
death.’”

It was probably owing to these last words that there arose a popular
rumor, soon spread abroad, that James de Molay, at his death, had cited
the pope and the king to appear with him, the former at the end of forty
days, and the latter within a year, before the judgment-seat of God.
Events gave a sanction to the legend: for Clement V. actually died on the
20th of April, 1314, and Philip the Handsome on the 29th of November,
1314, the pope, undoubtedly, uneasy at the servile acquiescence he had
shown towards the king, and the king expressing some sorrow for his greed
and for the imposts (_maltote, maletolta,_ or _black mail_) with which he
had burdened his people.

In excessive and arbitrary imposts, indeed, consisted the chief grievance
for which France, in the fourteenth century, had to complain of Philip
the Handsome; and, probably, it was the only wrong for which he upbraided
himself.  Being badly wounded, out hunting, by a wild boar, and
perceiving himself to be in bad case, he gave orders for his removal to
Fontainebleau, and there, says Godfrey of Paris, the poet-chronicler just
quoted in reference to the execution of the Templars, “he said and
commanded that his children, his brothers, and his other friends should
be sent for.  They were no long time in coming; they entered
Fontainebleau, into the chamber where the king was, and where there was
very little light.  So soon as they were there, they asked him how he
was, and he answered, ‘Ill in body and in soul; if our Lady the Virgin
save me not by her prayers, I see that death will seize me here; I have
put on so many talliages, and laid hands on so much riches, that I shall
never be absolved.  Sirs, I know that I am in such estate that I shall
die, methinks, to-night, for I suffer grievous hurt from the curses which
pursue me: there will be no fine tales to be told of me.’”  Philip’s
anxiety about his memory was not without foundation; his greed is the
vice which has clung to his name; not only did he load his subjects with
poll taxes and other taxes unauthorized by law and the traditions of the
feudal system; not only was he unjust and cruel towards the Templars in
order to appropriate their riches; but he committed, over and over again,
that kind of spoliation which imports most trouble into the general life
of a people; he debased the coinage so often and to such an extent, that
he was everywhere called “the base coiner.”  This was a financial process
of which none of his predecessors, neither St. Louis nor Philip Augustus,
had set him an example, though they had quite as many costly wars and
expeditions to keep up as he had.  Some chroniclers of the fourteenth
century say that Philip the Handsome was particularly munificent and
lavish towards his family and his servants; but it is difficult to meet
with any precise proof of this allegation, and we must impute the
financial difficulties of Philip the Hand-some to his natural greed, and
to the secret expenses entailed upon him by his policy of dissimulation
and hatred, rather than to his lavish generosity.  As he was no stranger
to the spirit of order in his own affairs, he tried, towards the end of
his reign, to obtain an exact account of his finances.  His chief
adviser, Enguerrand de Marigny, became his superintendent-general, and
on the 19th of January, 1311, at the close of a grand council held at
Poissy, Philip passed an ordinance which established, under the headings
of expenses and receipts, two distinct tables and treasuries, one for
ordinary expenses, the civil list, and the payment of the great bodies of
the state, incomes, pensions, &c., and the other for extraordinary
expenses.  The ordinary expenses were estimated at one hundred and
seventy-seven thousand five hunded livres of Tours, that is, according to
M. Boutaric, who published this ordinance, fifteen million nine hundred
thousand francs (about three million eighty-four thousand dollars).
Numerous articles regulated the execution of the measure; and the royal
treasurers took an oath not to reveal, within two years, the state of
their receipts, save to Enguerrand de Marigny, or by order of the king
himself.  This first budget of the French monarchy dropped out of sight
after the death of Philip the Handsome, in the reaction which took place
against his government.  “God forgive him his sins,” says Godfrey of
Paris, “for in the time of his reign great loss came to France, and there
was small regret for him.”  The general history of France has been more
indulgent towards Philip the Handsome than his contemporaries were; it
has expressed its acknowledgments to him for the progress made, under his
sway, by the particular and permanent characteristics of civilization in
France.  The kingly domain received in the Pyrenees, in Aquitaine, in
Franche-Comte, and in Flanders territorial increments which extended
national unity.  The legislative power of the king penetrated into and
secured footing in the lands of his vassals.  The scattered
semi-sovereigns of feudal society bowed down before the incontestable
pre-eminence of the kingship, which gained the victory in its struggle
against the papacy.  Far be it from us to attach no importance to the
intervention of the deputies of the communes in the states-general of
1302, on the occasion of that struggle: it was certainly homage paid to
the nascent existence of the third estate; but it is puerile to consider
that homage as a real step towards public liberties and constitutional
government.  The burghers of 1302 did not dream of such a thing; Philip,
knowing that their feelings were, in this instance, in accordance with
his own, summoned them in order to use their co-operation as a useful
appendage for himself, and absolute kingship gained more strength by the
co-operation than the third estate acquired influence.  The general
constitution of the judiciary power, as delegated from the kingship, the
creation of several classes of magistrates devoted to this great social
function, and, especially, the strong organization and the permanence of
the parliament of Paris, were far more important progressions in the
development of civil order and society in France.  But it was to the
advantage of absolute power that all these facts were turned, and the
perverted ability of Philip the Handsome consisted in working them for
that single end.  He was a profound egotist; he mingled with his
imperiousness the leaven of craft and patience, but he was quite a
stranger to the two principles which constitute the morality of
governments, respect for rights and patriotic sympathy with public
sentiment; he concerned himself about nothing but his own position, his
own passions, his own wishes, or his own fancies.  And this is the
radical vice of absolute power.  Philip the Handsome is one of the kings
of France who have most contributed to stamp upon the kingship in France
this lamentable characteristic, from which France has suffered so much,
even in the midst of her glories, and which, in our time, was so
grievously atoned for by the kingship itself when it no longer deserved
the reproach.

Philip the Handsome left three sons, Louis X., called _le Hutin_ (_the
Quarreller_), Philip V., called the _Long,_ and Charles IV., called _the
Handsome,_ who, between them, occupied the throne only thirteen years and
ten months.  Not one of them distinguished himself by his personal
merits; and the events of the three reigns hold scarcely a higher place
in history than the actions of the three kings do.  Shortly before the
death of Philip the Handsome, his greedy despotism had already excited
amongst the people such lively discontent that several leagues were
formed in Champagne, Burgundy, Artois, and Beauvaisis, to resist him; and
the members of these leagues, “nobles and commoners,” say the accounts,
engaged to give one another mutual support in their resistance, “at their
own cost and charges.”  After the death of Philip the Handsome, the
opposition made head more extensively and effectually; and it produced
two results: ten ordinances of Louis the Quarreller for redressing the
grievances of the feudal aristocracy, for one; and, for the other, the
trial and condemnation of Enguerrand de Marigny “coadjutor and rector of
the kingdom” under Philip the Hand-some.  Marigny, at the death of the
king his master, had against him, rightly or wrongly, popular clamor and
feudal hostility, especially that of Charles of Valois, Philip the
Handsome’s brother, who acted as leader of the barons.  “What has become
of all those subsidies, and all those sums produced by so much tampering
with the coinage?  “asked the new king one day in council.  “Sir,” said
Prince Charles, “it was Marigny who had the administration of everything;
and it is for him to render an account.”  “I am quite ready,” said
Marigny.  “This moment, then,” said the prince.  “Most willingly, my
lord: I gave a great portion to you.”  “You lie!” cried Charles.  “Nay,
you, by God!” replied Marigny.  The prince drew his sword, and Marigny
was on the point of doing the same.  The quarrel was, however, stifled
for the moment; but, shortly afterwards, Marigny was accused, condemned
by a commission assembled at Vincennes, and hanged on the gibbet of
Montfaucon which he himself, it is said, had set up.  He walked to
execution with head erect, saying to the crowd, “Good folks, pray for
me.”  Some months afterwards, the young king, who had indorsed the
sentence reluctantly, since he did not well know, between his father’s
brother and minister, which of the two was guilty, left by will a
handsome legacy to Marigny’s widow “in consideration of the great
misfortune which had befallen her and hers;” and Charles of Valois
himself, falling into a decline, and considering himself stricken by the
hand of God “as a punishment for the trial of Enguerrand de Marigny,” had
liberal alms distributed to the poor with this injunction: “Pray God for
Euguerrand de Marigny and for the Count of Valois.”  None can tell, after
this lapse of time, whether this remorse proceeded from weakness of mind
or sincerity of heart, and which of the two personages was really guilty;
but, ages afterwards, such is the effect of blind, popular clamor and
unrighteous judicial proceedings, that the condemned lives in history as
a victim and all but a guileless being.

[Illustration: The Hanging of Marigny----200]

Whilst the feudal aristocracy was thus avenging itself of kingly tyranny,
the spirit of Christianity was noiselessly pursuing its work, the general
enfranchisement of men.  Louis the Quarreller had to keep up the war with
Flanders, which was continually being renewed; and in order to find,
without hateful exactions, the necessary funds, he was advised to offer
freedom to the serfs of his domains.  Accordingly he issued, on the 3d of
July, 1315, an edict to the following effect: “Whereas, according to
natural right, every one should be born free, and whereas, by certain
customs which, from long age, have been introduced into and preserved to
this day in our kingdom  .  .  .  many persons amongst our common people
have fallen into the bonds of slavery, which much displeaseth us; we,
considering that our kingdom is called and named the kingdom of the Free
(Franks), and willing that the matter should in verity accord with the
name .  .  .  have by our grand council decreed and do decree that
generally throughout our whole kingdom .  .  .  such serfdoms be redeemed
to freedom, on fair and suitable conditions .  .  .  and we will,
likewise, that all other lords who have body-men (or serfs) do take
example by us to bring them to freedom.”  Great credit has very properly
been given to Louis the Quarreller for this edict; but it has not been
sufficiently noticed that Philip the Handsome had himself set his sons
the example, for, on confirming the enfranchisement granted by his
brother Charles to the serfs in the countship of Valois, he had based his
decree on the following grounds: “Seeing that every human being, which is
made in the image of Our Lord, should generally be free by natural
right.”  The history of Christian communities is full of these happy
inconsistencies; when a moral and just principle is implanted in the
soul, absolute power itself does not completely escape from its healthy
influence, and the good makes its way athwart the evil, just as a source
of fresh and pure water ceases not to flow through and spread over a land
wasted by the crimes or follies of men.

It is desirable to give an idea and an example of the conduct which was
already beginning to be adopted and of the authority which was already
beginning to be exercised in France, amidst the feudal reaction that set
in against Philip the Handsome and amidst the feeble government of his
sons, by that magistracy, of such recent and petty origin, which was
called upon to defend, in the king’s name, order and justice against the
count-less anarchical tyrannies scattered over the national territory.
During the early years of the fifteenth century, a lord of Gascony,
Jordan de Lisle, “of most noble origin, but most ignoble deeds,” says a
contemporary chronicler, “abandoned himself to all manner of
irregularities and crimes.”  Confident in his strength and his
connections,--for Pope John XXII. had given his niece to him in
marriage,--“he committed homicides, entertained evil-doers and murderers,
countenanced robbers, and rose against the king.  He killed, with the
man’s own truncheon, one of the king’s servants who was wearing the royal
livery according to the custom of the royal servants.  When his misdeeds
were known, he was summoned for trial to Paris; and he went thither
surrounded by a stately retinue of counts, nobles, and barons of
Aquitaine.  He was confined, at first, in the prison of Chatelet; and
when a hearing had been accorded to his reply and to what he alleged in
his defence against the crimes of which he was accused, he was finally
pronounced worthy of death by the doctors of the parliament, and on
Trinity-eve he was dragged at the tail of horses and hanged, as he
deserved, on the public gallows at Paris.”  It was, assuredly, a
difficult and a dangerous task for the obscure members of this
parliament, scarcely organized as it was and quite lately established
for a permanence in Paris, to put down such disorders and such men.
In the course of its long career the French magistracy has committed many
faults; it has more than once either aspired to overstep its proper
limits or failed to fulfil all its duties; but history would be
ungrateful and untruthful not to bring into the light the virtues this
body has displayed from its humble cradle, and the services it has
rendered to France, to her security at home, to her moral dignity, to her
intellectual glory, and to the progress of her civilization with all its
brilliancy and productiveness, though it is still so imperfect and so
thwarted.

Another fact which has held an important place in the history of France,
and exercised a great influence over her destinies, likewise dates from
this period; and that is the exclusion of women from the succession to
the throne, by virtue of an article, ill understood, of the Salic law.
The ancient law of the Salian Franks, drawn up, probably, in the seventh
century, had no statute at all touching this grave question; the article
relied upon was merely a regulation of civil law prescribing that “no
portion of really Salic land (that is to say, in the full territorial
ownership of the head of the family) should pass into the possession of
women, but it should belong altogether to the virile sex.”  From the time
of Hugh Capet heirs male had never been wanting to the crown, and the
succession in the male line had been a fact uninterrupted indeed, but not
due to prescription or law.  Louis the Quarreller, at his death, on the
5th of June, 1316, left only a daughter, but his second wife, Queen
Clemence, was pregnant.  As soon as Philip the Long, then Count of
Poitiers, heard of his brother’s death, he hurried to Paris, assembled a
certain number of barons, and got them to decide that he, if the queen
should be delivered of a son, should be regent of the kingdom for
eighteen years; but that if she should bear a daughter he should
immediately take possession of the crown.  On the 15th of November, 1316,
the queen gave birth to a son, who was named John, and who figures as
John I.  in the series of French kings; but the child died at the end of
five days, and on the 6th of January, 1317, Philip the Long was crowned
king at Rheims.  He forthwith summoned--there is no knowing exactly where
and in what numbers--the clergy, barons, and third estate, who declared,
on the 2d of February, that “the laws and customs, inviolably observed
among the Franks, excluded daughters from the crown.”  There was no doubt
about the fact; but the law was not established, nor even in conformity
with the entire feudal system or with general opinion.  And “thus the
kingdom went,” says Froissart, “as seemeth to many folks, out of the
right line.”  But the measure was evidently wise and salutary for France
as well as for the king-ship; and it was renewed, after Philip the Long
died on the 3d of January, 1322, and left daughters only, in favor of his
brother Charles the Handsome, who died, in his turn, on the 1st of
January, 1328, and likewise left daughters only.  The question as to the
succession to the throne then lay between the male line represented by
Philip, Count of Valois, grandson of Philip the Bold through Charles of
Valois, his father, and the female line represented by Edward III., King
of England, grandson, through his mother, Isabel, sister of the late King
Charles the Handsome, of Philip the Handsome.  A war of more than a
century’s duration between France and England was the result of this
lamentable rivalry, which all but put the kingdom of France under an
English king; but France was saved by the stubborn resistance of the
national spirit and by Joan of Arc, inspired by God.  One hundred and
twenty-eight years after the triumph of the national cause, and four
years after the accession of Henry IV., which was still disputed by the
League, a decree of the parliament of Paris, dated the 28th of June,
1593, maintained, against the pretensions of Spain, the authority of the
Salic law, and on the 1st of October, 1789, a decree of the National
Assembly, in conformity with the formal and unanimous wish of the
memorials drawn up by the states-general, gave a fresh sanction to that
principle, which, confining the heredity of the crown to the male line,
had been salvation to the unity and nationality of the monarchy in
France.



CHAPTER XIX.----THE COMMUNES AND THE THIRD ESTATE.

The history of the Merovingians is that of barbarians invading Gaul
and settling upon the ruins of the Roman empire.  The history of the
Carlovingians is that of the greatest of the barbarians taking upon
himself to resuscitate the Roman empire, and of Charlemagne’s descendants
disputing amongst themselves for the fragments of his fabric, as fragile
as it was grand.  Amidst this vast chaos and upon this double ruin was
formed the feudal system, which by transformation after transformation
became ultimately France.  Hugh Capet, one of its chieftains, made
himself its king.  The Capetians achieved the French kingship.  We have
traced its character and progressive development from the eleventh to the
fourteenth century, through the reigns of Louis the Fat, of Philip
Augustus, of St. Louis, and of Philip the Handsome, princes very diverse
and very unequal in merit, but all of them able and energetic.  This
period was likewise the cradle of the French nation.  That was the time
when it began to exhibit itself in its different elements, and to arise
under monarchical rule from the midst of the feudal system.  Its earliest
features and its earliest efforts in the long and laborious work of its
development are now to be set before the reader’s eyes.

The two words inscribed at the head of this chapter, the Communes and the
Third-Estate, are verbal expressions for the two great facts at that time
revealing that the French nation was in labor of formation.  Closely
connected one with the other and tending towards the same end, these two
facts are, nevertheless, very diverse, and even when they have not been
confounded, they have not been with sufficient clearness distinguished
and characterized, each of them apart.  They are diverse both in their
chronological date and their social importance.  The Communes are the
first to appear in history.  They appear there as local facts, isolated
one from another, often very different in point of origin, though
analogous in their aim, and in every case neither assuming nor pretending
to assume any place in the government of the state.  Local interests and
rights, the special affairs of certain populations agglomerated in
certain spots, are the only objects, the only province of the communes.
With this purely municipal and individual character they come to their
birth, their confirmation, and their development from the eleventh to the
fourteenth century; and at the end of two centuries they enter upon their
decline, they occupy far less room and make far less noise in history.
It is exactly then that the Third Estate comes to the front, and uplifts
itself as a general fact, a national element, a political power.  It is
the successor, not the contemporary, of the Communes; they contributed
much towards, but did not suffice for its formation; it drew upon other
resources, and was developed under other influences than those which gave
existence to the communes.  It has subsisted, it has gone on growing
throughout the whole course of French history; and at the end of five
centuries, in 1789, when the Communes had for a long while sunk into
languishment and political insignificance, at the moment at which France
was electing her Constituent Assembly, the Abbe Sicyes, a man of powerful
rather than scrupulous mind, could say, “What is the Third Estate?
Everything.  What has it hitherto been in the body politic?  Nothing.
What does it demand?  To be something.”

These words contain three grave errors.  In the course of government
anterior to 1789, so far was the third estate from being nothing, that it
had been every day becoming greater and stronger.  What was demanded for
it in 1789 by M. Sicyes and his friends was not that it might become
something, but that it should be everything.  That was a desire beyond
its right and its strength; and the very Revolution, which was its own
victory, proved this.  Whatever may have been the weaknesses and faults
of its foes, the third estate had a terrible struggle to conquer them;
and the struggle was so violent and so obstinate that the third estate
was broken up therein, and had to pay dearly for its triumph.  At first
it obtained thereby despotism instead of liberty; and when liberty
returned, the third estate found itself confronted by twofold hostility,
that of its foes under the old regimen and that of the absolute democracy
which claimed in its turn to be everything.  Outrageous claims bring
about in-tractable opposition and excite unbridled ambition.  What there
was in the words of the Abbe Sicyes in 1789 was not the verity of
history; it was a lying programme of revolution.

We have anticipated dates in order to properly characterize and explain
the facts as they present themselves, by giving a glimpse of their scope
and their attainment.  Now that we have clearly marked the profound
difference between the third estate and the communes, we will return to
the communes alone, which had the priority in respect of time.  We will
trace the origin and the composition of the third estate, when we reach
the period at which it became one of the great performers in the history
of France by reason of the place it assumed and the part it played in the
states-general of the kingdom.

In dealing with the formation of the communes from the eleventh to the
fourteenth century, the majority of the French historians, even
M. Thierry, the most original and clear-sighted of them all, often
entitle this event the communal revolution.  This expression hardly gives
a correct idea of the fact to which it is applied.  The word revolution,
in the sense, or at least the aspect, given to it amongst us by
contemporary events, points to the overthrow of a certain regimen, and of
the ideas and authority predominant thereunder, and the systematic
elevation in their stead of a regimen essentially different in principle,
and in fact.  The revolutions of our day substitute, or would fain
substitute, a republic for a monarchy, democracy for aristocracy,
political liberty for absolute power.  The struggles which from the
eleventh to the fourteenth century gave existence to so many communes
had no such profound character; the populations did not pretend to any
fundamental overthrow of the regimen they attacked; they conspired
together, they swore together, as the phrase is according to the
documents of the time--they rose to extricate themselves from the
outrageous oppression and misery they were enduring, but not to abolish
feudal sovereignty and to change the personality of their masters.  When
they succeeded they obtained those treaties of peace called charters,
which brought about in the condition of the insurgents salutary changes
accompanied by more or less effectual guarantees.  When they failed or
when the charters were violated, the result was violent reactions, mutual
excesses; the relations between the populations and their lords were
tempestuous and full of vicissitudes; but at bottom neither the political
regimen nor the social system of the communes was altered.  And so there
were, at many spots without any connection between them, local revolts
and civil wars, but no communal revolution.

One of the earliest facts of this kind which have been set forth with
some detail in history clearly shows their primitive character; a fact
the more remarkable in that the revolt described by the chroniclers
originated and ran its course in the country among peasants with a view
of recovering complete independence, and not amongst an urban population
with a view of resulting in the erection of a commune.  Towards the end
of the tenth century, under Richard II., Duke of Normandy, called the
Good, and whilst the good King Robert was reigning in France, “In several
countships of Normandy,” says William of Jumiege, “all the peasants,
assembling in their conventicles, resolved to live according to their
inclinations and their own laws, as well in the interior of the forests
as along the rivers, and to reck nought of any established right.  To
carry out this purpose these mobs of madmen chose each two deputies, who
were to form at some central point an assembly charged to see to the
execution of their decrees.  As soon as the duke (Richard II.) was
informed thereof, he sent a large body of men-at-arms to repress this
audaciousness of the country districts and to scatter this rustic
assemblage.  In execution of his orders, the deputies of the peasants and
many other rebels were forthwith arrested, their feet and hands were cut
off, and they were sent away thus mutilated to their homes, in order to
deter their like from such enterprises, and to make them wiser, for fear
of worse.  After this experience the peasants left off their meetings and
returned to their ploughs.”

[Illustration: The Peasants resolved to Live according to their own
Inclinations and their own Laws----209]

It was about eighty years after the event when the monk William of
Jumiege told the story of this insurrection of peasants so long anterior,
and yet so similar to that which more than three centuries afterwards
broke out in nearly the whole of Northern.  France, and which was called
the Jacquery.  Less than a century after William of Jumiege, a Norman
poet, Robert Wace, told the same story in his Romance of Rou, a history
in verse of Rollo and the first dukes of Normandy: “The lords do us
nought but ill,” he makes the Norman peasants say: with them we have nor
gain nor profit from our labors; every day is for us a day of suffering,
of travail, and of fatigue; every day our beasts are taken from us for
forced labor and services .  .  . why put up with all this evil, and why
not get quit of travail?  Are not we men even as they are?  Have we not
the same stature, the same limbs, the same strength--for suffering?  Bind
we ourselves by oath; swear we to aid one another; and if they be minded
to make war on us, have we not for every knight thirty or forty young
peasants ready and willing to fight with club, or boar-spear, or arrow,
or axe, or stones, if they have not arms?  Learn we to resist the
knights, and we shall be free to hew down trees, to hunt game, and to
fish after our fashion, and we shall work our will on flood and in field
and wood.”

These two passages have already been quoted in Chapter XIV. of this
history in the course of describing the general condition of France under
the Capetians before the crusades, and they are again brought forward
here because they express and paint to the life the chief cause which
from the end of the tenth century led to so many insurrections amongst
the rural as well as urban populations, and brought about the
establishment of so many communes.

We say the chief cause only, because oppression and insurrection were not
the sole origin of the communes.  Evil, moral and material, abounds in
human communities, but it never has the sole dominion there; force never
drives justice into utter banishment, and the ruffianly violence of the
strong never stifles in all hearts every sympathy for the weak.  Two
causes, quite distinct from feudal oppression, viz., Roman traditions and
Christian sentiments, had their share in the formation of the communes
and in the beneficial results thereof.

The Roman municipal regimen, which is described in M. Guizot’s _L’Essais
sur l’Histoire de France_ (1st Essay, pp. 1-44), did not everywhere
perish with the empire; it kept its footing in a great number of towns,
especially in those of Southern Gaul, Marseilles, Arles, Nismes,
Narbonne, Toulouse, &c.  At Arles the municipality actually bore the name
of commune (_communitas_), Toulouse gave her municipal magistrates the
name of _Capitouls,_ after the Capitol of Rome, and in the greater part
of the other towns in the south they were called Consuls.  After the
great invasion of barbarians from the seventh to the end of the eleventh
century, the existence of these Roman municipalities appears but rarely
and confusedly in history; but in this there is nothing peculiar to the
towns and the municipal regimen, for confusion and obscurity were at that
time universal, and the nascent feudal system was plunged therein as well
as the dying little municipal systems were.  Many Roman municipalities
were still subsisting without influencing any event of at all a general
kind, and without leaving any trace; and as the feudal system grew and
grew they still went on in the midst of universal darkness and anarchy.
They had penetrated into the north of Gaul in fewer numbers and with a
weaker organization than in the south, but still keeping their footing
and vaunting themselves on their Roman origin in the face of their
barbaric conquerors.  The inhabitants of Rheims remembered with pride
that their municipal magistracy and its jurisdiction were anterior to
Clovis, dating as they did from before the days of St. Remigius, the
apostle of the Franks.  The burghers of Metz boasted of having enjoyed
civil rights before there was any district of Lorraine: “Lorraine,” said
they, “is young, and Metz is old.”  The city of Bourges was one of the
most complete examples of successive transformations and denominations
attained by a Roman municipality from the sixth to the thirteenth century
under the Merovingians, the Carlovingians, and the earliest Capetians.
At the time of the invasion it had arenas, an amphitheatre, and all that
characterized a Roman city.  In the seventh century, the author of the
life of St. Estadiola, born at Bourges, says that “she was the child of
illustrious parents who, as worldly dignity is accounted, were notable by
reason of senatorial rank; and Gregory of Tours quotes a judgment
delivered by the principals (_primores_) of the city of Bourges.  Coins
of the time of Charles the Bald are struck with the name of the city of
Bourges and its inhabitants (_Bituriges_).  In 1107, under Philip I., the
members of the municipal body of Bourges are named _prud’hommes_.  In two
charters, one of Louis the Young, in 1145, and the other of Philip
Augustus, in 1218, the old senators of Bourges have the name at one time
of _bons hommes,_ at another of _barons_ of the city.  Under different
names, in accordance with changes of language, the Roman municipal
regimen held on and adapted itself to new social conditions.

In our own day there has been far too much inclination to dispute, and
M. Augustin Thierry has, in M. Guizot’s opinion, made far too little of,
the active and effective part played by the kingship in the formation and
protection of the French communes.  Not only did the kings, as we shall
presently see, often interpose as mediators in the quarrels of the
communes with their laic or ecclesiastical lords, but many amongst them
assumed in their own domains and to the profit of the communes an
intelligent and beneficial initiative.  The city of Orleans was a happy
example of this.  It was of ancient date, and had prospered under the
Roman empire; nevertheless the continuance of the Roman municipal regimen
does not appear there clearly as we have just seen that it did in the
case of Bourges; it is chiefly from the middle ages and their kings that
Orleans held its municipal franchises and its privileges; they never
raised it to a commune, properly so called, by a charter sworn to and
guaranteed by independent institutions, but they set honestly to work
to prevent local oppression, to reform abuses, and make justice prevail
there.  From 1051 to 1281 there are to be found in the _Recueil des
ordonnances des rois_ seven important charters relating to Orleans.  In
1051, at the demand of the people of Orleans and its bishop, who appears
in the charter as the head of the people, the defender of the city, Henry
I. secures to the inhabitants of Orleans freedom of labor and of going to
and fro during the vintages, and interdicts his agents from exacting
anything upon the entry of wines.  From 1137 to 1178, during the
administration of Suger, Louis the Young in four successive ordinances
gives, in respect of Orleans, precise guarantees for freedom of trade,
security of person and property, and the internal peace of the city; and
in 1183 Philip Augustus exempts from all talliage, that is, from all
personal impost, the present and future inhabitants of Orleans, and
grants them divers privileges, amongst others that of not going to
law-courts farther from their homes than Etampes.  In 1281 Philip the
Bold renews and confirms the concessions of Philip Augustus.  Orleans was
not, within the royal domain, the only city where the kings of that
period were careful to favor the progress of the population, of wealth,
and of security; several other cities, and even less considerable burghs,
obtained similar favor; and in 1155 Louis the Young, probably in
confirmation of an act of his father, Louis the Fat, granted to the
little town of Lorris, in Gatinais (nowadays chief place of a canton in
the department of the Loiret), a charter, full of detail, which regulated
its interior regimen in financial, commercial, judicial, and military
matters, and secured to all its inhabitants good conditions in respect of
civil life.  This charter was in the course of the twelfth century
regarded as so favorable that it was demanded by a great number of towns
and burghs; the king was asked for _the customs of Lorris_
(_consuetudines Lauracienses_), and in the space of fifty years they were
granted to seven towns, some of them a considerable distance from
Orleanness.  The towns which obtained them did not become by this
qualification communes properly so called in the special and historical
sense of the word; they had no jurisdiction of their own, no independent
magistracy; they had not their own government in their hands; the king’s
officers, provosts, bailiffs, or others, were the only persons who
exercised there a real and decisive power.  But the king’s promises to
the inhabitants, the rights which he authorized them to claim from him,
and the rules which he imposed upon his officers in their government,
were not concessions which were of no value or which remained without
fruit.  As we follow in the course of our history the towns which,
without having been raised to communes properly so called, had obtained
advantages of that kind, we see them developing and growing in population
and wealth, and sticking more and more closely to that kingship from
which they had received their privileges, and which, for all its
imperfect observance and even frequent violation of promises, was
nevertheless accessible to complaint, repressed from time to time the
misbehavior of its officers, renewed at need and even extended
privileges, and, in a word, promoted in its administration the progress
of civilization and the counsels of reason, and thus attached the
burghers to itself without recognizing on their side those positive
rights and those guarantees of administrative independence which are in a
perfect and solidly constructed social fabric the foundation of political
liberty.

[Illustration: Insurrection in favor of the Commune at Cambrai----214]

Nor was it the kings alone who in the middle ages listened to the
counsels of reason, and recognized in their behavior towards their towns
the rights of justice.  Many bishops had become the feudal lords of the
episcopal city; and the Christian spirit enlightened and animated many
amongst them just as the monarchical spirit sometimes enlightened and
guided the kings.  Troubles had arisen in the town of Cambrai between the
bishops and the people.  “There was amongst the members of the
metropolitan clergy,” says M. Augustin Thierry, “a certain Baudri de
Sarchainville, a native of Artois, who had the title of chaplain of the
bishopric.  He was a man of high character and of wise and reflecting
mind.  He did not share the violent aversion felt by most of his order
for the institution of communes.  He saw in this institution a sort of
necessity beneath which it would be inevitable sooner or later, Willy
nilly, to bow, and he thought it was better to surrender to the wishes of
the citizens than to shed blood in order to postpone for a while an
unavoidable revolution.  In 1098 he was elected Bishop of Noyon.  He
found this town in the same state in which he had seen that of Cambrai.
The burghers were at daily loggerheads with the metropolitan clergy, and
the registers of the Church contained a host of documents entitled _Peace
made between us and the burghers of Noyon._ But no reconciliation was
lasting; the truce was soon broken, either by the clergy or by the
citizens, who were the more touchy in that they had less security for
their persons and their property.  The new bishop thought that the
establishment of a commune sworn to by both the rival parties might
become a sort of compact of alliance between them, and he set about
realizing this noble idea before the word commune had served at Noyon as
the rallying cry of popular insurrection.  Of his own mere motion he
convoked in assembly all the inhabitants of the town, clergy, knights,
traders, and craftsmen.  He presented them with a charter which
constituted the body of burghers an association forever under magistrates
called jury-men, like those of Cambrai.  ‘Whosoever,’ said the charter,
‘shall desire to enter this commune shall not be able to be received as a
member of it by a single individual, but only in the presence of the
jurymen.  The sum of money he shall then give shall be employed for the
benefit of the town, and not for the private advantage of any one
whatsoever.  If the commune be outraged, all those who have sworn to it
shall be bound to march to its defence, and none shall be empowered to
remain at home unless he be infirm or sick, or so poor that he must needs
be himself the watcher of his own wife and children lying sick.  If any
one have wounded or slain any one on the territory of the commune, the
jurymen shall take vengeance therefor.’”

The other articles guarantee to the members of the commune of Noyon the
complete ownership of their property, and the right of not being handed
over to justice save before their own municipal magistrates.  The bishop
first swore to this charter, and the inhabitants of every condition took
the same oath after him.  In virtue of his pontifical authority he
pronounced the anathema, and all the curses of the Old and New Testament,
against whoever should in time to come dare to dissolve the commune or
infringe its regulations.  Furthermore, in order to give this new pact a
stronger warranty, Baudri requested the hing of France.  Louis the Fat,
to corroborate it, as they used to say at the time, by his approbation
and by the great seal of the crown.  The king consented to this request
of the bishop, and that was all the part taken by Louis the Fat in the
establishment of the commune of Noyon.  The king’s charter is not
preserved, but, under the date of 1108, there is extant one of the
bishop’s own, which may serve to substantiate the account given:--

“Baudri, by the grace of God Bishop of Noyon, to all those who do
preserve and go on in the faith:

“Most dear brethren, we learn by the example and words of-the holy
Fathers, that all good things ought to be committed to writing, for fear
lest hereafter they come to be forgotten.  Know, then, all Christians
present and to come, that I have formed at Noyon a commune, constituted
by the counsel and in an assembly of clergy, knights, and burghers; that
I have confirmed it by oath, by pontifical authority, and by the bond of
anathema; and that I have prevailed upon our lord King Louis to grant
this commune and corroborate it with the king’s seal.  This establishment
formed by me, sworn to by a great number of persons, and granted by the
king, let none be so bold as to destroy or alter; I give warning thereof,
on behalf of God and myself, and I forbid it in the name of pontifical
authority.  Whosoever shall transgress and violate the present law, be
subjected to excommunication; and whosoever, on the contrary, shall
faithfully keep it, be preserved forever amongst those who dwell in the
house of the Lord.”

This good example was not without fruit.  The communal regimen was
established in several towns, notably at St. Quentin and at Soissons,
without trouble or violence, and with one accord amongst the laic and
ecclesiastical lords and the inhabitants.

We arrive now at the third and chief source of the communes, at the case
of those which met feudal oppression with energetic resistance, and
which, after all the sufferings, vicissitudes, and outrages, on both
sides, of a prolonged struggle, ended by winning a veritable
administrative, and, to a certain extent, political independence.  The
number of communes thus formed from the eleventh to the thirteenth
century was great, and we have a detailed history of the fortunes of
several amongst them, Cambrai, Beauvais, Laon, Amiens, Rheims, Etampes,
Vezelay, &c.  To give a correct and vivid picture of them we will choose
the commune of Laon, which was one of those whose fortunes were most
checkered as well as most tragic, and which after more than two centuries
of a very tempestuous existence was sentenced to complete abolition,
first by Philip the Handsome, then by Philip the Long and Charles the
Handsome, and, finally, by Philip of Valois, “for certain misdeeds and
excesses notorious, enormous, and detestable, and on full deliberation of
our council.”  The early portion of the history connected with the
commune of Laon has been narrated for us by Guibert, an abbot of Nogent-
sous-Coucy, in the diocese of Laon, a contemporary writer, sprightly and
bold.  “In all that I have written and am still writing,” says he, “I
dismiss all men from my mind, caring not a whit about pleasing anybody.
I have taken my side in the opinions of the world, and with calmness and
indifference on my own account I expect to be exposed to all sorts of
language, to be as it were beaten with rods.  I proceed with my task,
being fully purposed to bear with equanimity the judgments of all who
come snarling after me.”

Laon was at the end of the eleventh century one of the most important
towns in the kingdom of France.  It was full of rich and industrious
inhabitants; the neighboring people came thither for provisions or
diversion; and such concourse led to the greatest disturbances.  “The
nobles and their servitors,” says M. Augustin Thierry, “sword in hand,
committed robbery upon the burghers; the streets of the town were not
safe by night or even by day, and none could go out without running a
risk of being stopped and robbed or killed.  The burghers in their turn
committed violence upon the peasants, who came to buy or sell at the
market of the town.”  “Let me give as example,” says Guibert of Nogent,
“a single fact, which, had it taken place amongst the Barbarians or the
Scythians, would assuredly have been considered the height of wickedness,
in the judgment even of those who recognize no law.  On Saturday the
inhabitants of the country places used to leave their fields, and come
from all sides to Laon to get provisions at the market.  The townsfolk
used then to go round the place, carrying in baskets, or bowls, or
otherwise, samples of vegetables, or grain, or any other article, as if
they wished to sell.  They would offer them to the first peasant who was
in search of such things to buy; he would promise to pay the price agreed
upon; and then the seller would say to the buyer, ‘Come with me to my
house to see and examine the whole of the articles I am selling you.’ The
other would go; and then, when they came to the bin containing the goods,
the honest seller would take off and hold up the lid, saying to the
buyer, ‘Step hither, and put your head or arms into the bin, to make
quite sure that it is all exactly the same goods as I showed you
outside.’  And then when the other, jumping on to the edge of the bin,
remained leaning on his belly, with his head and shoulders hanging down,
the worthy seller, who kept in the rear, would hoist up the thoughtless
rustic by the feet, push him suddenly into the bin, and, clapping on the
lid as he fell, keep him shut up in this safe prison until he had bought
himself out.”

In 1106 the bishopric of Laon had been two years vacant.  It was sought
after and obtained for a sum of money, say contemporaries, by Gaudri, a
Norman by birth, referendary of Henry I., King of England, and one of
those Churchmen who, according to M. Augustin Thierry’s expression, “had
gone in the train of William the Bastard to seek their fortunes amongst
the English by seizing the property of the vanquished.”  It appears that
thenceforth the life of Gaudri had been scarcely edifying; he had, it is
said, the tastes and habits of a soldier; he was hasty and arrogant, and
he liked beyond everything to talk of fighting and hunting, of arms, of
horses, and of hounds.  When he was repairing with a numerous following
to Rome, to ask for confirmation of his election, he met at Langres Pope
Pascal II., come to France to keep the festival of Christmas at the abbey
of Cluny.  The pope had no doubt heard something about the indifferent
reputation of the new bishop, for, the very day after his arrival at
Langres, he held a conference with the ecclesiastics who had accompanied
Gaudri, and plied them with questions concerning him.  “He asked us
first,” says Guibert of Nogent, who was in the train, “why we had chosen
a man who was unknown to us.  As none of the priests, some of whom did
not know even the first rudiments of the Latin language, made any answer
to this question, he turned to the abbots.  I was seated between my two
colleagues.  As they likewise kept silence, I began to be urged, right
and left, to speak.  I was one of those whom this election had
displeased; but with culpable timidity I had yielded to the authority of
my superiors in dignity.  With the bashfulness of youth I could only with
great difficulty and much blushing prevail upon myself to open my mouth.
The discussion was carried on, not in our mother tongue, but in the
language of scholars.  I therefore, though with great confusion of mind
and face, betook myself to speaking in a manner to tickle the palate of
him who was questioning us, wrapping up in artfully arranged form of
speech expressions which were softened down, but were not entirely
removed from the truth.  I said that we did not know, it was true, to the
extent of having been familiar by sight and intercourse with him, the man
of whom we had made choice, but that we had received favorable reports of
his integrity.  The pope strove to confound my arguments by this
quotation from the Gospel: ‘He that hath seen giveth testimony.’  But as
he did not explicitly raise the objection that Gaudri had been elected by
desire of the court, all subtle subterfuge on any such point became
useless; so I gave it up, and confessed that I could say nothing in
opposition to the pontiff’s words; which pleased him very much, for he
had less scholarship than would have become his high office.  Clearly
perceiving, however, that all the phrases I had piled up in defence of
our election had but little weight, I launched out afterwards upon the
urgent straits wherein our Church was placed, and on this subject I gave
myself the more rein in proportion as the person elected was unfitted for
the functions of the episcopate.”

[Illustration: Burghers of Laon----220]

Gaudri was indeed very scantily fitted for the office of bishop, as the
town of Laon was not slow to perceive.  Scarcely had he been installed
when he committed strange outrages.  He had a man’s eyes put out on
suspicion of connivance with his enemies; and he tolerated the murder of
another in the metropolitan church.  In imitation of rich crusaders on
their return from the East, he kept a black slave, whom he employed upon
his deeds of vengeance.  The burghers began to be disquieted, and to wax
wroth.  During a trip the bishop made to England, they offered a great
deal of money to the clergy and knights who ruled in his absence, if they
would consent to recognize by a genuine Act the right of the commonalty
of the inhabitants to be governed by authorities of their own choice.
“The clergy and knights,” says a contemporary chronicler, “came to an
agreement with the common folk in hopes of enriching themselves in a
speedy and easy fashion.”  A commune was therefore set up and proclaimed
at Laon, on the model of that of Noyon, and invested with effective
powers.  The bishop, on his return, was very wroth, and for some days
abstained from re-entering the town.  But the burghers acted with him, as
they had with his clergy and the knights: they offered him so large a sum
of money that “it was enough,” says Guibert of Nogent, “to appease the
tempest of his words.”  He accepted the commune, and swore to respect it.
The burghers wished to have a higher warranty; so they sent to Paris, to
King Louis the Fat, a deputation laden with rich presents.  “The king,”
 says the chronicler, “won over by this plebeian bounty, confirmed the
commune by his own oath,” and the deputation took back to Laon their
charter sealed with the great seal of the crown, and augmented by two
articles to the following purport: “The folks of Laon shall not be liable
to be forced to law away from their town; if the king have a suit against
any one amongst them, justice shall be done him in the episcopal court.
For these advantages, and others further granted to the aforesaid
inhabitants by the king’s munificence, the folks of the commune have
covenanted to give the king, besides the old plenary court dues, and
man-and-horse dues [dues paid for exemption from active service in case
of war], three lodgings a year, if he come to the town, and, if he do not
come, they will pay him instead twenty livres for each lodging.”

For three years the town of Laon was satisfied and tranquil; the burghers
were happy in the security they enjoyed, and proud of the liberty they
had won.  But in 1112 the knights, the clergy of the metropolitan church,
and the bishop himself had spent the money they had received, and keenly
regretted the power they had lost; and they meditated reducing to the old
condition the serfs emancipated from the yoke.  The bishop invited King
Louis the Fat to come to Laon for the keeping of Holy Week, calculating
upon his presence for the intimidation of the burghers.  “But the
burghers, who were in fear of ruin, says Guibert of Nogent, “promised the
king and those about him four hundred livres, or more, I am not quite
sure which; whilst the bishop and the grandees, on their side, urged the
monarch to come to an understanding with them, and engaged to pay him
seven hundred livres.  King Louis was so striking in person that he
seemed made expressly for the majesty of the throne; he was courageous in
war, a foe to all slowness in business, and stout-hearted in adversity;
sound, however, as he was on every other point, he was hardly
praiseworthy in this one respect, that he opened too readily both heart
and ear to vile fellows corrupted by avarice.  This vice was a fruitful
source of hurt, as well as blame, to himself, to say nothing of
unhappiness to many.  The cupidity of this prince always caused him to
incline towards those who promised him most.  All his own oaths, and
those of the bishops and the grandees, were consequently violated.”  The
charter sealed with the king’s seal was annulled; and on the part of the
king and the bishop, an order was issued to all the magistrates of the
commune to cease from their functions, to give up the seal and banner of
the town, and to no longer ring the belfry chimes which rang out the
opening and closing of their audiences.  But at this proclamation, so
violent was the uproar in the town, that the king, who had hitherto
lodged in a private hotel, thought it prudent to leave, and go to pass
the night in the episcopal palace, which was surrounded by strong walls.
Not content with this precaution, and probably a little ashamed of what
he had done, he left Laon the next morning at daybreak, with all his
train, without waiting for the festival of Easter, for the celebration
of which he had undertaken his journey.

All the day after his departure the shops of the tradespeople and the
houses of the innkeepers were kept closed; no sort of article was offered
for sale; everybody remained shut up at home.  But when there is wrath at
the bottom of men’s souls, the silence and stupor of the first paroxysm
are of short duration.  Next day a rumor spread that the bishop and the
grandees were busy “in calculating the fortunes of all the citizens, in
order to demand that, to supply the sum promised to the king, each should
pay on account of the destruction of the commune as much as each had
given for its establishment.”  In a fit of violent indignation the
burghers assembled; and forty of them bound themselves by oath, for life
or death, to kill the bishop and all those grandees who had labored for
the ruin of the commune.  The archdeacon, Anselm, a good sort of man, of
obscure birth, who heartily disapproved of the bishop’s perjury, went
nevertheless and warned him, quite privately, and without betraying any
one, of the danger that threatened him, urging him not to leave his
house, and particularly not to accompany the procession on Easter-day.
“Pooh!” answered the bishop, “I die by the hands of such fellows!”  Next
day, nevertheless, he did not appear at matins, and did not set foot
within the church; but when the hour for the procession came, fearing to
be accused of cowardice, he issued forth at the head of his clergy,
closely followed by his domestics and some knights with arms and armor
under their clothes.  As the company filed past, one of the forty
conspirators, thinking the moment favorable for striking the blow, rushed
out suddenly from under an arch, with a shout of “_Commune! commune!_”
 A low murmur ran through the throng; but not a soul joined in the shout
or the movement, and the ceremony carne to an end without any explosion.
The day after, another solemn procession was to take place to the church
of St. Vincent.  Somewhat reassured, but still somewhat disquieted, the
bishop fetched from the domains of the bishopric a body of peasants, some
of whom he charged to protect the church, others his own palace, and once
more accompanied the procession without the conspirators daring to attack
him.  This time he was completely reassured, and dismissed the peasants
he had sent for.  “On the fourth day after Easter,” says Guibert of
Nogent, “my corn having been pillaged in consequence of the disorder that
reigned in the town, I repaired to the bishop’s, and prayed him to put a
stop to this state of violence.  ‘What do you suppose,’ said he to me,
‘those fellows can do with all their outbreaks?  Why, if my blackamoor
John were to pull the nose of the most formidable amongst them, the poor
devil durst not even grumble.  Have I not forced them to give up what
they called their commune, for the whole duration of my life?’  I held my
tongue,” adds Guibert; “many folks besides me warned him of his danger;
but he would not deign to believe anybody.”

Three days later all seemed quiet; and the bishop was busy with his
archdeacon in discussing the sums to be exacted from the burghers.  All
at once a tumult arose in the town; and a crowd of people thronged the
streets, shouting “_Commune! commune!_” Bands of burghers armed with
swords, axes, bows, hatchets, clubs, and lances, rushed into the
episcopal palace.  At the news of this, the knights who had promised the
bishop to go to his assistance if he needed it came up one after another
to his protection; and three of them, in succession, were hotly attacked
by the burgher bands, and fell after a short resistance.  The episcopal
palace was set on fire.  The bishop, not being in a condition to repulse
the assaults of the populace, assumed the dress of one of his own
domestics, fled to the cellar of the church, shut himself in, and
ensconced himself in a cask, the bung-hole of which was stopped up by a
faithful servitor.  The crowd wandered about everywhere in search of him
on whom they wished to wreak their vengeance.  A bandit named Teutgaud,
notorious in those times for his robberies, assaults, and murders of
travellers, had thrown himself headlong into the cause of the commune.
The bishop, who knew him, had by way of pleasantry and on account of his
evil mien given him the nickname of _Isengrin_.  This was the name which
was given in the fables of the day to the wolf, and which corresponded to
that of Master Reynard.  Teutgaud and his men penetrated into the cellar
of the church; they went along tapping upon all the casks; and on what
suspicion there is no knowing, but Teutgaud halted in front of that in
which the bishop was huddled up, and had it opened, crying, “Is there any
one here?”  “Only a poor prisoner,” answered the bishop, trembling.  “Ha!
ha!” said the playful bandit, who recognized the voice, “so it is you,
Master Isengrin, who are hiding here!  “And he took him by the hair, and
dragged him out of his cask.  The bishop implored the conspirators to
spare his life, offering to swear on the Gospels to abdicate the
bishopric, promising them all the money he possessed, and saying that if
they pleased he would leave the country.  The reply was insults and
blows.  He was immediately despatched; and Teutgaud, seeing the episcopal
ring glittering on his finger, cut off the finger to get possession of
the ring.  The body, stripped of all covering, was thrust into a corner,
where passers-by threw stones or mud at it, accompanying their insults
with ribaldry and curses.

[Bishop Gaudri dragged from the Cask----224]

Murder and arson are contagious.  All the day of the insurrection and all
the following night armed bands wandered about the streets of Laon
searching everywhere for relatives, friends, or servitors of the bishop,
for all whom the angry populace knew or supposed to be such, and wreaking
on their persons or their houses a ghastly or a brutal vengeance.  In a
fit of terror many poor innocents fled before the blind wrath of the
populace; some were caught and cut down pell-mell amongst the guilty;
others escaped through the vineyards planted between two hills in the
outskirts of the town.  “The progress of the fire, kindled on two sides
at once, was so rapid,” says Guibert of Nogent, “and the winds drove the
flames so furiously in the direction of the convent of St. Vincent, that
the monks were afraid of seeing all they possessed become the fire’s
prey, and all the persons who had taken refuge in this monastery trembled
as if they had seen swords hanging over their heads.”  Some insurgents
stopped a young man who had been body-servant to the bishop, and asked
him whether the bishop had been killed or not; they knew nothing about
it, nor did he know any more; he helped them to look for the corpse, and
when they came upon it, it had been so mutilated that not a feature was
recognizable.  “I remember,” said the young man, “that when the prelate
was alive he liked to talk of deeds of war, for which to his hurt he
always showed too much bent; and he often used to say that one day in a
sham-fight, just as he was, all in the way of sport, attacking a certain
knight, the latter hit him with his lance, and wounded him under the
neck, near the tracheal artery.”  The body of Gaudri was eventually
recognized by this mark, and “Archdeacon Anselm went the next day,” says
Guibert of Nogent, “to beg of the insurgents permission at least to bury
it, if only because it had once borne the title and worn the insignia of
bishop.  They consented, but reluctantly.  It were impossible to tell how
many threats and insults were launched against those who undertook the
obsequies, and what outrageous language was vented against the dead
himself.  His corpse was thrown into a half-dug hole, and at church there
was none of the prayers or ceremonies prescribed for the burial of, I
will not say a bishop, but the worst of Christians.”  A few days
afterwards, Raoul, Archbishop of Rheims, came to Laon to purify the
church.  “The wise and venerable archbishop,” says Guibert, “after
having, on his arrival, seen to more decently disposing the remains of
some of the dead and celebrated divine service in memory of all, amidst
the tears and utter grief of their relatives and connections, suspended
the holy sacrifice of the mass, in order to deliver a discourse, touching
those execrable institutions of communes, whereby we see serfs, contrary
to all right and justice, withdrawing themselves by force from the lawful
authority of their masters.”

Here is a striking instance of the changeableness of men’s feelings and
judgments; and it causes a shock even when it is natural and almost
allowable.  Guibert of Nogent, the contemporary historian, who was but
lately loud in his blame of the bishop of Laon’s character and conduct,
now takes sides with the reaction aroused by popular excesses and
vindictiveness, and is indignant with “those execrable institutions of
communes,” the source of so many disturbances and crimes.  The burghers
of Laon themselves, “having reflected upon the number and enormity of the
crimes they had committed, shrank up with fear,” says Guibert, “and
dreaded the judgment of the king.”  To protect themselves against the
consequences of his resentment, they added a fresh wound to the old by
summoning to their aid Thomas de Marle, son of Lord Enguerrand de Coucy.
“This Thomas, from his earliest youth, enriched himself by plundering the
poor and the pilgrim, contracted several incestuous marriages, and
exhibited a ferocity so unheard of in our age, that certain people, even
amongst those who have a reputation for cruelty, appear less lavish of
the blood of common sheep than Thomas was of human blood.  Such was the
man whom the burghers of Laon implored to come and put himself at their
head, and whom they welcomed with joy when he entered their town.  As for
him, when he had heard their request, he consulted his own people to know
what he ought to do; and they all replied that his forces were not
sufficiently numerous to defend such a city against the king.  Thomas
then induced the burghers to go out and hold a meeting in a field where
he would make known to them his plan.  When they were about a mile from
the town, he said to them, ‘Laon is the head of the kingdom; it is
impossible for me to keep the king from making himself master of it.  If
you dread his arms, follow me to my own land, and you will find in me a
protector and a friend.’  These words threw them into an excess of
consternation; soon, however, the popular party, troubled at the
recollection of the crime they had committed, and fancying they already
saw the king threatening their lives, fled away to the number of a great
many in the wake of Thomas.  Teutgaud himself, that murderer of Bishop
Gaudri, hastened to put himself under the wing of the Lord of Marie.
Before long the rumor spread abroad amongst the population of the
country-places near Laon that that town was quite empty of inhabitants;
and all the peasants rushed thither and took possession of the houses
they found without defenders.  Who could tell, or be believed if he were
to attempt to tell, how much money, raiment, and provision of all kinds
was discovered in this city?  Before long there arose between the first
and last comers disputes about the partition of their plunder; all that
the small folks had taken soon passed into the hands of the powerful; if
two men met a third quite alone they stripped him; the state of the town
was truly pitiable.  The burghers who had quitted it with Thomas de Marle
had beforehand destroyed and burned the houses of the clergy and grandees
whom they hated; and now the grandees, escaped from the massacre, carried
off in their turn from the houses of the fugitives all means of
subsistence and all movables to the very hinges and bolts.”

The rumor of so many disasters, crimes, and reactions succeeding one
another spread rapidly throughout all districts.  Thomas de Marle was put
under the ban of the kingdom, and visited with excommunication “by a
general assembly of the Church of the Gauls,” says Guibert of Nogent,
“assembled at Beauvais; “and this sentence was read every Sunday after
mass in all the metropolitan and parochial churches.  Public feeling
against Thomas de Marle became so strong that Enguerrand de Bowes, Lord
of Coucy, who passed, says Suger, for his father, joined those who
declared war against him in the name of Church and King.  Louis the Fat
took the field in person against him.  “Men-at-arms, and in very small
numbers, too,” says Guibert of Nogent, “were with difficulty induced to
second the king, and did not do so heartily; but the light-armed infantry
made up a considerable force, and the Archbishop of Rheims and the
bishops had summoned all the people to this expedition, whilst offering
to all absolution from their sins.  Thomas de Marle, though at that time
helpless and stretched upon his bed, was not sparing of scoffs and
insults towards his assailants; and at first he absolutely refused to
listen to the king’s summons.”  But Louis persisted without wavering in
his enterprise, exposing himself freely, and in person leading his
infantry to the attack when the men-at-arms did not come on or bore
themselves slackly.  He carried successively the castles of Crecy and
Nogent, domains belonging to Thomas de Marle, and at last reduced him to
the necessity of buying himself off at a heavy ransom, indemnifying the
churches he had spoiled, giving guarantees for future behavior, and
earnestly praying for re-admission to the communion of the faithful.  As
for those folks of Laon, perpetrators of or accomplices in the murder of
Bishop Gaudri, who had sought refuge with Thomas de Marle, the king
showed them no mercy.  “He ordered them,” says Suger, “to be strung up to
the gibbet, and left for food to the voracity of kites, and crows, and
vultures.”

There are certain discrepancies between the two accounts, both
contemporaneous, which we possess of this incident in the earliest years
of the twelfth century, one in the Life of Louis the Fat, by Suger, and
the other in the Life of Guibert of Nogent, by himself.  They will be
easily recognized on comparing what was said, after Suger, in Chapter
XVIII. of this history, with what has just been said here after Guibert.
But these discrepancies are of no historical importance, for they make no
difference in respect of the essential facts characteristic of social
condition at the period, and of the behavior and position of the actors.

Louis the Fat, after his victory over Thomas de Marle and the fugitives
from Laon, went to Laon with the Archbishop of Rheims; and the presence
of the king, whilst restoring power to the foes of the commune, inspired
them, no doubt, with a little of the spirit of moderation, for there was
an interval of peace, during which no attention was paid to anything but
expiatory ceremonies and the restoration of the churches which had been a
prey to the flames.  The archbishop celebrated a solemn mass for the
repose of the souls of those who had perished during the disturbances,
and he preached a sermon exhorting serfs to submit themselves to their
masters, and warning them on pain of anathema from resisting by force.
The burghers of Laon, however, did not consider every sort of resistance
forbidden, and the lords had, no doubt, been taught not to provoke it,
for in 1128, sixteen years after the murder of Bishop Gaudri, fear of a
fresh insurrection determined his successor to consent to the institution
of a new commune, the charter of which was ratified by Louis the Fat in
an assembly held at Compiegne.  Only the name of commune did not recur in
this charter; it was replaced by that of Peace-establishment; the
territorial boundaries of the commune were called peace-boundaries, and
to designate its members recourse was had to the formula, _All those who
have signed this peace_.  The preamble of the charter runs, “In the name
of the holy and indivisible Trinity, we Louis, by the grace of God king
of the French, do make known to all our lieges present and to come that,
with the consent of the barons of our kingdom and the inhabitants of the
city of Laon, we have set up in the said city a peace-establishment.”
 And after having enumerated the limits, forms, and rules of it, the
charter concludes with this declaration of amnesty: “All former
trespasses and offences committed before the ratification of the present
treaty are wholly pardoned.  If any one, banished for having trespassed
in past time, desire to return to the town, he shall be admitted and
shall recover possession of his property.  Excepted from pardon, however,
are the thirteen whose names do follow; “and then come the names of the
thirteen excepted from the amnesty and still under banishment.
“Perhaps,” says M. Augustin Thierry, “these thirteen under banishment,
shut out forever from their native town at the very moment it became
free, had been distinguished amongst all the burghers of Laon by their
opposition to the power of the lords; perhaps they had sullied by deeds
of violence this patriotic opposition; perhaps they had been taken at
haphazard to suffer alone for the crimes of their fellow-citizens.”  The
second hypothesis appears the most probable; for that deeds of violence
and cruelty had been committed alternately by the burghers and their foes
is an ascertained fact, and that the charter of 1128 was really a work of
liberal pacification is proved by its contents and wording.  After such
struggles and at the moment of their subsidence some of the most violent
actors always bear the burden of the past, and amongst the most violent
some are often the most sincere.

For forty-seven years after the charter of Louis the Fat the town of Laon
enjoyed the internal peace and the communal liberties it had thus
achieved; but in 1175 a new bishop, Roger de Rosoy, a man of high birth,
and related to several of the great lords his neighbors, took upon
himself to disregard the regimen of freedom established at Laon.  The
burghers of Laon, taught by experience, applied to the king, Louis the
Young, and offered him a sum of money to grant them a charter of commune.
Bishop Roger, “by himself and through his friends,” says a chronicler, a
canon of Laon, “implored the king to have pity on his Church, and abolish
the serfs’ commune; but the king, clinging to the promise he had received
of money, would not listen to the bishop or his friends,” and in 1177
gave the burghers of Laon a charter which confirmed their peace-
establishment of 1128.  Bishop Roger, however, did not hold himself
beaten.  He claimed the help of the lords his neighbors, and renewed the
war against the burghers of Laon, who, on their side, asked and obtained
the aid of several communes in the vicinity.  In an access of democratic
rashness, instead of awaiting within their walls the attack of their
enemies, they marched out without cavalry to the encounter, ravaging as
they went the lands of the lords whom they suspected of being
ill-disposed towards them; but on arriving in front of the bishop’s
allies, “all this rustic multitude,” says the canon-chronicler, “terror-
stricken at the bare names of the knights they found assembled, took
suddenly to flight, and a great number of the burghers were massacred
before reaching their city.”  Louis the Young then took the field to help
them; but Baldwin, Count of Hainault, went to the aid of the Bishop of
Laon with seven hundred knights and several thousand infantry.  King
Louis, after having occupied and for some time held in sequestration the
lands of the bishop, thought it advisable to make peace rather than
continue so troublesome a war, and at the intercession of the pope and
the Count of Hainault he restored to Roger de Rosoy his lands and his
bishopric on condition of living in peace with the commune.  And so long
as Louis VII. lived, the bishop did refrain from attacking the liberties
of the burghers of Laon; but at the king’s death, in 1180, he applied to
his successor, Philip Augustus, and offered to cede to him the lordship
of Fere-sur-Oise, of which he was the possessor, provided that Philip by
charter abolished the commune of Laon.  Philip yielded to the temptation,
and in 1190 published an ordinance to the following purport: “Desiring to
avoid for our soul every sort of danger, we do entirely quash the commune
established in the town of Laon as being contrary to the rights and
liberties of the metropolitan church of St. Mary, in regard for justice
and for the sake of a happy issue to the pilgrimage which we be bound to
make to Jerusalem.”  But next year, upon entreaty and offers from the
burghers of Laon, Philip changed his mind, and without giving back the
lordship of Fere-sur-Oise to the bishop, guaranteed and confirmed in
perpetuity the peace-establishment granted in 1128 to the town of Laon,
“on the condition that every year at the feast of All Saints they shall
pay to us and our successors two hundred livres of Paris.”  For a century
all strife of any consequence ceased between the burghers of Laon and
their bishop; there was no real accord or good under-standing between
them, but the public peace was not troubled, and neither the Kings of
France nor the great lords of the neighborhood interfered in its affairs.
In 1294 some knights and clergy of the metropolitan chapter of Laon took
to quarrelling with some burghers; and on both sides they came to deeds
of violence, which caused sanguinary struggles in the streets of the town
and even in the precincts of the episcopal palace.  The bishop and his
chapter applied to the pope, Boniface VIII., who applied to the king,
Philip the Handsome, to put an end to these scandalous disturbances.
Philip the Handsome, in his turn, applied to the Parliament of Paris,
which, after inquiry, “deprived the town of Laon of every right of
commune and college, under whatsoever name.”  The king did not like to
execute this decree in all its rigor.  He granted the burghers of Laon a
charter which maintained them provisionally in the enjoyment of their
political rights, but with this destructive clause: “Said commune and
said shrievalty shall be in force only so far as it shall be our
pleasure.”  For nearly thirty years, from Philip the Handsome to Philip
of Valois, the bishops and burghers of Laon were in litigation before the
crown of France, the former for the maintenance of the commune of Laon in
its precarious condition and at the king’s good pleasure, the latter for
the recovery of its independent and durable character.  At last, in 1331,
Philip of Valois, “considering that the olden commune of Laon, by reason
of certain misdeeds and excesses, notorious, enormous, and detestable,
had been removed and put down forever by decree of the court of our most
clear lord and uncle, King Philip the Handsome, confirmed and approved by
our most dear lords, Kings Philip and Charles, whose souls are with God,
we, on great deliberation of our council, have ordained that no commune,
corporation, college, shrievalty, mayor, jurymen, or any other estate or
symbol belonging thereto, be at any time set up or established at Laon.”
 By the same ordinance the municipal administration of Laon was put under
the sole authority of the king and his delegates; and to blot out all
remembrance of the olden independence of the commune, a later ordinance
forbade that the tower from which the two huge communal bells had been
removed should thenceforth be called belfry-tower.

[Illustration: The Cathedral of Laon----233]

The history of the commune of Laon is that of the majority of the towns
which, in Northern and Central France, struggled from the eleventh to the
fourteenth century to release themselves from feudal oppression and
violence.  Cambrai, Beauvais, Amiens, Soissons, Rheims, Vezelay, and
several other towns displayed at this period a great deal of energy and
perseverance in bringing their lords to recognize the most natural and
the most necessary rights of every human creature and community.  But
within their walls dissensions were carried to extremity, and existence
was ceaselessly tempestuous and troublous; the burghers were hasty,
brutal, and barbaric,--as barbaric as the lords against whom they were
defending their liberties.  Amongst those mayors, sheriffs, jurats, and
magistrates of different degrees and with different titles, set up in the
communes, many came before very long to exercise dominion arbitrarily,
violently, and in their own personal interests.  The lower orders were in
an habitual state of jealousy and sedition of a ruffianly kind towards
the rich, the heads of the labor market, the controllers of capital and
of work.  This reciprocal violence, this anarchy, these internal evils
and dangers, with their incessant renewals, called incessantly for
intervention from without; and when, after releasing themselves from
oppression and iniquity coming from above, the burghers fell a prey to
pillage and massacre coming from below, they sought for a fresh protector
to save them from this fresh evil.  Hence that frequent recourse to the
king, the great suzerain whose authority could keep down the bad
magistrates of the commune or reduce the mob to order; and hence also,
before long, the progressive downfall, or, at any rate, the utter
enfeeblement of those communal liberties so painfully won.  France was at
that stage of existence and of civilization at which security can hardly
be purchased save at the price of liberty.  We have a phenomenon peculiar
to modern times in the provident and persistent effort to reconcile
security with liberty, and the bold development of individual powers with
the regular maintenance of public order.  This admirable solution of the
social problem, still so imperfect and unstable in our time, was unknown
in the middle ages; liberty was then so stormy and so fearful, that
people conceived before long, if not a disgust for it, at any rate a
horror of it, and sought at any price a political regimen which would
give them some security, the essential aim of the social estate.  When we
arrive at the end of the thirteenth and the beginning of the fourteenth
century, we see a host of communes falling into decay or entirely
disappearing; they cease really to belong to and govern themselves; some,
like Laon, Cambrai, Beauvais, and Rheims, fought a long while against
decline, and tried more than once to re-establish themselves in all their
independence; but they could not do without the king’s support in their
resistance to their lords, laic or ecclesiastical; and they were not in a
condition to resist the kingship, which had grown whilst they were
perishing.  Others, Meulan and Soissons, for example (in 1320 and 1335),
perceived their weakness early, and themselves requested the kingship to
deliver them from their communal organization, and itself assume their
administration.  And so it is about this period, under St. Louis and
Philip the Handsome, that there appear in the collections of acts of the
French kingship, those great ordinances which regulate the administration
of all communes within the kingly domains.  Hitherto the kings had
ordinarily dealt with each town severally; and as the majority were
almost independent, or invested with privileges of different kiwis and
carefully respected, neither the king nor any great suzerain dreamed of
prescribing general rules for communal regimen, nor of administering
after a uniform fashion all the communes in their domains.  It was under
St. Louis and Philip the Handsome that general regulations on this
subject began.  The French communes were associations too small and too
weak to suffice for self-maintenance and self-government amidst the
disturbances of the great Christian community; and they were too numerous
and too little enlightened to organize themselves into one vast
confederation, capable of giving them a central government.  The communal
liberties were not in a condition to found in France a great republican
community; to the kingship appertained the power and fell the honor of
presiding over the formation and the fortunes of the French nation.

But the kingship did not alone accomplish this great work.  At the very
time that the communes were perishing and the kingship was growing, a new
power, a new social element, the Third Estate, was springing up in
France; and it was called to take a far more important place in the
history of France, and to exercise far more influence upon the fate of
the French father-land, than it had been granted to the communes to
acquire during their short and incoherent existence.

It may astonish many who study the records of French history from the
eleventh to the fourteenth century, not to find anywhere the words third
estate; and a desire may arise to know whether those inquirers of our day
who have devoted themselves professedly to this particular study, have
been more successful in discovering that grand term at the time when it
seems that we ought to expect to meet with it.  The question was,
therefore, submitted to a learned member of the _Academie des
Inscriptions et Belles-lettres,_ M. Littre, in fact, whose _Dictionnaire
etymologique de la Langur Francaise_ is consulted with respect by the
whole literary world, and to a young magistrate, M. Picot, to whom the
_Acacdemie des Sciences morales et politiques_ but lately assigned the
first prize for his great work on the question it had propounded, as to
the history and influence of states-general in France; and here are
inserted, textually, the answers given by two gentlemen of so much
enlightenment and authority upon such a subject.

M. Littre, writing on the 3d of October, 1871, says, “I do not find, in
my account of the word, third estate before the sixteenth century.  I
quote these two instances of it: ‘As to the third order called third
estate .  .  .’ (_La Noue, Discours,_ p. 541); and ‘clerks and deputies
for the third estate, same for the estate of labor (laborers).’
(_Coustumier general,_ t. i.  p. 335.) In the fifteenth century, or at
the end of the fourteenth, in the poems of Eustace Deschamps, I have--

          ‘_Prince, dost thou yearn for good old times again?
          In good old ways the Three Estates restrain._’

“At date of fourteenth century, in Du Cange, we read under the word
status, ‘_Per tres status concilii generalis Praelatorum, Baronum,
nobilium et universitatum comitatum._’ According to these documents, I
think it is in the fourteenth century that they began to call the three
orders _tres status_, and that it was only in the sixteenth century that
they began to speak in French of the _tiers estat_ (third estate).  But I
cannot give this conclusion as final, seeing that it is supported only by
the documents I consulted for my dictionary.”

M. Picot replied on the 3d of October, 1871, “It is certain that acts
contemporary with King John frequently speak of the ‘three estates,’ but
do not utter the word _tiers-etat_ (third estate).  The great chronicles
and Froissart say nearly always, ‘the church-men, the nobles, and the
good towns.’  The royal ordinances employ the same terms; but sometimes,
in order not to limit their enumeration to the deputies of closed cities,
they add, _the good towns, and the open country_ (Ord.  t. iii  p. 221,
note).  When they apply to the provincial estates of the _Oil_ tongue it
is the custom to say, the burghers and inhabitants; when it is a question
of the Estates of Languedoc, the commonalties of the seneschalty.  Such
were, in the middle of the fourteenth century, the only expressions for
designating the third order.

“Under Louis XI., Juvenal des Ursins, in his harangue, addresses the
deputies of the third by the title of _burghers and inhabitants of the
good towns_.  At the States of Tours, the spokesman of the estates, John
de Rely, says, _the people of the common estate, the estate of the
people_.  The special memorial presented to Charles VIII. by the three
orders of Languedoc likewise uses the word _people_.

“It is in Masselin’s report and the memorial of grievances presented in
1485 that I meet for the first time with the expression third estate
(_tiers-etat_).  Masselin says, ‘It was decided that each section should
furnish six commissioners, two ecclesiastics, two nobles, and two of the
third estate (_duos ecclesiasticos, duos nobiles, et duos tertii
status._)’ (_Documents inedits sur l’Histoire de France; proces-verbal de
Masselin,_ p. 76.) The commencement of the chapter headed _Of the Commons
(du commun)_ is, ‘For the third and common estate the said folks do
represent .  .  .’ and a few lines lower, comparing the kingdom with the
human body, the compilers of the memorial say, ‘The members are the
clergy, the nobles, and the folks of the third estate.  (_Ibid.  after
the report of Masselin, memorial of grievances,_ p. 669.)

“Thus, at the end of the fifteenth century, the expression third estate
was constantly employed; but is it not of older date?  There are words
which spring so from the nature of things that they ought to be
contemporaneous with the ideas they express; their appearance in language
is inevitable, and is scarcely noticed there.  On the day when the
deputies of the communes entered an assembly, and seated themselves
beside the first two orders, the new comer, by virtue of the situation
and rank occupied, took the name of third order; and as our fathers used
to speak of the third denier (_tiers denier_), and the third day (_tierce
journee_), so they must have spoken of the (_tiers-etat_) third estate.
It was only at the end of the fifteenth century that the expression
became common; but I am inclined to believe that it existed in the
beginning of the fourteenth.

“For an instant I had imagined, in the course of my researches, that,
under King John, the ordinances had designated the good towns by the name
of third estate.  I very soon saw my mistake; but you will see how near I
found myself to the expression of which we are seeking the origin.  Four
times, in the great ordinance of December, 1335, the deputies wrest from
the king a promise that in the next assemblies the resolutions shall be
taken according to the unanimity of the orders ‘without two estates, if
they be of one accord, being able to bind the _third._’ At first sight it
might be supposed that the deputies of the towns had an understanding to
secure themselves from the dangers of common action on the part of the
clergy and noblesse, but a more attentive examination made me fly back to
a more correct opinion: it is certain that the three orders had combined
for mutual protection against an alliance of any two of them.  Besides,
the States of 1576 saw how the clergy readopted to their profit, against
the two laic orders, the proposition voted in 1355.  It is beyond a doubt
that this doctrine served to keep the majority from oppressing the
minority whatever may have been its name.  Only, in point of fact, it was
most frequently the third estate that must have profited by the
regulation.

“In brief, we may, before the fifteenth century, make suppositions, but
they are no more than mere conjectures.  It was at the great States of
Tours, in 1468, that, for the first time, the third order bore the name
which has been given to it by history.”

The fact was far before its name.  Had the third estate been centred
entirely in the communes at strife with their lords, had the fate of
burgherdom in France depended on the communal liberties won in that
strife, we should see, at the end of the thirteenth century, that element
of French society in a state of feebleness and decay.  But it was far
otherwise.  The third estate drew its origin and nourishment from all
sorts of sources; and whilst one was within an ace of drying up, the
others remained abundant and fruitful.  Independently of the commune
properly so called and invested with the right of self-government, many
towns had privileges, serviceable though limited franchises, and under
the administration of the king’s officers they grew in population and
wealth.  These towns did not share, towards the end of the thirteenth
century, in the decay of the once warlike and victorious communes.  Local
political liberty was to seek in them; the spirit of independence and
resistance did not prevail in them; but we see growing up in them another
spirit which has played a grand part in French history, a spirit of
little or no ambition, of little or no enterprise, timid even and
scarcely dreaming of actual resistance, but honorable, inclined to order,
persevering, attached to its traditional franchises, and quite able to
make them respected, sooner or later.  It was especially in the towns
administered in the king’s name and by his provosts that there was a
development of this spirit, which has long been the predominant
characteristic of French burgherdom.  It must not be supposed that, in
the absence of real communal independence, these towns lacked all
internal security.  The kingship was ever fearful lest its local officers
should render themselves independent, and remembered what had become in
the ninth century of the crown’s offices, the duchies and the countships,
and of the difficulty it had at that time to recover the scattered
remnants of the old imperial authority.  And so the Capetian kings with
any intelligence, such as Louis VI., Philip Augustus, St. Louis, and
Philip the Handsome, were careful to keep a hand over their provosts,
sergeants, and officers of all kinds, in order that their power should
not grow so great as to become formidable.  At this time, besides,
Parliament and the whole judicial system was beginning to take form; and
many questions relating to the administration of the towns, many disputes
between the provosts and burghers, were carried before the Parliament of
Paris, and there decided with more independence and equity than they
would have been by any other power.  A certain measure of impartiality is
inherent in judicial power; the habit of delivering judgment according to
written texts, of applying laws to facts, produces a natural and almost
instinctive respect for old-acquired rights.  In Parliament the towns
often obtained justice and the maintenance of their franchises against
the officers of the king.  The collection of kingly ordinances at this
time abounds with instances of the kind.  These judges, besides, these
bailiffs, these provosts, these seneschals, and all these officers of the
king or of the great suzerains, formed before long a numerous and
powerful class.  Now the majority amongst them were burghers, and their
number and their power were turned to the advantage of burgherdom, and
led day by day to its further extension and importance.  Of all the
original sources of the third estate, this it is, perhaps, which has
contributed most to bring about the social preponderance of that order.
Just when burgherdom, but lately formed, was losing in many of the
communes a portion of its local liberties, at that same moment it was
seizing by the hand of Parliaments, provosts, judges, and administrators
of all kinds, a large share of central power.  It was through burghers
admitted into the king’s service and acting as administrators or judges
in his name that communal independence and charters were often attacked
and abolished; but at the same time they fortified and elevated
burgherdom, they caused it to acquire from day to day more wealth, more
credit, more importance and power in the internal and external affairs of
the state.

Philip the Handsome, that ambitious and despotic prince, was under no
delusion when in 1302, 1308, and 1314, on convoking the first states-
general of France, he summoned thither “the deputies of the good towns.”
 He did not yet give them the name of third estate; but he was perfectly
aware that he was thus summoning to his aid against Boniface VIII. and
the Templars and the Flemings a class already invested throughout the
country with great influence and ready to lend him efficient support.
His son, Philip the Long, was under no delusion when in 1317 and 1321 he
summoned to the states-general “the commonalties and good towns of the
kingdom “to decide upon the interpretation of the Salle law as to the
succession to the throne, “or to advise as to the means of establishing a
uniformity of coins, weights, and measures;” he was perfectly aware that
the authority of burgherdom would be of great assistance to him in the
accomplishment of acts so grave.  And the three estates played the
prelude to the formation, painful and slow as it was, of constitutional
monarchy, when, in 1338, under Philip of Valois, they declared, “in
presence of the said king, Philip of Valois, who assented thereto, that
there should be no power to impose or levy talliage in France if urgent
necessity or evident utility did not require it, and then only by grant
of the people of the estates.”

In order to properly understand the French third estate and its
importance, more is required than to look on at its birth; a glance must
be taken at its grand destiny and the results at which it at last
arrived.  Let us, therefore, anticipate centuries and get a glimpse, now
at once, of that upon which the course of events from the fourteenth to
the nineteenth century will shed full light.

Taking the history of France in its entirety and under all its phases,
the third estate has been the most active and determining element in the
process of Freneh civilization.  If we follow it in its relation with the
general government of the country, we see it at first allied for six
centuries to the kingship, struggling without cessation against the
feudal aristocracy and giving predominance in place thereof to a single
central power, pure monarchy, closely bordering, though with some
frequently repeated but rather useless reservations, on absolute
monarchy.  But, so soon as it had gained this victory and brought about
this revolution, the third estate went in pursuit of a new one, attacking
that single power to the foundation of which it had contributed so much
and entering upon the task of changing pure monarchy into constitutional
monarchy.  Under whatever aspect we regard it during these two great
enterprises, so different one from the other, whether we study the
progressive formation of French society or that of its government, the
third estate is the most powerful and the most persistent of the forces
which have influenced French civilization.

This fact is unique in the history of the world.  We recognize in the
career of the chief nations of Asia and ancient Europe nearly all the
great facts which have agitated France; we meet in them mixture of
different races, conquest of people by people, immense inequality between
classes, frequent changes in the forms of government and extent of public
power; but nowhere is there any appearance of a class which, starting
from the very lowest, from being feeble, despised, and almost
imperceptible at its origin, rises by perpetual motion and by labor
without respite, strengthens itself from period to period, acquires in
succession whatever it lacked, wealth, enlightenment, influence, changes
the face of society and the nature of government, and arrives at last at
such a pitch of predominance that it may be said to be absolutely the
country.  More than once in the world’s history the external semblances
of such and such a society have been the same as those which have just
been reviewed here, but it is mere semblance.  In India, for example,
foreign invasions and the influx and establishment of different races
upon the same soil have occurred over and over again; but with what
result?  The permanence of caste has not been touched; and society has
kept its divisions into distinct and almost changeless classes.  After
India take China.  There too history exhibits conquests similar to the
conquest of Europe by the Germans; and there too, more than once, the
barbaric conquerors settled amidst a population of the conquered.  What
was the result?  The conquered all but absorbed the conquerors, and
changelessness was still the predominant characteristic of the social
condition.  In Western Asia, after the invasions of the Turks, the
separation between victors and vanquished remained insurmountable; no
ferment in the heart of society, no historical event, could efface this
first effect of conquest.  In Persia, similar events succeeded one
another; different races fought and intermingled; and the end was
irremediable social anarchy, which has endured for ages without any
change in the social condition of the country, without a shadow of any
development of civilization.

So much for Asia.  Let us pass to the Europe of the Greeks and Romans.
At the first blush we seem to recognize some analogy between the progress
of these brilliant societies and that of French society; but the analogy
is only apparent; there is, once more, nothing resembling the fact and
the history of the French third estate.  One thing only has struck sound
judgments as being somewhat like the struggle of burgherdom in the middle
ages against the feudal aristocracy, and that is the struggle between the
plebeians and patricians at Rome.  They have often been compared; but it
is a baseless comparison.  The struggle between the plebeians and
patricians commenced from the very cradle of the Roman republic; it was
not, as happened in the France of the middle ages, the result of a slow,
difficult, incomplete development on the part of a class which, through a
long course of great inferiority in strength, wealth, and credit, little
by little extended itself and raised itself, and ended by engaging in a
real contest with the superior class.  It is now acknowledged that the
struggle at Rome between the plebeians and patricians was a sequel and a
prolongation of the war of conquest, was an effort on the part of the
aristocracy of the cities conquered by Rome to share the rights of the
conquering aristocracy.  The families of plebeians were the chief
families of the vanquished peoples; and though placed by defeat in a
position of inferiority, they were not any the less aristocratic
families, powerful but lately in their own cities, encompassed by
clients, and calculated from the very first to dispute with their
conquerors the possession of power.  There is nothing in all this like
that slow, obscure, heart-breaking travail of modern burgherdom escaping,
full hardly, from the midst of slavery or a condition approximating to
slavery, and spending centuries, not in disputing political power, but in
winning its own civil existence.  The more closely the French third
estate is examined, the more it is recognized as a new fact in the
world’s history, appertaining exclusively to the civilization of modern,
Christian Europe.

Not only is the fact new, but it has for France an entirely special
interest, since--to employ an expression much abused in the present day--
it is a fact eminently French, essentially national.  Nowhere has
burgherdom had so wide and so productive a career as that which fell to
its lot in France.  There have been communes in the whole of Europe, in
Italy, Spain, Germany, and England, as well as in France.  Not only have
there been communes everywhere, but the communes of France are not those
which, as communes, under that name and in the middle ages, have played
the chiefest part and taken the highest place in history.  The Italian
communes were the parents of glorious republics.  The German communes
became free and sovereign towns, which had their own special history, and
exercised a great deal of influence upon the general history of Germany.
The communes of England made alliance with a portion of the English
feudal aristocracy, formed with it the preponderating house in the
British government, and thus played, full early, a mighty part in the
history of their country.  Far were the French communes, under that name
and in their day of special activity, from rising to such political
importance and to such historical rank.  And yet it is in France that the
people of the communes, the burgherdom, reached the most complete and
most powerful development, and ended by acquiring the most decided
preponderance in the general social structure.  There have been communes,
we say, throughout Europe; but there has not really been a victorious
third estate anywhere, save in France.  The revolution of 1789, the
greatest ever seen, was the culminating point arrived at by the third
estate; and France is the only country in which a man of large mind
could, in a burst of burgher’s pride, exclaim, “What is the third estate?
Everything.”

Since the explosion, and after all the changes, liberal and illiberal,
due to the revolution of 1789, there has been a common-place, ceaselessly
repeated, to the effect that there are no more classes in French society
--there is only a nation of thirty-seven millions of persons.  If it be
meant that there are now no more privileges in France, no special laws
and private rights for such and such families, proprietorships, and
occupations, and that legislation is the same, and there is perfect
freedom of movement for all, at all steps of the social ladder, it is
true; oneness of laws and similarity of rights, is now the essential and
characteristic fact of civil society in France, an immense, an excellent,
and a novel fact in the history of human associations.  But beneath the
dominance of this fact, in the midst of this national unity and this
civil equality, there evidently and necessarily exist numerous and
important diversities and inequalities, which oneness of laws and
similarity of rights neither prevent nor destroy.  In point of property,
real or personal, land or capital, there are rich and poor; there are the
large, the middling, and the small property.  Though the great
proprietors may be less numerous and less rich, and the middling and the
small proprietors more numerous and more powerful than they were of yore,
this does not prevent the difference from being real and great enough to
create, in the civil body, social positions widely different and unequal.
In the professions which are called liberal, and which live by brains and
knowledge, amongst barristers, doctors, scholars, and literates of all
kinds, some rise to the first rank, attract to themselves practice and
success, and win fame, wealth, and influence; others make enough, by hard
work, for the necessities of their families and the calls of their
position; others vegetate obscurely in a sort of lazy discomfort.  In the
other vocations, those in which the labor is principally physical and
manual, there also it is according to nature that there should be
different and unequal positions; some, by brains and good conduct, make
capital, and get a footing upon the ways of competence and progress;
others, being dull, or idle, or disorderly, remain in the straitened and
precarious condition of existence depending solely on wages.  Throughout
the whole extent of the social structure, in the ranks of labor as well
as of property, differences and inequalities of position are produced or
kept up and co-exist with oneness of laws and similarity of rights.
Examine any human associations, in any place and at any time, and
whatever diversity there may be in point of their origin, organization,
government, extent, and duration, there will be found in all three types
of social position always fundamentally the same, though they may appear
under different and differently distributed forms; 1st, men living on
income from their properties, real or personal, land or capital, without
seeking to increase them by their own personal and assiduous labor; 2d,
men devoted to working up and increasing, by their own personal and
assiduous labor, the real or personal properties, land or capital they
possess; 3d, men living by their daily labor, without land or capital to
give them an income.  And these differences, these inequalities in the
social position of men, are not matters of accident or violence, or
peculiar to such and such a time, or such and such a country; they are
matters of universal application, produced spontaneously in every human
society by virtue of the primitive and general laws of human nature, in
the midst of events and under the influence of social systems utterly
different.

These matters exist now and in France as they did of old and elsewhere.
Whether you do or do not use the name of classes, the new French social
fabric contains, and will not cease to contain, social positions widely
different and unequal.  What constitutes its blessing and its glory is,
that privilege and fixity no longer cling to this difference of
positions; that there are no more special rights and advantages legally
assigned to some and inacessible to others; that all roads are free and
open to all to rise to everything; that personal merit and toil have an
infinitely greater share than was ever formerly allowed to them in the
fortunes of men.  The third estate of the old regimen exists no more; it
disappeared in its victory over privilege and absolute power; it has for
heirs the middle classes, as they are now called; but these classes,
whilst inheriting the conquests of the old third estate, hold them on new
conditions also, as legitimate as binding.  To secure their own
interests, as well as to discharge their public duty, they are bound to
be at once conservative and liberal; they must, on the one hand, enlist
and rally beneath their flag the old, once privileged superioritics,
which have survived the fall of the old regimen, and, on the other hand,
fully recognize the continual upward movement which is fermenting in the
whole body of the nation.  That, in its relations with the aristocratic
classes, the third estate of the old regimen should have been and for a
long time remained uneasy, disposed to take umbrage, jealous and even
envious, is no more than natural; it had its rights to urge and its
conquests to gain; nowadays its conquests have been won, the rights are
recognized, proclaimed, and exercised; the middle classes have no longer
any legitimate ground for uneasiness or envy; they can rest with full
confidence in their own dignity and their own strength; they have
undergone all the necessary trials, and passed all the necessary tests.
In respect of the lower orders, and the democracy properly so called, the
position of the middle classes is no less favorable; they have no fixed
line of separation; for who can say where the middle classes begin and
where they end?  In the name of the principles of common rights and
general liberty they were formed; and by the working of the same
principles they are being constantly recruited, and are incessantly
drawing new vigor from the sources whence they sprang.  To maintain
common rights and free movement upwards against the retrograde tendencies
of privilege and absolute power, on the one hand, and on the other
against the insensate and destructive pretensions of levellers and
anarchists, is now the double business of the middle classes; and it is
at the same time, for themselves, the sure way of preserving
preponderance in the state, in the name of general interests, of which
those classes are the most real and most efficient representatives.

On reaching, in our history, the period at which Philip the Handsome, by
giving admission amongst the states-general to the “burghers of the good
towns,” substituted the third estate for the communes, and the united
action of the three great classes of Frenchmen for their local struggles,
we did well to halt a while, in order clearly to mark the position and
part of the new actor in the great drama of national life.  We will now
return to the real business of the drama, that is, to the history of
France, which became, in the fourteenth century, more complex, more
tragic, and more grand than it had ever yet been.



CHAPTER XX.----THE HUNDRED YEARS’ WAR.--PHILIP VI. AND JOHN II.

We have just been spectators at the labor of formation of the French
kingship and the French nation.  We have seen monarchical unity and
national unity rising, little by little, out of and above the feudal
system, which had been the first result of barbarians settling upon the
ruins of the Roman empire.  In the fourteenth century, a new and a vital
question arose: Will the French dominion preserve its nationality?  Will
the kingship remain French, or pass to the foreigner?  This question
brought ravages upon France, and kept her fortunes in suspense for a
hundred years of war with England, from the reign of Philip of Valois to
that of Charles VII.; and a young girl of Lorraine, called Joan of Arc,
had the glory of communicating to France that decisive impulse which
brought to a triumphant issue the independence of the French nation and
kingship.

As we have seen in the preceding chapter, the elevation of Philip of
Valois to the throne, as representative of the male line amongst the
descendants of Hugh Capet, took place by virtue, not of any old written
law, but of a traditional right, recognized and confirmed by two recent
resolutions taken at the death of the two eldest sons of Philip the
Handsome.  The right thus promulgated became at once a fact accepted by
the whole of France; Philip of Valois had for rival none but a foreign
prince, and “there was no mind in France,” say contemporary chroniclers,
“to be subjects of the King of England.”  Some weeks after his accession,
on the 29th of May, 1328, Philip was crowned at Rheims, in presence of a
brilliant assemblage of princes and lords, French and foreign; and next
year, on the 6th of June, Edward III., King of England, being summoned to
fulfil a vassal’s duties by doing homage to the King of France for the
duchy of Aquitaine, which he held, appeared in the cathedral of Amiens,
with his crown on his head, his sword at his side, and his gilded spurs
on his heels.  When he drew near to the throne, the Viscount de Melun,
king’s chamberlain, invited him to lay aside his crown, his sword, and
his spurs, and go down on his knees before Philip.  Not without a murmur,
Edward obeyed; but when the chamberlain said to him, “Sir, you, as Duke
of Aquitaine, became liegeman of my lord the king who is here, and do
promise to keep towards him faith and loyalty,” Edward protested, saying
that he owed only simple homage, and not liege-homage--a closer bond,
imposing on the vassal more stringent obligations [to serve and defend
his suzerain against every enemy whatsoever].  “Cousin,” said Philip to
him, “we would not deceive you, and what you have now done contenteth us
well until you have returned to your own country, and seen from the acts
of your predecessors what you ought to do.”


[Illustration: Homage of Edward III. to Philip VI.----250]

“Gramercy, dear sir,” answered the King of England; and with the
reservation he had just made, and which was added to the formula of
homage, he placed his hands between the hands of the King of France, who
kissed him on the mouth, and accepted his homage, confiding in Edward’s
promise to certify himself by reference to the archives of England of the
extent to which his ancestors had been bound.  The certification took
place, and on the 30th of March, 1331, about two years after his visit to
Amiens, Edward III. recognized, by letters express, “that the said homage
which we did at Amiens to the King of France in general terms, is and
must be understood as liege; and that we are bound, as Duke of Aquitaine
and peer of France, to show him faith and loyalty.”

The relations between the two kings were not destined to be for long
so courteous and so pacific.  Even before the question of the succession
to the throne of France arose between them they had adopted contrary
policies.  When Philip was crowned at Rheims, Louis de Nevers, Count of
Flanders, repaired thither with a following of eighty-six knights, and he
it was to whom the right belonged of carrying the sword of the kingdom.
The heralds-at-arms repeated three times, “Count of Flanders, if you are
here, come and do your duty.”  He made no answer.  The king was
astounded, and bade him explain himself.  “My lord,” answered the count,
“may it please you not to be astounded; they called the Count of
Flanders, and not Louis de Nevers.”  “What then!” replied the king; “are
you not the Count of Flanders?”  “It is true, sir,” rejoined the other,
“that I bear the name, but I do not possess the authority; the burghers
of Bruges, Ypres, and Cassel have driven me from my land, and there
scarce remains but the town of Ghent where I dare show myself.”  “Fair
cousin,” said Philip, we will swear to you by the holy oil which hath
this day trickled over our brow that we will not enter Paris again before
seeing you reinstated in peaceable possession of the countship of
Flanders.”  Some of the French barons who happened to be present
represented to the king that the Flemish burghers were powerful; that
autumn was a bad season for a war in their country; and that Louis the
Quarreller, in 1315, had been obliged to come to a stand-still in a
similar expedition.  Philip consulted his constable, Walter de Chatillon,
who had served the kings his predecessors in their wars against Flanders.
“Whoso hath good stomach for fight,” answered the constable, “findeth all
times seasonable.”  “Well, then,” said the king, embracing him, “whoso
loveth me will follow me.”  The war thus resolved upon was forthwith
begun.  Philip, on arriving with his army before Cassel, found the place
defended by sixteen thousand Flemings under the command of Nicholas
Zannequin, the richest of the burghers of Furnes, and already renowned
for his zeal in the insurrection against the count.  For several days the
French remained inactive around the mountain on which Cassel is built,
and which the knights, mounted on iron-clad horses, were unable to scale.
The Flemings had planted on a tower of Cassel a flag carrying a cock,
with this inscription:--

              “When the cock that is hereon shall crow,
               The foundling king herein shall go.”

They called Philip the foundling king because he had no business to
expect to be king.  Philip in his wrath gave up to fire and pillage the
outskirts of the place.  The Flemings marshalled at the top of the
mountain made no movement.  On the 24th of August, 1328, about three in
the afternoon, the French knights had disarmed.  Some were playing at
chess; others “strolled from tent to tent in their fine robes, in search
of amusement; “and the king was asleep in his tent after a long carouse,
when all on a sudden his confessor, a Dominican friar, shouted out that
the Flemings were attacking the camp.  Zannequin, indeed, “came out full
softly and without a bit of noise,” says Froissart, with his troops in
three divisions, to surprise the French camp at three points.  He was
quite close to the king’s tent, and some chroniclers say that he was
already lifting his mace over the head of Philip, who had armed in hot
haste, and was defended only by a few knights, of whom one was waving the
oriflamme round him, when others hurried up, and Zannequiii was forced to
stay his hand.  At two other points of the camp the attack had failed.
The French gathered about the king and the Flemings about Zannequin; and
there took place so stubborn a fight, that “of sixteen thousand Flemings
who were there not one recoiled,” says Froissart, “and all were left
there dead and slain in three heaps one upon another, without budging
from the spot where the battle had begun.”  The same evening Philip
entered Cassel, which he set on fire, and, in a few days afterwards, on
leaving for France, he said to Count Louis, before the French barons,
Count, I have worked for you at my own and my barons’ expense; I give you
back your land, recovered and in peace; so take care that justice be kept
up in it, and that I have not, through your fault, to return; for if I
do, it will be to my own profit and to your hurt.”

The Count of Flanders was far from following the advice of the King of
France, and the King of France was far from foreseeing whither he would
be led by the road upon which he had just set foot.  It has already been
pointed out to what a position of wealth, population, and power,
industrial and commercial activity had in the thirteenth century raised
the towns of Flanders, Bruges, Ghent, Lille, Ypres, Fumes, Courtrai, and
Douai, and with what energy they had defended against their lords their
prosperity and their liberties.  It was the struggle, sometimes sullen,
sometimes violent, of feudal lordship against municipal burgherdom.  The
able and imperious Philip the Handsome had tested the strength of the
Flemish cities, and had not cared to push them to extremity.  When, in
1322, Count Louis de Nevers, scarcely eighteen years of age, inherited
from his grandfather Robert III.  the countship of Flanders, he gave
himself up, in respect of the majority of towns in the countship, to the
same course of oppression and injustice as had been familiar to his
predecessors; the burghers resisted him with the same, often ruffianly,
energy; and when, after a six years’ struggle amongst Flemings, the Count
of Flanders, who had been conquered by the burghers, owed his return as
master of his countship to the King of the French, he troubled himself
about nothing but avenging himself and enjoying his victory at the
expense of the vanquished.  He chastised, despoiled, proscribed, and
inflicted atrocious punishments; and, not content with striking at
individuals, he attacked the cities themselves.  Nearly all of them,
save Ghent, which had been favorable to the count, saw their privileges
annulled or curtailed of their most essential guarantees.  The burghers
of Bruges were obliged to meet the count half way to his castle of Vale,
and on their knees implore his pity.  At Ypres the bell in the tower was
broken up.  Philip of Valois made himself a partner in these severities;
he ordered the fortifications of Bruges, Ypres, and Courtrai to be
destroyed, and he charged French agents to see to their demolition.
Absolute power is often led into mistakes by its insolence; but when it
is in the hands of rash and reckless mediocrity, there is no knowing how
clumsy and blind it can be.  Neither the King of France nor the Count of
Flanders seemed to remember that the Flemish communes had at their door a
natural and powerful ally who could not do without them any more than
they could do without him.  Woollen stuffs, cloths, carpets, warm
coverings of every sort were the chief articles of the manufactures and
commerce of Flanders; there chiefly was to be found all that the active
and enterprising merchants of the time exported to Sweden, Norway,
Hungary, Russia, and even Asia; and it was from England that they chiefly
imported their wool, the primary staple of their handiwork.  “All
Flanders,” says Froissart, “was based upon cloth and no wool, no cloth.”
 On the other hand it was to Flanders that England, her land-owners and
farmers, sold the fleeces of their flocks; and the two countries were
thus united by the bond of their mutual prosperity.  The Count of
Flanders forgot or defied this fact so far as in 1336, at the
instigation, it is said, of the King of France, to have all the English
in Flanders arrested and kept in prison.  Reprisals were not long
deferred.  On the 5th of October in the same year the King of England
ordered the arrest of all Flemish merchants in his kingdom and the
seizure of their goods; and he at the same time prohibited the
exportation of wool.  “Flanders was given over,” says her principal
historian, “to desolation; nearly all her looms ceased rattling on one
and the same day, and the streets of her cities, but lately filled with
rich and busy workmen, were overrun with beggars who asked in vain for
work to escape from misery and hunger.”  The English land-owners and
farmers did not suffer so much, but were scarcely less angered; only it
was to the King of France and the Count of Flanders rather than their own
king that they held themselves indebted for the stagnation of their
affairs, and their discontent sought vent only in execration of the
foreigner.

When great national interests are to such a point misconceived and
injured, there crop up, before long, clear-sighted and bold men who
undertake the championship of them, and foment the quarrel to
explosion-heat, either from personal views or patriotic feeling.
The question of succession to the throne of France seemed settled by the
inaction of the King of England, and the formal homage he had come and
paid to the King of France at Amiens; but it was merely in abeyance.
Many people both in England and in France still thought of it and spoke
of it; and many intrigues bred of hope or fear were kept up with
reference to it at the courts of the two kings.  When the rumblings of
anger were loud on both sides in consequence of affairs in Flanders, two
men of note, a Frenchman and a Fleming, considering that the hour had
come, determined to revive the question, and turn the great struggle
which could not fail to be excited thereby to the profit of their own and
their countries’ cause, for it is singular how ambition and devotion,
selfishness and patriotism, combine and mingle in the human soul, and
even in great souls.

Philip VI. had embroiled himself with a prince of his line, Robert of
Artois, great-grandson of Robert the first Count of Artois, who was a
brother of St. Louis, and was killed during the crusade in Egypt, at the
battle of Mansourah.  As early as the reign of Philip the Handsome Robert
claimed the count-ship of Artois as his heritage; but having had his
pretensions rejected by a decision of the peers of the kingdom, he had
hoped for more success under Philip of Valois, whose sister he had
married.  Philip tried to satisfy him with another domain raised to a
peerage; but Robert, more and more discontented, got involved in a series
of intrigues, plots, falsehoods, forgeries, and even, according to public
report, imprisonments and crimes, which, in 1332, led to his being
condemned by the court of peers to banishment and the confiscation of
his property.  He fled for refuge first to Brabant, and then to England,
to the court of Edward III., who received him graciously, and whom he
forthwith commenced inciting to claim the crown of France, “his
inheritance,” as he said, “which King Philip holds most wrongfully.”
 Edward III., who was naturally prudent, and had been involved, almost
ever since his accession, in a stubborn war with Scotland, cared but
little for rushing into a fresh and far more serious enterprise.  But of
all human passions hatred is perhaps the most determined in the
prosecution of its designs.  Robert accompanied the King of England in
his campaigns northward; and “Sir,” said he, whilst they were marching
together over the heaths of Scotland, “leave this poor country, and give
your thoughts to the noble crown of France.”  When Edward, on returning
to London, was self-complacently rejoicing at his successes over his
neighbors, Robert took pains to pique his self-respect, by expressing
astonishment that he did not seek more practical and more brilliant
successes.  Poetry sometimes reveals sentiments and processes about which
history is silent.  We read in a poem of the fourteenth century, entitled
The vow on the heron, “In the season when summer is verging upon its
decline, and the gay birds are forgetting their sweet converse on the
trees, now despoiled of their verdure, Robert seeks for consolation in
the pleasures of fowling, for he cannot forget the gentle land of France,
the glorious country whence he is an exile.  He carries a falcon, which
goes flying over the waters till a heron falls its prey; then he calls
two young damsels to take the bird to the king’s palace, singing the
while in sweet discourse: ‘Fly, fly, ye honorless knights; give place to
gallants on whom love smiles; here is the dish for gallants who are
faithful to their mistresses.  The heron is the most timid of birds, for
it fears its own shadow; it is for the heron to receive the vows of King
Edward, who, though lawful King of France, dares not claim that noble
heritage.’  At these words the king flushed, his heart was wroth, and he
cried aloud, ‘Since coward is thrown in my teeth, I make vow [on this
heron] to the God of Paradise that ere a single year rolls by I will defy
the King of Paris.’  Count Robert hears and smiles; and low to his own
heart he says, ‘Now have I won: and my heron will cause a great war.’”

Robert’s confidence in this tempter’s work of his was well founded, but a
little premature.  Edward III. did not repel him; complained loudly of
the assistance rendered by the King of France to the Scots; gave an
absolute refusal to Philip’s demands for the extradition of the rebel
Robert, and retorted by protesting, in his turn, against the reception
accorded in France to David Bruce, the rival of his own favorite Baliol
for the throne of Scotland.  In Aquitaine he claimed as of his own domain
some places still occupied by Philip.  Philip, on his side, neglected no
chance of causing Edward embarrassment, and more or less overtly
assisting his foes.  The two kings were profoundly distrustful one of the
other, foresaw, both of them, that they would one day come to blows, and
prepared for it by mutually working to entangle and enfeeble one another.
But neither durst as yet proclaim his wishes or his fears, and take the
initiative in those unknown events which war must bring about to the
great peril of their people and perhaps of themselves.  From 1334 to
1337, as they continued to advance towards the issue, foreseen and at the
same time deferred, of this situation, they were both of them seeking
allies in Europe for their approaching struggle.  Philip had a notable
one under his thumb, the pope at that time settled at Avignon; and he
made use of him for the purpose of proposing a new crusade, in which
Edward III. should be called upon to join with him.  If Edward complied,
any enterprise on his part against France would become impossible; and if
he declined, Christendom would cry fie upon him.  Two successive popes,
John XXII. and Benedict XII., preached the crusade, and offered their
mediation to settle the differences between the two kings; but they were
unsuccessful in both their attempts.  The two kings strained every nerve
to form laic alliances.  Philip did all he could to secure to himself the
fidelity of Count Louis of Flanders, whom the King of England several
times attempted, but in vain, to win over.  Philip drew into close
relations with himself the Kings of Bohemia and Navarre, the Dukes of
Lorraine and Burgundy, the Count of Foix, the Genoese, the Grand Prior of
the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, and many other lords.  The two
principal neighbors of Flanders, the Count of Hainault and the Duke of
Brabant, received the solicitations of both kings at one and the same
time.  The former had to wife Joan of Valois, sister of the King of
France, but he had married his daughter Philippa to the King of England;
and when Edward’s envoys came and asked for his support in “the great
business “which their master had in view.”  “If the king can succeed in
it,” said the count, “I shall be right glad.  It may well be supposed
that my heart is with him, him who hath my daughter, rather than with
King Philip, though I have married his sister; for he hath filched from
me the hand of the young Duke of Brabant, who should have wedded my
daughter Isabel, and hath kept him for a daughter of his own.  So help
will I my dear and beloved son the King of England to the best of my
power.  But he must get far stronger aid than mine, for Hainault is but a
little place in comparison with the kingdom of France, and England is too
far off to succor us.”  “Dear sir,” said the envoys, “advise us of what
lords our master might best seek aid, and in what he might best put his
trust.”  “By my soul,” said the count, “I could not point to lord so
powerful to aid him in this business as would be the Duke of Brabant, who
is his cousin-german, the Duke of Gueldres, who hath his sister to wife,
and Sire de Fauquemont.  They are those who would have most men-at-arms
in the least time, and they are right good soldiers; provided that money
be given them in proportion, for they are lords and men who are glad of
pay.”  Edward III. went for powerful allies even beyond the Rhine; he
treated with Louis V. of Bavaria, Emperor of Germany; he even had a
solemn interview with him at a diet assembled at Coblenz, and Louis named
Edward vicar imperial throughout all the empire situated on the left bank
of the Rhine, with orders to all the princes of the Low Countries to
follow and obey him, for a space of seven years, in the field.  But Louis
of Bavaria was a tottering emperor, excommunicated by the pope, and with
a formidable competitor in Frederick of Austria.  When the time for
action arrived, King John of Bohemia, a zealous ally of the French king,
persuaded the Emperor of Germany that his dignity would be compromised if
he were to go and join the army of the English king, in whose pay he
would appear to have enlisted; and Louis of Bavaria withdrew from his
alliance with Edward III., sending back the subsidies he had received
from him.

Which side were the Flemings themselves to take in a conflict of such
importance, and already so hot even before it had reached bursting point?
It was clearly in Flanders that each king was likely to find his most
efficient allies; and so it was there that they made the most strenuous
applications.  Edward III. hastened to restore between England and the
Flemish communes the commercial relations which had been for a while
disturbed by the arrest of the traders in both countries.  He sent into
Flanders, even to Ghent, ambassadors charged to enter into negotiations
with the burghers; and one of the most considerable amongst these
burghers, Solver of Courtrai, who had but lately supported Count Louis in
his quarrels with the people of Bruges, loudly declared that the alliance
of the King of England was the first requirement of Flanders, and gave
apartments in his own house to one of the English envoys.  Edward
proposed the establishment in Flanders of a magazine for English wools;
and he gave assurance to such Flemish weavers as would settle in England
of all the securities they could desire.  He even offered to give his
daughter Joan in marriage to the son of the Count of Flanders.  Philip,
on his side, tried hard to reconcile the communes of Flanders to their
count, and so make them faithful to himself; he let them off two years’
payment of a rent due to him of forty thousand livres of Paris per annum;
he promised them the monopoly of exporting wools from France; he
authorized the Brugesmen to widen the moats of their city, and even to
repair its ramparts.  The King of England’s envoys met in most of the
Flemish cities with a favor which was real, but intermingled with prudent
reservations, and Count Louis of Flanders remained ever closely allied
with the King of France, “for he was right French and loyal,” says
Froissart, “and with good reason, for he had the King of France almost
alone to thank for restoring him to his country by force.”

Whilst, by both sides, preparations were thus being made on the Continent
for war, the question which was to make it burst forth was being decided
in England.  In the soul of Edward temptation overcame indecision.  As
early as the month of June, 1336, in a Parliament assembled at
Northampton, he had complained of the assistance given by the King of
France to the Scots, and he had expressed a hope that if the French and
the Scots were to join, they would at last offer him battle, which the
latter had always carefully avoided.”  In September of the same year he
employed similar language in a Parliament held at Nottingham, and he
obtained therefrom subsidies for the war going on not only in Scotland,
but also in Aquitaine, against the French king’s lieutenants.  In April
and May of the following year, 1337, he granted to Robert of Artois, his
tempter for three years past, court favors which proved his resolution to
have been already taken.  On the 21st of August following he formally
declared war against the King of France, and addressed to all the
sheriffs, archbishops, and bishops of his kingdom a circular in which he
attributed the initiative to Philip; on the 26th of August he gave his
ally, the Emperor of Germany, notice of what he had just done, whilst,
for the first time, insultingly describing Philip as “setting himself up
for King of France.”  At last, on the 7th of October, 1337, he proclaimed
himself King of France, as his lawful inheritance, designating as
representatives and supporters of his right the Duke of Brabant, the
Marquis of Juliers, the Count of Haiiiault, and William de Bohun, Earl of
Northampton.

The enterprise had no foundation in right, and seemed to have few chances
of success.  If the succession to the crown of France had not been
regulated beforehand by a special and positive law, Philip of Valois had
on his side the traditional right of nearly three centuries past and
actual possession without any disputes having arisen in France upon the
subject.  His title had been expressly declared by the peers of the
kingdom, sanctioned by the Church, and recognized by Edward himself, who
had come to pay him homage.  He had the general and free assent of his
people: to repeat the words of the chroniclers of the time, “There was no
mind in France to be subjects of the King of England.”  Philip VI. was
regarded in Europe as a greater and more powerful sovereign than Edward
III.  He had the pope settled in the midst of his kingdom; and he often
traversed it with an array of valiant nobility whom he knew how to
support and serve on occasion as faithfully as he was served by them.
“He was highly prized and honored,” says Froissart, “for the victory he
had won (at Cassel) over the Flemings, and also for the handsome service
he had done his cousin Count Louis.  He did thereby abide in great
prosperity and honor, and he greatly increased the royal state; never had
there been king in France, it was said, who had kept state like King
Philip, and he provided tourneys and jousts and diversions in great
abundance.”  No national interest, no public ground, was provocative of
war between the two peoples; it was a war of personal ambition, like that
which in the eleventh century William the Conqueror had carried into
England.  The memory of that great event was still, in the fourteenth
century, so fresh in France, that when the pretensions of Edward were
declared, and the struggle was begun, an assemblage of Normans, barons
and knights, or, according to others, the Estates of Normandy themselves,
came and proposed to Philip to undertake once more, and at their own
expense, the conquest of England, if he would put at their head his
eldest son, John, their own duke.  The king received their deputation at
Vincennes, on the 23d of March, 1339, and accepted their offer.  They
bound themselves to supply for the expedition four thousand men-at-arms
and twenty thousand foot, whom they promised to maintain for ten weeks,
and even a fortnight beyond, if, when the Duke of Normandy had crossed to
England, his council should consider the prolongation necessary.  The
conditions in detail and the subsequent course of the enterprise thus
projected were minutely regulated and settled in a treaty published by
Dutillet in 1588, from a copy found at Caen when Edward III. became
master of that city in 1346.  The events of the war, the long fits of
hesitation on the part of both kings, and the repeated alternations from
hostilities to truces and truces to hostilities, prevented anything from
coming of this proposal, the authenticity of which has been questioned by
M. Michelet amongst others, but the genuineness of which has been
demonstrated by M. Adolph Despont, member of the appeal-court of Caen, in
his learned Histoire du Cotentin.

Edward III., though he had proclaimed himself King of France, did not at
the outset of his claim adopt the policy of a man firmly resolved and
burning to succeed.  From 1337 to 1340 he behaved as if he were at strife
with the Count of Flanders rather than with the King of France.  He was
incessantly to and fro, either by embassy or in person, between England,
Flanders, Hainault, Brabant, and even Germany, for the purpose of
bringing the princes and people to actively co-operate with him against
his rival; and during this diplomatic movement such was the hostility
between the King of England and the Count of Flanders that Edward’s
ambassadors thought it impossible for them to pass through Flanders in
safety, and went to Holland for a ship in which to return to England.
Nor were their fears groundless; for the Count of Flanders had caused to
be arrested, and was still detaining in prison at the castle of
Rupelmonde, the Fleming Sohier of Courtrai, who had received into his
house at Ghent one of the English envoys, and had shown himself favorable
to their cause.  Edward keenly resented these outrages, demanded, but did
not obtain, the release of Sohier of Courtrai, and by way of revenge gave
orders in November, 1337, to two of his bravest captains, the Earl of
Derby and Walter de Manny, to go and attack the fort of Cadsand, situated
between the Island of Walcheren and the town of Ecluse (or Sluys), a post
of consequence to the Count of Flanders, who had confided the keeping of
it to his bastard brother Guy, with five thousand of his most faithful
subjects.  It was a sanguinary affair.  The besieged were surprised, but
defended themselves bravely; the landing cost the English dear; the Earl
of Derby was wounded and hurled to the ground, but his comrade, Walter de
Manny, raised him up with a shout to his men of “Lancaster, for the Earl
of Derby; “and at last the English prevailed.  The Bastard of Flanders
was made prisoner; the town was pillaged and burned; and the English
returned to England, and “told their adventure,” says Froissart, “to the
king, who was right joyous when he saw them and learned how they had
sped.”

Thus began that war which was to be so cruel and so long.  The Flemings
bore the first brunt of it.  It was a lamentable position for them; their
industrial and commercial prosperity was being ruined; their security at
home was going from them; their communal liberties were compromised;
divisions set in amongst them; by interest and habitual intercourse they
were drawn towards England, but the count, their lord, did all he could
to turn them away from her, and many amongst them were loath to separate
themselves entirely from France.  “Burghers of Ghent, as they chatted in
the thoroughfares and at the cross-roads, said one to another, that they
had heard much wisdom, to their mind, from a burgher who was called James
Van Artevelde, and who was a brewer of beer.  They had heard him say
that, if he could obtain a hearing and credit, he would in a little while
restore Flanders to good estate, and they would recover all their gains
without standing ill with the King of France or the King of England.
These sayings began to get spread abroad, insomuch that a quarter or half
the city was informed thereof, especially the small folks of the
commonalty, whom the evil touched most nearly.  They began to assemble in
the streets, and it came to pass that one day, after dinner, several went
from house to house calling for their comrades, and saying, ‘Come and
hear the wise man’s counsel.’  On the 26th of December, 1337, they came
to the house of the said James Van Artevelde, and found him leaning
against his door.


[Illustration: Van Artevelde at his Door----264]

Far off as they were when they first perceived him, they made him a deep
obeisance, and ‘Dear sir,’ they said, ‘we are come to you for counsel;
for we are told that by your great and good sense you will restore the
country of Flanders to good case.  So tell us how.’  Then James Van
Artevelde came forward, and said, ‘Sirs comrades, I am a native and
burgher of this city, and here I have my means.  Know that I would gladly
aid you with all my power, you and all the country; if there were here a
man who would be willing to take the lead, I would be willing to risk
body and means at his side; and if the rest of ye be willing to be
brethren, friends and comrades to me, to abide in all matters at my side,
notwithstanding that I am not worthy of it, I will undertake it
willingly.’  Then said all with one voice, ‘We promise you faithfully to
abide at your side in all matters and to therewith adventure body and
means, for we know well that in the whole countship of Flanders there is
not a man but you worthy so to do.’”  Then Van Artevelde bound them to
assemble on the next day but one in the grounds of the monastery of
Biloke, which had received numerous benefits from the ancestors of Sohier
of Courtrai, whose son-in-law Van Artevelde was.

This bold burgher of Ghent, who was born about 1285, was sprung from a
family the name of which had been for a long while inscribed in their
city upon the register of industrial corporations.  His father, John Van
Artevelde, a cloth-worker, had been several times over sheriff of Ghent,
and his mother, Mary Van Groete, was great aunt to the grandfather of the
illustrious publicist called in history Grotius.  James Van Artevelde in
his youth accompanied Count Charles of Valois, brother of Philip the
Handsome, upon his adventurous expeditions in Italy, Sicily, and Greece,
and to the Island of Rhodes; and it had been close by the spots where the
soldiers of Marathon and Salamis had beaten the armies of Darius and
Xerxes that he had heard of the victory of the Flemish burghers and
workmen attacked in 1302, at Courtrai, by the splendid army of Philip the
Handsome.  James Van Artevelde, on returning to his country, had been
busy with his manufactures, his fields, the education of his children,
and Flemish affairs up to the day when, at his invitation, the burghers
of Ghent thronged to the meeting on the 28th of December, 1337, in the
grounds of the monastery of Biloke.  There he delivered an eloquent
speech, pointing out, unhesitatingly but temperately, the policy which he
considered good for the country.  “Forget not,” he said, “the might and
the glory of Flanders.  Who, pray, shall forbid that we defend our
interests by using our rights?  Can the King of France prevent us from
treating with the King of England?  And may we not be certain that if we
were to treat with the King of England, the King of France would not be
the less urgent in seeking our alliance?  Besides, have we not with us
all the communes of Brabant, of Hainault, of Holland, and of Zealand?”
 The audience cheered these words; the commune of Ghent forthwith
assembled, and on the 3d of January, 1337 [according to the old style,
which made the year begin at the 25th of March], re-established the
offices of captains of parishes according to olden usage, when the city
was exposed to any pressing danger.  It was carried that one of these
captains should have the chief government of the city; and James Van
Artevelde was at once invested with it.  From that moment the conduct of
Van Artevelde was ruled by one predominant idea: to secure free and fair
commercial intercourse for Flanders with England, whilst observing a
general neutrality in the war between the Kings of England and France,
and to combine so far all the communes of Flanders in one and the same
policy.  And he succeeded in this twofold purpose.  “On the 29th of
April, 1338, the representatives of all the communes of Flanders (the
city of Bruges numbering amongst them a hundred and eight deputies)
repaired to the castle of Male, a residence of Count Louis, and then
James Van Artevelde set before the count what had been resolved upon
amongst them.  The count submitted, and swore that he would thenceforth
maintain the liberties of Flanders in the state in which they had existed
since the treaty of Athies.  In the month of May following a deputation,
consisting of James Van Artevelde and other burghers appointed by the
cities of Ghent, Bruges, and Ypres scoured the whole of Flanders, from
Bailleul to Termonde, and from Ninove to Dunkerque, “to reconcile the
good folks of the communes to the Count of Flanders, as well for the
count’s honor as for the peace of the country.”  Lastly, on the 10th of
June, 1338, a treaty was signed at Anvers between the deputies of the
Flemish communes and the English ambassadors, the latter declaring: “We
do all to wit that we have negotiated way and substance of friendship
with the good folks of the communes of Flanders, in form and manner
herein-after following:--

“First, they shall be able to go and buy the wools and other merchandise
which have been exported from England to Holland, Zealand, or any other
place whatsoever; and all traders of Flanders who shall repair to the
ports of England shall there be safe and free in their persons and their
goods, just as in any other place where their ventures might bring them
together.

“Item, we have agreed with the good folks and with all the common country
of Flanders that they must not mix nor inter-meddle in any way, by
assistance of men or arms, in the wars of our lord the king and the noble
Sir Philip of Valois (who holdeth himself for King of France).”

Three articles following regulated in detail the principles laid down in
the first two, and, by another charter, Edward III. ordained that “all
stuffs marked with the seal of the city of Ghent might travel freely in
England without being subject according to ellage and quality to the
control to which all foreign merchandise was subject.”  (_Histoire de
Flandre,_ by M, le Baron Kerwyn de Lettenhove, t. iii.  pp. 199-203.)

Van Artevelde was right in telling the Flemings that, if they treated
with the King of England, the King of France would be only the more
anxious for their alliance.  Philip of Valois, and even Count Louis of
Flanders, when they got to know of the negotiations entered into between
the Flemish communes and King Edward, redoubled their offers and promises
to them.  But when the passions of men have taken full possession of
their souls, words of concession and attempts at accommodation are
nothing more than postponements or lies.  Philip, when he heard about the
conclusion of a treaty between the Flemish communes and the King of
England, sent word to Count Louis “that this James Van Artevelde must
not, on any account, be allowed to rule, or even live, for, if it were so
for long, the count would lose his land.”  The count, very much disposed
to accept such advice, repaired to Ghent and sent for Van Artevelde to
come and see him at his hotel.  He went, but with so large a following
that the count was not at the time at all in a position to resist him.
He tried to persuade the Flemish burgher that “if he would keep a hand on
the people so as to keep them to their love for the King of France, he
having more authority than any one else for such a purpose, much good
would result to him: mingling, besides, with this address, some words of
threatening import.”  Van Artevelde, who was not the least afraid of the
threat, and who at heart was fond of the English, told the count that he
would do as he had promised the communes.  “Hereupon he left the count,
who consulted his confidants as to what he was to do in this business,
and they counselled him to let them go and assemble their people, saying
that they would kill Van Artevelde secretly or otherwise.  And indeed,
they did lay many traps and made many attempts against the captain; but
it was of no avail, since all the commonalty was for him.”  When the
rumor of these projects and these attempts was spread abroad in the city,
the excitement was extreme, and all the burghers assumed white hoods,
which was the mark peculiar to the members of the commune when they
assembled under their flags; so that the count found himself reduced to
assuming one, for he was afraid of being kept captive at Ghent, and, on
the pretext of a hunting party, he lost no time in gaining his castle of
Male.

The burghers of Ghent had their minds still filled with their late alarm
when they heard that, by order, it was said, of the King of France, Count
Louis had sent and beheaded at the castle of Rupehuonde, in the very bed
in which he was confined by his infirmities, their fellow-citizen Solver
of Courtrai, Van Artevelde’s father-in-law, who had been kept for many
months in prison for his intimacy with the English.  On the same day the
Bishop of Senlis and the Abbot of St. Denis had arrived at Tournay, and
had superintended the reading out in the market-place of a sentence of
excommunication against the Ghentese.

It was probably at this date that Van Artevelde, in his vexation and
disquietude, assumed in Ghent an attitude threatening and despotic even
to tyranny.  “He had continually after him,” says Froissart, “sixty or
eighty armed varlets, amongst whom were two or three who knew some of his
secrets.  When he met a man whom he had hated or had in suspicion, this
man was at once killed, for Van Artevelde had given this order to his
varlets: ‘The moment I meet a man, and make such and such a sign to you,
slay him without delay, however great he may be, without waiting for more
speech.’  In this way he had many great masters slain.  And as soon as
these sixty varlets had taken him home to his hotel, each went to dinner
at his own house; and the moment dinner was over they returned and stood
before his hotel, and waited in the street until that he was minded to go
and play and take his pastime in the city, and so they attended him till
supper-time.  And know that each of these hirelings had per diem four
groschen of Flanders for their expenses and wages, and he had them
regularly paid from week to week.  .  .  .  And even in the case of all
that were most powerful in Flanders, knights, esquires, and burghers of
the good cities, whom he believed to be favorable to the Count of
Flanders, them he banished from Flanders, and levied half their revenues.
He had levies made of rents, of dues on merchandise, and all the revenues
belonging to the count, wherever it might be in Flanders, and he
disbursed them at his will, and gave them away without rendering any
account.  .  .  .  And when he would borrow of any burghers on his word
for payment, there was none that durst say him nay.  In short, there was
never in Flanders, or in any other country, duke, count, prince, or
other, who can have had a country at his will as James Van Artevelde had
for a long time.”

It is possible that, as some historians have thought, Froissart, being
less favorable to burghers than to princes, did not deny himself a little
exaggeration in this portrait of a great burgher-patriot transformed by
the force of events and passions into a demagogic tyrant.  But some of us
may have too vivid a personal recollection of similar scenes to doubt the
general truth of the picture; and we shall meet before long in the
history of France during the fourteenth century with an example still
more striking and more famous than that of Van Artevelde.

Whilst the Count of Flanders, after having vainly attempted to excite an
uprising against Van Artevelde, was being forced, in order to escape from
the people of Bruges, to mount his horse in hot haste, at night and
barely armed, and to flee away to St. Omer, Philip of Valois and Edward
III. were preparing, on either side, for the war which they could see
drawing near.  Philip was vigorously at work on the pope, the Emperor of
Germany, and the princes neighbors of Flanders, in order to raise
obstacles against his rival or rob him of his allies.  He ordered that
short-lived meeting of the states-general about which we have no
information left us, save that it voted the principle that “no talliage
could be imposed on the people if urgent necessity or evident utility
should not require it, and unless by concession of the Estates.”  Philip,
as chief of feudal society, rather than of the nation which was forming
itself little by little around the lords, convoked at Amiens all his
vassals, great and small, laic or cleric, placing all his strength in
their co-operation, and not caring at all to associate the country itself
in the affairs of his government.  Edward, on the contrary, whilst
equipping his fleet and amassing treasure at the expense of the Jews and
Lombard usurers, was assembling his Parliament, talking to it “of this
important and costly war,” for which he obtained large subsidies, and
accepting without making any difficulty the vote of the Commons’ House,
which expressed a desire “to consult their constituents upon this
subject, and begged him to summon an early Parliament, to which there
should be elected, in each county, two knights taken from among the best
land-owners of their counties.”  The king set out for the Continent; the
Parliament met and considered the exigencies of the war by land and sea,
in Scotland and in France; traders, ship-owners, and mariners were called
and examined; and the forces determined to be necessary were voted.
Edward took the field, pillaging, burning, and ravaging, “destroying all
the country for twelve or fourteen leagues to extent,” as he himself said
in a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury.  When he set foot on French
territory, Count William of Hainault, his brother-in-law, and up to that
time his ally, came to him and said that “he would ride with him no
farther, for that his presence was prayed and required by his uncle, the
King of France to whom he bore no hate, and whom he would go and serve in
his own kingdom, as he had served King Edward on the territory of the
emperor, whose vicar he was; “and Edward wished him ‘God speed!’”  Such
was the binding nature of feudal ties that the same lord held himself
bound to pass from one camp to another, according as he found himself
upon the domains of one or the other of his suzerains in a war one
against the other.  Edward continued his march towards St. Quentin, where
Philip had at last arrived with his allies, the Kings of Bohemia,
Navarre, and Scotland, “after delays which had given rise to great
scandal and murmurs throughout the whole kingdom.”  The two armies, with
a strength, according to Froissart, of a hundred thousand men on the
French side, and forty-four thousand on the English, were soon facing one
another, near Buironfosse, a large burgh of Picardy.  A herald came from
the English camp to tell the King of France that the King of England
“demanded of him battle.  To which demand,” says Froissart, “the King of
France gave willing assent, and accepted the day, which was fixed at
first for Thursday the 21st, and afterwards for Saturday the 25th of
October, 1339.”  To judge from the somewhat tangled accounts of the
chroniclers and of Froissart himself, neither of the two kings was very
anxious to come to blows.  The forces of Edward were much inferior to
those of Philip; and the former had accordingly taken up, as it appears,
a position which rendered attack difficult for Philip.  There was much
division of opinion in the French camp.  Independently of military
grounds, a great deal was said about certain letters from Robert, King of
Naples, “a mighty necromancer and full of mighty wisdom, it was reported,
who, after having several times cast their horoscopes, had discovered by
astrology and from experience, that, if his cousin, the King of France,
were to fight the King of England, the former would be worsted.”  “In
thus disputing and debating,” says Froissart, “the time passed till full
midday.  A little afterwards a hare came leaping across the fields, and
rushed amongst the French.  Those who saw it began shouting and making a
great halloo.  Those who were behind thought that those who were in front
were engaging in battle; and several put on their helmets and gripped
their swords.  Thereupon several knights were made; and the Count of
Hainault himself made fourteen, who were thenceforth nicknamed Knights of
the Hare.”  Whatever his motive may have been, Philip did not attack; and
Edward promptly began a retreat.  They both dismissed their allies; and
during the early days of.  November, Philip fell back upon St. Quentin,
and Edward went and took up his winter quarters at Brussels.

For Edward it was a serious check not to have dared to attack the king
whose kingdom he made a pretence of conquering; and he took it grievously
to heart.  At Brussels he had an interview with his allies, and asked
their counsel.  Most of the princes of the Low Countries remained
faithful to him, and the Count of Hainault seemed inclined to go back to
him; but all hesitated as to what he was to do to recover from the check.
Van Artevelde showed more invention and more boldness.  The Flemish
communes had concentrated their forces not far from the spot where the
two kings had kept their armies looking at one another; but they had
maintained a strict neutrality, and at the invitation of the Count of
Flanders, who promised them that the King of France would entertain all
their claims, Artevelde and Breydel, the deputies from Ghent and Bruges,
even repaired to Courtrai to make terms with him.  But as they got there
nothing but ambiguous engagements and evasive promises, they let the
negotiation drop, and, whilst Count Louis was on his way to rejoin Philip
at St. Quentin, Artevelde, with the deputies from the Flemish communes,
started for Brussels.  Edward, who was already living on very
confidential terms with him, told him that “if the Flemings were minded
to help him to keep up the war, and go with him whithersoever he would
take them, they should aid him to recover Lille, Douai, and B4thune, then
occupied by the King of France.  Artevelde, after consulting his
colleagues, returned to Edward, and, ‘Dear sir,’ said he, ‘you have
already made such requests to us, and verily if we could do so whilst
keeping our honor and faith, we would do as you demand; but we be bound,
by faith and oath, and on a bond of two millions of florins entered into
with the pope, not to go to war with the King of France without incurring
a debt to the amount of that sum, and a sentence of ex-communication; but
if you do that which we are about to say to you, if you will be pleased
to adopt the arms of France, and quarter them with those of England, and
openly call yourself King of France, we will uphold you for true King of
France; you, as King of France, shall give us quittance of our faith; and
then we will obey you as King of France, and will go whithersoever you
shall ordain.’”

This prospect pleased Edward mightily: but “it irked him to take the name
and arms of that of which he had as yet won no tittle.”  He consulted his
allies.  Some of them hesitated; but “his most privy and especial
friend,” Robert d’Artois, strongly urged him to consent to the proposal.
So a French prince and a Flemish burgher prevailed upon the King of
England to pursue, as in assertion of his avowed rights, the conquest of
the kingdom of France.  King, prince, and burgher fixed Ghent as their
place of meeting for the official conclusion of the alliance; and there,
in January, 1340, the mutual engagement was signed and sealed.  The King
of England “assumed the arms of France quartered with those of England,”
 and thenceforth took the title of King of France.

Then burst forth in reality that war which was to last a hundred years;
which was to bring upon the two nations the most violent struggles, as
well as the most cruel sufferings, and which, at the end of a hundred
years, was to end in the salvation of France from her tremendous peril,
and the defeat of England in her unrighteous attempt.  In January, 1340,
Edward thought he had won the most useful of allies; Artevelde thought
the independence of the Flemish communes and his own supremacy in his own
country secured; and Robert d’Artois thought with complacency how he had
gratified his hatred for Philip of Valois.  And all three were deceiving
themselves in their joy and their confidence.

Edward, leaving Queen Philippa at Ghent with Artevelde for her adviser,
had returned to England, and had just obtained from the Parliament, for
the purpose of vigorously pushing on the war, a subsidy almost without
precedent, when he heard that a large French fleet was assembling on the
coasts of Zealand, near the port of Ecluse (or Sluys), with a design of
surprising and attacking him when he should cross over again to the
Continent.  For some time past this fleet had been cruising in the
Channel, making descents here and there upon English soil, at Plymouth,
Southampton, Sandwich, and Dover, and everywhere causing alarm and
pillage.  Its strength, they said, was a hundred and forty large vessels,
“without counting the smaller,” having on board thirty-five thousand men,
Normans, Picards, Italians, sailors and soldiers of all countries, under
the command of two French leaders, Hugh Quiret, titular admiral, and
Nicholas Bchuchet, King Philip’s treasurer, and of a famous Genoese
buccaneer, named Barbavera.  Edward, so soon as he received this
information, resolved to go and meet their attack; and he gave orders to
have his vessels and troops summoned from all parts of England to
Orewell, his point of departure.  His advisers, with the Archbishop of
Canterbury at their head, strove, but in vain, to restrain him.  “Ye are
all in conspiracy against me,” said he; “I shall go; and those who are
afraid can abide at home.”  And go he did on the 22d of June, 1340, and
aboard of his fleet “went with him many an English dame,” says Froissart,
“wives of earls, and barons, and knights, and burghers, of London, who
were off to Ghent to see the Queen of England, whom for a long time past
they had not seen; and King Edward guarded them carefully.”  “For many a
long day,” said he, “have I desired to fight those fellows, and now we
will fight them, please God and St. George; for, verily, they have caused
me so many displeasures, that I would fain take vengeance for them, if I
can but get it.”  On arriving off the coast of Flanders, opposite Ecluse
(or Sluys), he saw “so great a number of vessels that of masts there
seemed to he verily a forest.”  He made his arrangements forthwith,
“placing his strongest ships in front, and manoeuvring so as to have the
wind on the starboard quarter, and the sun astern.  The Normans marvelled
to see the English thus twisting about, and said, ‘They are turning tail;
they are not men enough to fight us.’”  But the Genoese buccaneer was not
misled.  “When he saw the English fleet approaching in such fashion, he
said to the French admiral and his colleague, Behuchet, ‘Sirs, here is
the King of England, with all his ships, bearing down upon us: if ye will
follow my advice, instead of remaining shut up in port, ye will draw out
into the open sea; for, if ye abide here, they, whilst they have in their
favor sun, and wind, and tide, will keep you so short of room, that ye
will be helpless and unable to manoeuvre.’  Whereupon answered the
treasurer, B6huchet, who knew more about arithmetic than sea fights,
‘Let him go hang, whoever shall go out: here will we wait, and take our
chance.’  ‘Sir,’ replied Barbavera, ‘if ye will not be pleased to believe
me, I have no mind to work my own ruin, and I will get me gone with my
galleys out of this hole.’  “And out he went, with all his squadron,
engaged the English on the high seas, and took the first ship which
attempted to board him.  But Edward, though he was wounded in the thigh,
quickly restored the battle.  After a gallant resistance, Barbavera
sailed off with his galleys, and the French fleet found itself alone at
grips with the English.  The struggle was obstinate on both sides; it
began at six in the morning of June 24, 1340, and lasted to midday.  It
was put an end to by the arrival of the re-enforcements promised by the
Flemings to the King of England.  “The deputies of Bruges,” says their
historian, “had employed the whole night in getting under way an armament
of two hundred vessels, and, before long, the French heard echoing about
them the horns of the Flemish mariners sounding to quarters.”  These
latter decided the victory, Behuchet, Philip of Valois’ treasurer, fell
into their hands; and they, heeding only their desire of avenging
themselves for the devastation of Cadsand (in 1337), hanged him from the
mast of his vessel “out of spite to the King of France.”  The admiral,
Hugh Quieret, though he surrendered, was put to death; “and with him
perished so great a number of men-at-arms that the sea was dyed with
blood on this coast, and the dead were put down at quite thirty thousand
men.”

The very day after the battle, the Queen of England came from Ghent to
join the king her husband, whom his wound confined to his ship; and at
Valenciennes, whither the news of the victory speedily arrived,
Artevelde, mounting a platform set up in the market-place, maintained, in
the presence of a large crowd, the right which the King of England had to
claim the kingdom of France.  He vaunted “the puissance of the three
countries, Flanders, Hainault, and Brabant, when at one accord amongst
themselves, and what with his words and his great sense,” says Froissart,
“he did so well that all who heard him said that he had spoken mighty
well, and with mighty experience, and that he was right worthy to govern
the countship of Flanders.”  From Valenciennes he repaired to King Edward
at Bruges, where all the allied princes were assembled; and there, in
concert with the other deputies from the Flemish communes, Artevelde
offered Edward a hundred thousand men for the vigorous prosecution of the
war.  “All these burghers,” says the modern historian of the Flemings,
“had declared that, in order to promote their country’s cause, they would
serve without pay, so heartily had they entered into the war.”  The siege
of Tournay was the first operation Edward resolved to undertake.  He had
promised to give this place to the Flemings; the burghers were getting a
taste for conquest, in company with kings.

They found Philip of Valois better informed, and also more hot for war,
than perhaps they had expected.  It is said that he learned the defeat of
his navy at Ecluse from his court fool, who was the first to announce it,
and in the following fashion.  “The English are cowards,” said he.  “Why
so?” asked the king.  “Because they lacked courage to leap into the sea
at Ecluse, as the French and Normans did.”  Philip lost no time about
putting the places on his northern frontier in a state of defence, he
took up his quarters first at Arras, and then three leagues from Tournay,
into which his constable, Raoul d’Eu, immediately threw himself, with a
considerable force, and whither his allies, the Duke of Lorraine, the
Count of Savoy, the Bishops of Liege, Metz, and Verdun, and nearly all
the barons of Burgundy came and joined him.  On the 27th of July, 1340,
he received there from his rival a challenge of portentous length, the
principal terms of which are set forth as follows:

“Philip of Valois, for a long time past we have taken proceedings, by
means of messages and other reasonable ways, to the end that you might
restore to us our rightful heritage of France, which you have this long
while withheld from us and do most wrongfully occupy.  And as we do
clearly see that you do intend to persevere in your wrongful withholding,
we do give you notice that we are marching against you to bring our
rightful claims to an issue.  And, whereas so great a number of folks
assembled on our side and on yours, cannot keep themselves together for
long without causing great destruction to the people and the country, we
desire, as the quarrel is between you and us, that the decision of our
claim should be between our two bodies.  And if you have no mind to this
way, we propose that our quarrel should end by a battle, body to body,
between a hundred persons, the most capable on your side and on ours.
And, if you have no mind either to one way or to the other, that you do
appoint us a fixed day for fighting before the city of Tournay, power to
power.  Given under our privy seal, on the field near Tournay, the 26th
day of July, in the first year of our reign in France and in England the
fourteenth.”

Philip replied, “Philip, by the grace of God King of France to Edward,
King of England.  We have seen your letters brought to our court, as from
you to Philip of Valois, and containing certain demands which you make
upon the said Philip of Valois.  And, as the said letters did not come to
ourself, we make you no answer.  Our intention is, when it shall seem
good to us, to hurl you out of our kingdom for the benefit of our people.
And of that we have firm hope in Jesus Christ, from whom all power cometh
to us.”

Events were not satisfactory either to the haughty pretensions of Edward
or to the patriotic hopes of Philip.  The war continued in the north and
south-west of France without any result.  In the neighborhood of Tournay
some encounters in the open country were unfavorable to the English and
their allies; the siege of the place was prolonged for seventy-four days
without the attainment of any success by assault or investment; and the
inhabitants defended themselves with so obstinate a courage, that, when
at length the King of England found himself obliged to raise the siege,
Philip, to testify his gratitude towards them, restored them their law,
that is, their communal charter, for some time past withdrawn, and “they
were greatly rejoiced,” says Froissart, “at having no more royal
governors, and at appointing provosts and jurymen according to their
fancy.”  The Flemish burghers, in spite of their display of warlike zeal,
soon grew tired of being so far from their business and of living under
canvas.  In Aquitaine the lieutenants of the King of France had the
advantage over those of the King of England; they retook or delivered
several places in dispute between the two crowns, and they closely
pressed Bordeaux itself both by land and sea.  Edward, the aggressor, was
exhausting his pecuniary resources, and his Parliament was displaying but
little inclination to replenish them.  For Philip, who had merely to
defend himself in his own dominions, any cessation of hostilities was
almost a victory.  A pious princess, Joan of Valois, sister of Philip and
mother-in-law of Edward, issued from her convent at Fontenelle, for the
purpose of urging the two kings to make peace, or at least to suspend
hostilities.  “The good dame,” says Froissart, “saw there, on the two
sides, all the flower and honor of the chivalry of the world; and many a
time she had fallen at the feet of her brother, the King of France,
praying him for some respite or treaty of agreement between himself and
the English king.  And when she had labored with them of France, she went
her way to them of the Empire, to the Duke of Brabant, to the Marquis of
Juliers, and to my Lord John of Hainault, and prayed them, for God’s and
pity’s sake, that they would be pleased to hearken to some terms of
accord, and would win over the King of England to be pleased to
condescend thereto.”  In concert with the envoys of Pope Benedict XII.,
Joan of Valois at last succeeded in bringing the two sovereigns and their
allies to a truce, which was concluded on the 25th of September, 1340, at
first for nine months, and was afterwards renewed on several occasions up
to the month of June, 1342.  Neither sovereign, and none of their allies,
gave up anything, or bound themselves to anything more than not to fight
during that interval; but they were, on both sides, without the power of
carrying on without pause a struggle which they would not entirely
abandon.

An unexpected incident led to its recommencement in spite of the truce:
not, however, throughout France or directly between the two kings, but
with fiery fierceness, though it was limited to a single province, and
arose not in the name of the kingship of France, but out of a purely
provincial question.  John III., Duke of Brittany and a faithful vassal
of Philip of Valois, whom he had gone to support at Tournay “more stoutly
and substantially than any of the other princes,” says Froissart, died
suddenly at Caen, on the 30th of April, 1341, on returning to his domain.
Though he had been thrice married, he left no child.  The duchy of
Brittany then reverted to his brothers or their posterity , but his very
next brother, Guy, Count of Penthievre, had been dead six years, and had
left only a daughter, Joan, called the Cripple, married to Charles of
Blois, nephew of the King of France.  The third brother was still alive;
he too was named John, had from his mother the title of Count of
Montfort, and claimed to be heir to the duchy of Brittany in preference
to his niece Joan.  The niece, on the contrary, believed in her own right
to the exclusion of her uncle.  The question was exactly the same as that
which had arisen touching the crown of France when Philip the Long had
successfully disputed it with the only daughter of his brother Louis the
Quarreller; but the Salic law, which had for more than three centuries
prevailed in France, and just lately to the benefit of Philip of Valois,
had no existence in the written code, or the traditions of Brittany.
There, as in several other great fiefs, women had often been recognized
as capable of holding and transmitting sovereignty.  At the death of John
III., his brother, the Count of Montfort, immediately put himself in
possession of the inheritance, seized the principal Breton towns, Nantes,
Brest, Rennes, and Vannes, and crossed over to England to secure the
support of Edward III.  His rival, Charles of Blois, appealed to the
decision of the King of France, his uncle and natural protector.  Philip
of Valois thus found himself the champion of succession in the female
line in Brittany, whilst he was himself reigning in France by virtue of
the Salic law, and Edward III. took up in Brittany the defence of
succession in the male line which he was disputing and fighting against
in France.  Philip and his court of peers declared on the 7th of
September, 1341, that Brittany belonged to Charles of Blois, who at once
did homage for it to the King of France, whilst John of Montfort demanded
and obtained the support of the King of England.  War broke out between
the two claimants, effectually supported by the two kings, who
nevertheless were not supposed to make war upon one another and in their
own dominions.  The feudal system sometimes entailed these strange and
dangerous complications.

If the two parties had been reduced for leaders to the two claimants
only, the war would not, perhaps, have lasted long.

In the first campaign the Count of Montfort was made prisoner at the
siege of Nantes, carried off to Paris, and shut up in the tower of the
Louvre, whence he did not escape until three years were over.  Charles of
Blois, with all his personal valor, was so scrupulously devout that he
often added to the embarrassments and at the same time the delays of war.
He never marched without being followed by his almoner, who took with him
everywhere bread, and wine, and water, and fire in a pot, for the purpose
of saying mass by the way.  One day when Charles was accordingly hearing
it and was very near the enemy, one of his officers, Auffroy de
Montboucher, said to him, “Sir, you see right well that your enemies are
yonder, and you halt a longer time than they need to take you.”
 “Auffroy,” answered the prince, “we shall always have towns and castles,
and, if they are taken, we shall, with God’s help, recover them; but if
we miss hearing of mass we shall never recover it.”  Neither side,
however, had much detriment from either the captivity or pious delays of
its chief.  Joan of Flanders, Countess of Montfort, was at Rennes when
she heard that her husband had been taken prisoner at Nantes.  “Although
she made great mourning in her heart,” says Froissart, “she made it not
like a disconsolate woman, but like a proud and gallant man.  She showed
to her friends and soldiers a little boy she had, and whose name was
John, even as his father’s, and she said to them, ‘Ah! sirs, be not
discomforted and cast down because of my lord whom we have lost; he was
but one man; see, here is my little boy, who, please God, shall be his
avenger.  I have wealth in abundance, and of it I will give you enow, and
I will provide you with such a leader as shall give you all fresh heart.’
She went through all her good towns and fortresses, taking her young son
with her, re-enforcing the garrisons with men and all they wanted, and
giving away abundantly wherever she thought it would be well laid out.
Then she went her way to Hennebon-sur-Mer, which was a strong town and
strong castle, and there she abode, and her son with her, all the
winter.”  In May, 1242, Charles of Blois came to besiege her; but the
attempts at assault were not successful.  “The Countess of Montfort, who
was cased in armor and rode on a fine steed, galloped from street to
street through the town, summoned the people to defend themselves
stoutly, and called on the women, dames, damoisels, and others, to pull
up the roads, and carry the stones to the ramparts to throw down on the
assailants.”  She attempted a bolder enterprise.  “She sometimes mounted
a tower, right up to the top, that she might see the better how her
people bore themselves.  She one day saw that all they of the hostile
army, lords and others, had left their quarters and gone to watch the
assault.  She mounted her steed, all armed as she was, and summoned to
horse with her about three hundred men-at-arms who were on guard at a
gate which was not being assailed.  She went out thereat with all her
company and threw herself valiantly upon the tents and quarters of the
lords of France, which were all burned, being guarded only by boys and
varlets, who fled as soon as they saw the countess and her folks entering
and setting fire.  When the lords saw their quarters burning and heard
the noise which came therefrom, they ran up all dazed and crying,
‘Betrayed! betrayed!’ so that none remained for the assault.  When the
countess saw the enemy’s host running up from all parts, she re-assembled
all her folks, and seeing right well that she could not enter the town
again without too great loss, she went off by another road to the castle
of Brest [or, more probably, d’Auray, as Brest is much more than three
leagues from Hennebon], which lies as near as three leagues from thence.”
 Though hotly pursued by the assailants, “she rode so fast and so well
that she and the greater part of her folks arrived at the castle of
Brest, where she was received and feasted right joyously.  Those of her
folks who were in Hennebon were all night in great disquietude because
neither she nor any of her company returned; and the assailant lords, who
had taken up quarters nearer to the town, cried, ‘Come out, come out, and
seek your countess; she is lost; you will not find a bit of her.’ In such
fear the folks in Hennebon remained five days.  But the countess wrought
so well that she had now full five hundred comrades armed and well
mounted; then she set out from Brest about midnight and came away,
arriving at sunrise and riding straight upon one of the flanks of the
enemy’s host; there she had the gate of Hennebon castle opened, and
entered in with great joy and a great noise of trumpets and drums;
whereby the besiegers were roughly disturbed and awakened.”

The joy of the besieged was short.  Charles of Blois pressed on the siege
more rigorously every day, threatening that, when he should have taken
the place, he would put all the inhabitants to the sword.  Consternation
spread even to the brave; and a negotiation was opened with a view of
arriving at terms of capitulation.  By dint of prayers Countess Joan
obtained a delay of three days.  The first two had expired, and the
besiegers were preparing for a fresh assault, when Joan, from the top of
her tower, saw the sea covered with sails: “‘See, see,’ she cried, the
aid so much desired!’  Every one in the town, as best they could, rushed
up at once to the windows and battlements of the walls to see what it
might be,” says Froissart.  In point of fact it was a fleet with six
thousand men brought from England to the relief of Hennebon by Amaury de
Clisson and Walter de Manny; and they had been a long while detained at
sea by contrary winds.”

[Illustration: ‘See! See!’ she cried----283]

When they had landed the countess herself went to them and feasted them
and thanked them greatly, which was no wonder, for she had sore need of
their coming.”  It was far better still when, next day, the new arrivals
had attacked the besiegers and gained a brilliant victory over them.
When they re-entered the place, “whoever,” says Froissart, “saw the
countess descend from the castle, and kiss my lord Walter de Manny and
his comrades, one after another, two or three times, might well have said
that it was a gallant dame.”

All the while that the Count of Montfort was a prisoner in the tower of
the Louvre, the countess his wife strove for his cause with the same
indefatigable energy.  He escaped in 1345, crossed over to England, swore
fealty and homage to Edward III. for the duchy of Brittany, and
immediately returned to take in hand, himself, his own cause.  But in the
very year of his escape, on the 26th of September, 1345, he died at the
castle of Hennebon, leaving once more his wife, with a young child, alone
at the head of his party and having in charge the future of his house.
The Countess Joan maintained the rights and interests of her son as she
had maintained those of her husband.  For nineteen years, she, with the
help of England, struggled against Charles of Blois, the head of a party
growing more and more powerful, and protected by France.  Fortune shifted
her favors and her asperities from one camp to the other.  Charles of
Blois had at first pretty considerable success; but on the 18th of June,
1347, in a battle in which he personally displayed a brilliant courage,
he was in his turn made prisoner, carried to England, and immured in the
Tower of London.  There he remained nine years.  But he too had a valiant
and indomitable wife, Joan of Penthievre, the Cripple.  She did for her
husband all that Joan of Montfort was doing for hers.  All the time that
he was a prisoner in the Tower of London, she was the soul and the head
of his party, in the open country as well as in the towns, turning to
profitable account the inclinations of the Breton population, whom the
presence and the ravages of the English had turned against John of
Montfort and his cause.  She even convoked at Dinan, in 1352, a general
assembly of her partisans, which is counted by the Breton historians as
the second holding of the states of their country.  During nine years,
from 1347 to 1356, the two Joans were the two heads of their parties in
politics and in war.  Charles of Blois at last obtained his liberty from
Edward III. on hard conditions, and returned to Brittany to take up the
conduct of his own affairs.  The struggle between the two claimants still
lasted eight years, with vicissitudes ending in nothing definite.  In
1363 Charles of Blois and young John of Montfort, weary of their
fruitless efforts and the sufferings of their countries, determined both
of them to make peace and share Brittany between them.  Rennes was to be
Charles’s capital, and Nantes that of his rival.  The treaty had been
signed, an altar raised between the two armies, and an oath taken on both
sides; but when Joan of Penthivre was informed of it she refused
downright to ratify it.  “I married you,” she said to her husband, “to
defend my inheritance, and not to yield the half of it; I am only a
woman, but I would lose my life, and two lives if I had them, rather than
consent to any cession of the kind.”  Charles of Blois, as weak before
his wife as brave before the enemy, broke the treaty he had but just
sworn to, and set out for Nantes to resume the war.  “My lord,” said
Countess Joan to him in presence of all his knights, “you are going to
defend my inheritance and yours, which my lord of Montfort--wrongfully,
God knows--doth withhold from us, and the barons of Brittany who are here
present know that I am rightful heiress of it.  I pray you affectionately
not to make any ordinance, composition, or treaty whereby the duchy
corporate remain not ours.”  Charles set out; and in the following year,
on the 29th of September, 1364, the battle of Auray cost him his life and
the countship of Brittany.  When he was wounded to death he said, “I have
long been at war against my conscience.”  At sight of his dead body on
the field of battle young John of Montfort, his conqueror, was touched,
and cried out, “Alas my cousin, by your obstinacy you have been the cause
of great evils in Brittany: may God forgive you!  It grieves me much that
you are come to so sad an end.”  After this outburst of generous
compassion came the joy of victory, which Montfort owed above all to his
English allies and to John Chandos their leader, to whom, “My Lord John,”
 said he, “this great fortune path come to me through your great sense and
prowess: wherefore, I pray you, drink out of my cup.”  “Sir,” answered
Chandos, “let us go hence, and render you your thanks to God for this
happy fortune you have gotten, for, without the death of yonder warrior,
you could not have come into the inheritance of Brittany.”  From that day
forth John of Monfort remained in point of fact Duke of Brittany, and
Joan of Penthievre, the Cripple, the proud princess who had so
obstinately defended her rights against him, survived for full twenty
years the death of her husband and the loss of her duchy.

Whilst the two Joans were exhibiting in Brittany, for the preservation or
the recovery of their little dominion, so much energy and persistency,
another Joan, no princess, but not the less a heroine, was, in no other
interest than the satisfaction of her love and her vengeance, making war,
all by herself, on the same territory.  Several Norman and Breton lords,
and amongst others Oliver de Clisson and Godfrey d’Harcourt, were
suspected, nominally attached as they were to the King of France, of
having made secret overtures to the King of England.  Philip of Valois
had them arrested at a tournament, and had them beheaded without any form
of trial, in the middle of the market-place at Paris, to the number of
fourteen.  The head of Clisson was sent to Nantes and exposed on one of
the gates of the city.  At the news thereof, his widow, Joan of
Belleville, attended by several men of family, her neighbors and friends,
set out for a castle occupied by the troops of Philip’s candidate,
Charles of Blois.  The fate of Clisson was not yet known there; it was
supposed that his wife was on a hunting excursion; and she was admitted
without distrust.  As soon as she was inside, the blast of a horn gave
notice to her followers, whom she had left concealed in the neighboring
woods.  They rushed up, and took possession of the castle, and Joan de
Clisson had all the inhabitants--but one--put to the sword.  But this was
too little for her grief and her zeal.  At the head of her troops,
augmented, she scoured the country and seized several places, everywhere
driving out or putting to death the servants of the King of France.
Philip confiscated the property of the house of Clisson.  Joan moved from
land to sea.  She manned several vessels, attacked the French ships she
fell in with, ravaged the coasts, and ended by going and placing at the
service of the Countess of Montfort her hatred and her son, a boy of
seven years of age, whom she had taken with her in all her expeditions,
and who was afterwards the great constable, Oliver de Clisson.  We shall
find him under Charles V. and Charles VI. as devoted to France and her
kings as if he had not made his first essays in arms against the
candidate of their ancestor, Philip.  His mother had sent him to England,
to be brought up at the court of Edward III., but, shortly after taking a
glorious part with the English in the battle of Auray, in which he lost
an eye, and which secured the duchy of Brittany to the Count of Montfort,
De Clisson got embroiled none the less with his suzerain, who had given
John Chandos the castle of Gavre, near Nantes.  “Devil take me, my lord,”
 said Oliver to him, “if ever Englishman shall be my neighbor;” and he
went forthwith and attacked the castle, which he completely demolished.
The hatreds of women whose passions have made them heroines of war are
more personal and more obstinate than those of the roughest warriors.
Accordingly the war for the duchy of Brittany, in the fourteenth century,
has been called, in history, the war of the three Joans.

This war was, on both sides, remarkable for cruelty.  If Joan de Clisson
gave to the sword all the people in a castle, belonging to Charles of
Blois, to which she had been admitted on a supposition of pacific
intentions, Charles of Blois, on his side, finding in another castle
thirty knights, partisans of the Count of Montfort, had their heads shot
from catapults over the walls of Nantes, which he was besieging, and, at
the same time that he saved from pillage the churches of Quimper, which
he had just taken, he allowed his troops to massacre fourteen hundred
inhabitants, and had his principal prisoners beheaded.  One of them,
being a deacon, he caused to be degraded, and then handed over to the
populace, who stoned him.  It is characteristic of the middle ages that
in them the ferocity of barbaric times existed side by side with the
sentiments of chivalry and the fervor of Christianity: so slow is the
race of man to eschew evil, even when it has begun to discern and relish
good.  War was then the passion and habitual condition of men.  They made
it without motive as well as without prevision, in a transport of feeling
or for the sake of pastime, to display their strength or to escape from
listlessness; and, whilst making it, they abandoned themselves without
scruple to all those deeds of violence, vengeance, brutal anger, or
fierce delight, which war provokes.  At the same time, however, the
generous impulses of feudal chivalry, the sympathies of Christian piety,
tender affections, faithful devotion, noble tastes, were fermenting in
their souls; and human nature appeared with all its complications, its
inconsistencies, and its irregularities, but also with all its wealth of
prospective development.  The three Joans of the fourteenth century were
but eighty years in advance of the Joan of Arc of the fifteenth; and the
knights of Charles V., Du Guesclin and De Clisson, were the forerunners
of the Bayard of Francis I.

An incident which has retained its popularity in French history, to wit,
the fight between thirty Bretons and thirty English during the just now
commemorated war in Brittany, will give a better idea than any general
observations could of the real, living characteristics of facts and
manners, barbaric and at the same time chivalric, at that period.  No
apology is needed for here reproducing the chief details as they have
been related by Froissart, the dramatic chronicler of the middle ages.

In 1351, “it happened on a day that Sir Robert de Beaumanoir, a valiant
knight and commandant of the castle which is called Castle Josselin, came
before the town and castle of Ploermel, whereof the captain, called
Brandebourg [or Brembro, probably Bremborough], had with him a plenty of
soldiers of the Countess of Montfort.  ‘Brandebourg,’ said Robert, ‘have
ye within there never a man-at-arms, or two or three, who would fain
cross swords with other three for love of their ladies?’  Brandebourg
answered that their ladies would not have them lose their lives in so
miserable an affair as single combat, whereby one gained the name of fool
rather than honorable renown.  ‘I will tell you what we will do, if it
please you.  You shall take twenty or thirty of your comrades, as I will
take as many of ours.  We will go out into a goodly field where none can
hinder or vex us, and there will we do so much that men shall speak
thereof in time to come in hall, and palace, and highway, and other
places of the world.’  ‘By my faith,’ said Beaumanoir, ‘tis bravely said,
and I agree: be ye thirty, and we will be thirty, too.’  And thus the
matter was settled.  When the day had come, the thirty comrades of
Brandebourg, whom we shall call English, heard mass, then got on their
arms, went off to the place where the battle was to be, dismounted, and
waited a long while for the others, whom we shall call French.  When the
thirty French had come, and they were in front one of another, they
parleyed a little together, all the sixty; then they fell back, and made
all their fellows go far away from the place.  Then one of them made a
sign, and forthwith they set on and fought stoutly all in a heap, and
they aided one another handsomely when they saw their comrades in evil
case.  Pretty soon after they had come together, one of the French was
slain, but the rest did not slacken the fight one whit, and they bore
themselves as valiantly all as if they had all been Rolands and Olivers.
At last they were forced to stop, and they rested by common accord,
giving themselves truce until they should be rested, and the first to get
up again should recall the others.  They rested long, and there were some
who drank wine which was brought to them in bottles.  They rebuckled
their armor, which had got undone, and dressed their wounds.  Four French
and two English were dead already.”

It was no doubt during this interval that the captain of the Bretons,
Robert de Beaumanoir, grievously wounded and dying of fatigue and thirst,
cried out for a drink.  “Drink thy blood, Beaumanoir,” said one of his
comrades, Geoffrey de Bois, according to some accounts, and Sire de
Tinteniac, according to others.  From that day those words became the
war-cry of the Beaumanoirs.  Froissart says nothing of this incident.
Let us return to his narrative.

“When they were refreshed, the first to get up again made a sign, and
recalled the others.  Then the battle recommenced as stoutly as before,
and lasted a long while.  They had short swords of Bordeaux, tough and
sharp, and boar-spears and daggers, and some had axes, and therewith they
dealt one another marvellously great dings, and some seized one another
by the arms a-struggling, and they struck one another, and spared not.
At last the English had the worst of it; Brandebourg, their captain, was
slain, with eight of his comrades, and the rest yielded themselves
prisoners when they saw that they could no longer defend themselves, for
they could not and must not fly.  Sir Robert de Beaumanoir and his
comrades, who remained alive, took them and carried them off to Castle
Josselin as their prisoners; and then admitted them to ransom courteously
when they were all cured, for there was none that was not grievously
wounded, French as well as English.  I saw afterwards, sitting at the
table of King Charles of France, a Breton knight who had been in it, Sir
Yvon Charnel , and he had a face so carved and cut that he showed full
well how good a fight had been fought.  The matter was talked of in many
places, and some set it down as a very poor, and others as a very
swaggering business.”

The most modern and most judicious historian of Brittany, Count Daru,
who has left a name as honorable in literature as in the higher
administration of the First Empire, says, very truly, in recounting this
incident, “It is not quite certain whether this was an act of patriotism
or of chivalry.”  He might have gone farther, and discovered in this
exploit not only the characteristics he points out, but many others
besides.  Local patriotism, the honor of Brittany, party spirit, the
success of John of Montfort or Charles of Blois, the sentiment of
gallantry, the glorification of the most beautiful one amongst their
lady-loves, and, chiefly, the passion for war amongst all and sundry--
there was something of all this mixed up with the battle of the Thirty,
a faithful reflex of the complication and confusion of minds, of morals,
and of wants at that forceful period.  It is this very variety of the
ideas, feelings, interests, motives, and motive tendencies involved in
that incident which accounts for the fact that the battle of the Thirty
has remained so vividly remembered, and that in 1811 a monument,
unpretentious but national, replaced the simple stone at first erected on
the field of battle, on the edge of the road from P1o6rmel to Josselin,
with this inscription: “To the immortal memory of the battle of the
Thirty, gained by Marshal Beaumanoir, on the 26th of March, 1350 (1351).”

With some fondness, and at some length, this portion of Brittany’s
history in the fourteenth century has been dwelt upon, not only because
of the dramatic interest attaching to the events and the actors, but also
for the sake of showing, by that example, how many separate associations,
diverse and often hostile, were at that time developing themselves, each
on its own account, in that extensive and beautiful country which became
France.  We will now return to Philip of Valois and Edward III., and to
the struggle between them for a settlement of the question whether France
should or should not preserve its own independent kingship, and that
national unity of which she already had the name, but of which she was
still to undergo so much painful travail in acquiring the reality.

Although Edward III. by supporting with troops and officers, and
sometimes even in person, the cause of the Countess of Montfort, and
Philip of Valois by assisting in the same way Charles of Blois and Joan
of Penthievre, took a very active, if indirect, share in the war in
Brittany, the two kings persisted in not calling themselves at war; and
when either of them proceeded to acts of unquestionable hostility, they
eluded the consequences of them by hastily concluding truces incessantly
violated and as incessantly renewed.  They had made use of this expedient
in 1340; and they had recourse to it again in 1342, 1343, and 1344.  The
last of these truces was to have lasted up to 1346; but, in the spring of
1345, Edward resolved to put an end to this equivocal position, and to
openly recommence war.  He announced his intention to Pope Clement IV.,
to his own lieutenants in Brittany, and to all the cities and
corporations of his kingdom.  He accused Philip of having “violated,
without even sending us a challenge, the truce which, out of regard to
the sovereign pontiff, we had agreed upon with him, and which he had
taken an oath, upon his soul, to keep.  On account whereof we have
resolved to proceed against him, him and all his adherents, by land and
sea, by all means possible, in order to recover our just rights.”  It is
not quite clear what pressing reasons urged Edward to this decisive
resolution.  The English Parliament and people, it is true, showed more
disposition to support their king in his pretensions to the throne of
France, and the cause of the Count of Montfort was maintaining itself
stubbornly in Brittany, but nothing seemed to call for so startling a
rupture, or to promise Edward any speedy and successful issue.  He had
lost his most energetic and warlike adviser; for Robert d’Artois, the
deadly enemy of Philip of Valois, had been so desperately wounded in the
defence of Vannes against Robert de Beaumanoir, that he had returned to
England only to die.  Edward felt this loss severely, gave Robert a
splendid funeral in St. Paul’s church, and declared that “he would listen
to nought until he had avenged him, and that he would reduce the country
of Brittany to such plight that, for forty years, it should not recover.”
 Philip of Valois, on his side, gave signs of getting ready for war.  In
1343 he had convoked at Paris one of those assemblies which were
beginning to be called the states-general of the kingdom, and he obtained
from it certain subventions.  It was likewise in 1343 and at the
beginning of 1344, that he ordered the arrest, at a tournament to which
he had invited them, and the decapitation, without any form of trial, of
fourteen Breton and three Norman lords whom he suspected of intriguing
against him with the King of England.  And so Edward might have
considered himself threatened with imminent peril; and, besides, he had
friends to avenge.  But it is not unreasonable to suppose that his fiery
ambition, and his impatience to decide, once for all, that question of
the French kingship which had been for five years in suspense between
himself and his rival, were the true causes of his warlike resolve.
However that may be, he determined to push the war vigorously forward at
the three points at which he could easily wage it.  In Brittany he had a
party already engaged in the struggle; in Aquitaine, possessions of
importance to defend or recover; in Flanders, allies with power to back
him, and as angry as he himself.  To Brittany he forwarded fresh supplies
for the Count of Montfort; to Aquitaine he sent Henry of Lancaster, Earl
of Derby, his own cousin, and the ablest of his lieutenants; and he
himself prepared to cross over with a large army to Flanders.

The Earl of Derby met with solid and brilliant success in Aquitaine.
He attacked and took in rapid succession Bergerac, La Reole, Aiguillon,
Montpezat, Villefranche, and Angouleme.  None of those places was
relieved in time; the strict discipline of Derby’s troops and the skill
of the English archers were too much for the bravery of the men-at-arms,
and the raw levies, ill organized and ill paid, of the King of France;
and, in a word, the English were soon masters of almost the whole country
between the Garonne and the Charente.  Under such happy auspices Edward
III. arrived on the 7th of July, 1345, at the port of Ecluse (Sluys),
anxious to put himself in concert with the Flemings touching the campaign
he proposed to commence before long in the north of France.  Artevelde,
with the consuls of Bruges and Ypres, was awaiting him there.  According
to some historians, Edward invited them aboard of his galley, and
represented to them that the time had come for renouncing imperfect
resolves and half-measures; told them that their count, Louis of
Flanders, and his ancestors, had always ignored and attacked their
liberties, and that the best thing they could do would be to sever their
connection with a house they could not trust; and offered them for their
chieftain his own son, the young Prince of Wales, to whom he would give
the title of Duke of Flanders.  According to other historians, it was not
King Edward, but Artevelde himself, who took the initiative in this
proposition.  The latter had for some time past felt his own dominion in
Flanders attacked and shaken; and he had been confronted, in his own
native city, by declared enemies, who had all but come to blows with his
own partisans.  The different industrial corporations of Ghent were no
longer at one amongst themselves; the weavers had quarrelled with the
fullers.  Division was likewise reaching a great height amongst the
Flemish towns.  The burghers of Poperinghe had refused to continue
recognizing the privileges of those of Ypres; and the Ypres men, enraged,
had taken up arms, and, after a sanguinary melley, had forced the folks
of Poperinghe to give in.  Then the Ypres men, proud of their triumph,
had gone and broken the weavers’ machinery at Bailleul, and in some other
towns.  Artevelde, constrained to take part in these petty civil wars,
had been led on to greater and greater abuse, in his own city itself,
of his municipal despotism, already grown hateful to many of his fellow-
citizens.  Whether he himself proposed to shake off the yoke of Count
Louis of Flanders, and take for duke the Prince of Wales, or merely
accepted King Edward’s proposal, he set resolutely to work to get it
carried.  The most able men, swayed by their own passions and the growing
necessities of the struggle in which they may be engaged, soon forget
their first intentions, and ignore their new perils.  The consuls of
Bruges and Ypres, present with Artevelde at his interview with King
Edward in the port of Ecluse (Sluys), answered that “they could not
decide so great a matter unless the whole community of Flanders should
agree thereto,” and so returned to their cities.  Artevelde followed them
thither, and succeeded in getting the proposed resolution adopted by the
people of Ypres and Bruges.  But when he returned to Ghent, on the 24th
of July, 1345, “those in the city who knew of his coming,” says
Froissart, “had assembled in the street whereby he must ride to his
hostel.  So soon as they saw him they began to mutter, saying, ‘There
goes he who is too much master, and would fain do with the countship of
Flanders according to his own will; which cannot be borne.’  It had,
besides this, been spread about the city that James Van Artevelde had
secretly sent to England the great treasure of Flanders, which he had
been collecting for the space of the nine years and more during which he
had held the government.  This was a matter which did greatly vex and
incense them of Ghent.  As James Van Artevelde rode along the street, he
soon perceived that there was something fresh against him, for those who
were wont to bow down and take off their caps to him turned him a cold
shoulder, and went back into their houses.  Then he began to be afraid;
and so soon as he had dismounted at his house, he had all the doors and
windows shut and barred.  Scarcely had his varlets done so, when the
street in which he lived was covered, front and back, with folk, and
chiefly small crafts-folk.  His hostel was surrounded and beset, front
and back, and broken into by force.  Those within defended themselves a
long while, and overthrew and wounded many; but at last they could not
hold out, for they were so closely assailed that nearly three quarters of
the city were at this assault.  When Artevelde saw the efforts a-making,
and how hotly he was pressed, he came to a window over the street, and
began to abase himself, and say with much fine language, ‘Good folks,
what want ye?  What is it that doth move ye?  Wherefore are ye so vexed
at me?  In what way can I have angered ye?  Tell me, and I will mend it
according to your wishes.’  Then all those who had heard him answered
with one voice, ‘We would have an account of the great treasure of
Flanders, which you have sent to England without right or reason.’
Artevelde answered full softly, ‘Of a surety, sirs, I have never taken a
denier from the treasury of Flanders; go ye back quietly home, I pray
you, and come again to-morrow morning; I shall be so well prepared to
render you a good account, that, according to reason, it cannot but
content ye.’  ‘Nay, nay,’ they answered, with one voice, ‘but we would
have it at once; you shall not escape us so; we do know of a verity that
you have taken it out and sent it away to England, without our wit; for
which cause you must needs die.’  When Artevelde heard this word, he
began to weep right piteously, and said, ‘Sirs, ye have made me what I
am, and ye did swear to me aforetime that ye would guard and defend me
against all men; and now ye would kill me, and without a cause.  Ye can
do so an if it please you, for I am but one single man against ye all,
without any defence.  Think hereon, for God’s sake, and look back to
bygone times.  Consider the great courtesies and services that I have
done ye.  Know ye not how all trade had perished in this country?  It was
I who raised it up again.  Afterwards I governed ye in peace so great,
that, during the time of my government, ye have had everything to your
wish, grains, wools, and all sorts of merchandise, wherewith ye are well
provided and in good case.’  Then they began to shout, ‘Come down, and
preach not to us from such a height; we would have account and reckoning
of the great treasure of Flanders which you have too long had under
control without rendering an account, which it appertaineth not to any
officer to do.’  When Artevelde saw that they would not cool down, and
would not restrain themselves, he closed the window, and bethought him
that he would escape by the back, and get him gone to a church adjoining
his hostel; but his hostel was already burst open and broken into behind,
and there were more than four hundred persons who were all anxious to
seize him.  At last he was caught amongst them, and killed on the spot
without mercy.  A weaver, called Thomas Denis, gave him his death-blow.
This was the end of Artevelde, who in his time was so great a master in
Flanders.  Poor folk exalted him at first, and wicked folk slew him at
the last.”

[Illustration: Statue of James Van Artevelde----296]

It was a great loss for King Edward.  Under Van Artevelde’s bold
dominance, and in consequence of his alliance with England, the warlike
renown of Flanders had made some noise in Europe, to such an extent that
Petrarch exclaimed, “List to the sounds, still indistinct, that reach us
from the world of the West; Flanders is plunged in ceaseless war; all the
country stretching from the restless Ocean to the Latin Alps is rushing
forth to arms.  Would to Heaven that there might come to us some gleams
of salvation from thence!  O Italy, poor father-land, thou prey to
sufferings without relief, thou who wast wont with thy deeds of arms to
trouble the peace of the world, now art thou motionless when the fate of
the world hangs on the chances of battle!  “The Flemings spared no effort
to re-assure the King of England.  Their envoys went to Westminster to
deplore the murder of Van Artevelde, and tried to persuade Edward that
his policy would be perpetuated throughout their cities, and “to such
purpose,” says Froissart, “that in the end the king was fairly content
with the Flemings, and they with him, and, between them, the death of
James Van Artevelde was little by little forgotten.”  Edward, however,
was so much affected by it that he required a whole year before he could
resume with any confidence his projects of war; and it was not until the
2d of July, 1346, that he embarked at Southampton, taking with him,
besides his son, the Prince of Wales, hardly sixteen years of age, an
army which comprised, according to Froissart, seven earls, more than
thirty-five barons, a great number of knights, four thousand men-at-arms,
ten thousand English archers, six thousand Irish, and twelve thousand
Welsh infantry, in all something more than thirty-two thousand men,
troops even more formidable for their discipline and experience of war
than for their numbers.  When they were out at sea none knew, not even
the king himself, for what point of the Continent they were to make, for
the south or the north, for Aquitaine or Normandy.  “Sir,” said Godfrey
d’Harcourt, who had become one of the king’s most trusted counsellors,
“the country of Normandy is one of the fattest in the world, and I
promise you, at the risk of my head, that if you put in there you shall
take possession of land at your good pleasure, for the folk there never
were armed, and all the flower of their chivalry is now at Aiguillon with
their duke; for certain, we shall find there gold, silver, victual, and
all other good things in great abundance.”  Edward adopted this advice;
and on the 12th of July, 1346, his fleet anchored before the peninsula of
Cotentin, at Cape La Hogue.  Whilst disembarking, at the very first step
he made on shore, the king fell “so roughly,” says Froissart, “that blood
spurted from his nose.  ‘Sir,’ said his knights to him, ‘go back to your
ship, and come not now to land, for here is an ill sign for you.’  ‘Nay,
verily,’ quoth the king, full roundly, ‘it is a right good sign for me,
since the land doth desire me.’”  Caesar did and said much the same on
disembarking in Africa, and William the Conqueror on landing in England.
In spite of contemporary accounts, there is a doubt about the
authenticity of these striking expressions, which become favorites,
and crop up again on all similar occasions.

For a month Edward marched his army over Normandy, “finding on his road,”
 says Froissart, “the country fat and plenteous in everything, the garners
full of corn, the houses full of all manner of riches, carriages, wagons
and horses, swine, ewes, wethers, and the finest oxen in the world.”  He
took and plundered on his way Barfleur, Cherbourg, Valognes, Carentan,
and St. Lo.  When, on the 26th of July, he arrived before Caen, “a city
bigger than any in England save London, and full of all kinds of
merchandise, of rich burghers, of noble dames, and of fine churches,” the
population attempted to resist.  Philip had sent to them the constable,
Raoul d’Eu, and the Count of Tancarville; but, after three days of petty
fighting around the city and even in the streets themselves, Edward
became master of it, and on the entreaty, it is said, of Godfrey
d’Hareourt, exempted it from pillage.  Continuing his march, he occupied
Louviers, Vernon, Verneuil, Mantes, Meulan, and Poissy, where he took up
his quarters in the old residence of King Robert; and thence his troops
advanced and spread themselves as far as Ruel, Neuilly, Boulogne, St.
Cloud, Bourg-la-Reine, and almost to the gates of Paris, whence could be
seen “the fire and smoke from burning villages.”  “We ourselves,” says a
contemporary chronicler, “saw these things; and it was a great dishonor
that in the midst of the kingdom of France the King of England should
squander, spoil, and consume the king’s wines and other goods.”  Great
was the consternation at Paris.  And it was redoubled when Philip gave
orders for the demolition of the houses built along by the walls of
circumvallation, on the ground that they embarrassed the defence.  The
people believed that they were on the eve of a siege.  The order was
revoked; but the feeling became even more intense when it was known that
the king was getting ready to start for St. Denis, where his principal
allies, the King of Bohemia, the Dukes of Hainault and of Lorraine, the
Counts of Flanders and of Blois, “and a very great array of baronry and
chivalry,” were already assembled.  “Ah! dear sir and noble king,” cried
the burghers of Paris as they came to Philip and threw themselves on
their knees before him, “what would you do?  Would you thus leave your
good city of Paris?  Your enemies are already within two leagues, and
will soon be in our city when they know that you are gone; and we have
and shall have none to defend us against them.  Sir, may it please you to
remain and watch over your good city.”  “My good people,” answered the
king, “have ye no fear; the English shall come no nigher to you; I am
away to St. Denis to my men-at-arms, for I mean to ride against these
English, and fight them, in such fashion as I may.”  Philip recalled in
all haste his troops from Aquitaine, commanded the burgher-forces to
assemble, and gave them, as he had given all his allies, St. Denis for
the rallying-point.  At sight of so many great lords and all sorts of men
of war flocking together from all points, the Parisians took fresh
courage.  “For many a long day there had not been seen at St. Denis a
king of France in arms and fully prepared for battle.”

Edward began to be afraid of having pushed too far forward, and of
finding himself endangered in the heart of France, confronted by an army
which would soon be stronger than his own.  Some chronicles say that
Philip, in his turn, sent a challenge either for single combat or for a
battle on a fixed day, in a place assigned, and that Edward, in his turn
also, declined the proposition he had but lately made to his rival.  It
appears, further, that at the moment of commencing his retreat away from
Paris, he tried ringing the changes on Philip with respect to the line he
intended to take, and that Philip was led to believe that the English
army would fall back in a westerly direction, by Orleans and Tours,
whereas it marched northward, where Edward flattered himself he would
find partisans, counting especially on the help of the Flemings, who, in
fulfilment of their promise, had already advanced as far as Bethune to
support him.  Philip was soon better informed, and moved with all his
army into Picardy in pursuit of the English army, which was in a hurry to
reach and cross the Somme, and so continue its march northward.  It was
more than once forced to fight on its march with the people of the towns
and country through which it was passing; provisions were beginning to
fall short; and Edward sent his two marshals, the Earl of Warwick and
Godfrey d’Harcourt, to discover where it was practicable to cross the
river, which, at this season of the year and so near its mouth, was both
broad and deep.  They returned without having any satisfactory
information to report; “whereupon,” says Froissart, “the king was not
more joyous or less pensive, and began to fall into a great melancholy.”
 He had halted three or four days at Airaines, some few leagues from
Amiens, whither the King of France had arrived in pursuit with an army,
it is said, more than a hundred thousand strong.  Philip learned through
his scouts that the King of England would evacuate Airaines the next
morning, and ride to Abbeville in hopes of finding some means of getting
over the Somme.  Philip immediately ordered a Norman baron, Godemar du
Fay, to go with a body of troops and guard the ford of Blanche-Tache,
below Abbeville, the only point at which, it was said, the English could
cross the river; and on the same day he himself moved with the bulk of
his army from Amiens on Airaines.  There he arrived about midday, some
few hours after that the King of England had departed with such
precipitation that the French found in it “great store of provisions,
meat ready spitted, bread and pastry in the oven, wines in barrel, and
many tables which the English had left ready set and laid out.”  “Sir,”
 said Philip’s officers to him, as soon as he was at Airaines, “rest you
here and wait for your barons and their folk, for the English cannot
escape you.”  It was concluded, in point of fact, that Edward and his
troops, not being able to cross the Somme, would find themselves hemmed
in between the French army and the strong places of Abbeville, St.
Valery, and Le Crotoi, in the most evil case and perilous position
possible.  But Edward, on arriving at the little town of Oisemont, hard
by the Somme, set out in person in quest of the ford he was so anxious to
discover.  He sent for some prisoners he had made in the country, and
said to them, “right courteously,” according to Froissart, “‘Is there
here any man who knows of a passage below Abbeville, where-by we and our
army might cross the river without peril?’  And a varlet from a
neighboring mill, whose name history has preserved as that of a traitor,
Gobin Agace, said to the king, ‘Sir, I do promise you, at the risk of my
head, that I will guide you to such a spot, where you shall cross the
River Somme without peril, you and your army.’  ‘Comrade,’ said the king
to him, ‘if I find true that which thou tellest us, I will set thee free
from thy prison, thee and all thy fellows for love of thee, and I will
cause to be given to thee a hundred golden nobles and a good stallion.’”
 The varlet had told the truth; the ford was found at the spot called
Blanche-Tache, whither Philip had sent Godemar du Fay with a few thousand
men to guard it.  A battle took place; but the two marshals of England,
“unfurling their banners in the name of God and St. George, and having
with them the most valiant and best mounted, threw themselves into the
water at full gallop, and there, in the river, was done many a deed of
battle, and many a man was laid low on one side and the other, for Sir
Godemar and his comrades did valiantly defend the passage; but at last
the English got across, and moved forward into the fields as fast as ever
they landed.  When Sir Godemar saw the mishap, he made off as quickly as
he could, and so did a many of his comrades.”  The King of France, when
he heard the news, was very wroth, “for he had good hope of finding the
English on the Somme and fighting them there.  ‘What is it right to do
now?’ asked Philip of his marshals.  ‘Sir,’ answered they, ‘you cannot
now cross in pursuit of the English, for the tide is already up.’”
 Philip went disconsolate to lie at Abbeville, whither all his men
followed him.  Had he been as watchful as Edward was, and had he, instead
of halting at Airaines “by the ready-set tables which the English had
left,” marched at once in pursuit of them, perhaps he would have caught
and beaten them on the left bank of the Somme, before they could cross
and take up position on the other side.  This was the first striking
instance of that extreme inequality between the two kings in point of
ability and energy which was before long to produce results so fatal for
Philip.

When Edward, after passing the Somme, had arrived near Crecy, five
leagues from Abbeville, in the countship of Ponthieu which had formed
part of his mother Isabel’s dowry, “‘Halt we here,’ said he to his
marshals; ‘I will go no farther till I have seen the enemy; I am on my
mother’s rightful inheritance which was given her on her marriage; I will
defend it against mine adversary, Philip of Valois;’ and he rested in the
open fields, he and all his men, and made his marshals mark well the
ground where they would set their battle in array.”  Philip, on his side,
had moved to Abbeville, where all his men came and joined him, and whence
he sent out scouts “to learn the truth about the English.  When he knew
that they were resting in the open fields near Crecy and showed that they
were awaiting their enemies, the King of France was very joyful, and said
that, please God, they should fight him on the morrow [the day after
Friday, August 25, 1346].  He that day bade to supper all the high-born
princes who were at Abbeville.  They were all in great spirits and had
great talk of arms, and after supper the king prayed all the lords to be
all of them, one toward another, friendly and courteous, without envy,
hatred, and pride, and every one made him a promise thereof.  On the same
day of Friday the King of England also gave a supper to the earls and
barons of his army, made them great cheer, and then sent them away to
rest, which they did.  When all the company had gone, he entered into his
oratory, and fell on his knees before the altar, praying devoutly that
God would permit him on the morrow, if he should fight, to come out of
the business with honor; after which, about midnight, he went and lay
down.  On the morrow he rose pretty early, for good reason, heard mass
with the Prince of Wales, his son, and both of them communicated.  The
majority of his men confessed and put themselves in good ease.  After
mass the king commanded all to get on their arms and take their places in
the field according as he had assigned them the day before.”  Edward had
divided his army into three bodies; he had put the first, forming the
van, under the orders of the young Prince of Wales, having about him the
best and most tried warriors; the second had for commanders earls and
barons in whom the king had confidence; and the third, the reserve, he
commanded in person.  Having thus made his arrangements, Edward, mounted
on a little palfrey, with a white staff in his hand and his marshals in
his train, rode at a foot-pace from rank to rank, exhorting all his men,
officers and privates, to stoutly defend his right and do their duty; and
“he said these words to them,” says Froissart, “with so bright a smile
and so joyous a mien that whoso had before been disheartened felt
reheartened on seeing and hearing him.”  Having finished his ride, Edward
went back to his own division, giving orders for all his folk to eat
their fill and drink one draught: which they did.  “And then they sat
down all of them on the ground, with their head-pieces and their bows in
front of them, resting themselves in order to be more fresh and cool when
the enemy should come.”

Philip also set himself in motion on Saturday, the 26th of August, and,
after having heard mass, marched out from Abbeville with all his barons.
“There was so great a throng of men-at-arms there,” says Froissart, “that
it were a marvel to think on, and the king rode mighty gently to wait for
all his folk.”  When they were two leagues from Abbeville, one of them
that were with him said, “Sir, it were well to put your lines in order of
battle, and to send three or four of your knights to ride forward and
observe the enemy and in what condition they be.”  So four knights pushed
forward to within sight of the English, and, returning immediately to the
king, whom they could not approach without breaking the host that
encompassed him, they said by the mouth of one of them, “Know, sir, that
the English be halted, well and regularly, in three lines of battle, and
show no sign of meaning to fly, but await your coming.  For my part, my
counsel is that you halt all your men, and rest them in the fields
throughout this day.  Before the hindermost can come up, and before your
lines of battle are set in order, it will be late; your men will be tired
and in disarray; and you will find the enemy cool and fresh.  To-morrow
morning you will be better able to dispose your men and determine in what
quarter it will be expedient to attack the enemy.  Sure may you be that
they will await you.”  This counsel was well pleasing to the King of
France, and he commanded that thus it should be.  “The two marshals rode
one to the front and the other to the rear with orders to the bannerets,
‘Halt, banners, by command of the king, in the name of God and St.
Denis!’  At this order those who were foremost halted, but not those who
were hindermost, continuing to ride forward and saying that they would
not halt until they were as much to the front as the foremost were.
Neither the king nor his marshals could get the mastery of their men, for
there was so goodly a number of great lords that each was minded to show
his own might.  There was, besides, in the fields, so goodly a number of
common people that all the roads between Abbeville and Crecy were covered
with them; and when these folk thought themselves near the enemy, they
drew their swords, shouting, ‘Death! death!’  And not a soul did they
see.”

“When the English saw the French approaching, they rose up in fine order
and ranged themselves in their lines of battle, that of the Prince of
Wales right in front, and the Earls of Northampton and Arundel, who
commanded the second, took up their place on the wing, right orderly and
all ready to support the prince, if need should be.  Well, the lords,
kings, dukes, counts, and barons of the French came not up all together,
but one in front and another behind, without plan or orderliness.  When
King Philip arrived at the spot where the English were thus halted, and
saw them, the blood boiled within him, for he hated them, and he said to
his marshals, ‘Let our Genoese pass to the front and begin the battle, in
the name of God and St. Denis.’  There were there fifteen thousand of
these said Genoese bowmen; but they were sore tired with going a-foot
that day more than six leagues and fully armed, and they said to their
commanders that they were not prepared to do any great feat of battle.
‘To be saddled with such a scum as this that fails you in the hour of
need!’ said the Duke d’Alencon on hearing those words.  Whilst the
Genoese were holding back, there fell from heaven a rain, heavy and
thick, with thunder and lightning very mighty and terrible.  Before long,
however, the air began to clear and the sun to shine.  The French had it
right in their eyes and the English at their backs.  When the Genoese had
recovered themselves and got together, they advanced upon the English
with loud shouts, so as to strike dismay; but the English kept quite
quiet, and showed no sign of it.  Then the Genoese bent their cross-bows
and began to shoot.  The English, making one step forward, let fly their
arrows, which came down so thick upon the Genoese that it looked like a
fall of snow.  The Genoese, galled and discomfited, began to fall back.
Between them and the main body of the French was a great hedge of
men-at-arms who were watching their proceedings.  When the King of France
saw his bowmen thus in disorder he shouted to the men-at-arms, ‘Up now
and slay all this scum, for it blocks our way and hinders us from getting
forward.’”  Then the French, on every side, struck out at the Genoese, at
whom the English archers continued to shoot.

“Thus began the battle between Broye and Crecy, at the hour of vespers.”
 The French, as they came up, were already tired and in great disorder:
“howbeit so many valiant men and good knights kept ever riding forward
for their honor’s sake, and preferred rather to die than that a base
flight should be cast in their teeth.”  A fierce combat took place
between them and the division of the Prince of Wales.  Thither penetrated
the Count d’Alenccon and the Count of Flanders with their followers,
round the flank of the English archers; and the King of France, who was
foaming with displeasure and wrath, rode forward to join his brother
D’Alencon, but there was so great a hedge of archers and men-at-arms
mingled together that he could never get past.  Thomas of Norwich, a
knight serving under the Prince of Wales, was sent to the King of England
to ask him for help.  “‘Sir Thomas,’ said the king, ‘is my son dead or
unhorsed, or so wounded that he cannot help himself?’  ‘Not so, my lord,
please God; but he is fighting against great odds, and is like to have
need of your help.’  ‘Sir Thomas,’ replied the king, ‘return to them who
sent you, and tell them from me not to send for me, whatever chance
befall them, so long as my son is alive, and tell them that I bid them
let the lad win his spurs; for I wish, if God so deem, that the day
should be his, and the honor thereof remain to him and to those to whom I
have given him in charge.’  The knight returned with this answer to his
chiefs; and it encouraged them greatly, and they repented within
themselves for that they had sent him to the king.”  Warlike ardor, if
not ability and prudence, was the same on both sides.  Philip’s faithful
ally, John of Luxembourg, King of Bohemia, had come thither, blind as he
was, with his son Charles and his knights; and when he knew that the
battle had begun he asked those who were near him how it was going on.
“‘My lord,’ they said, ‘the Genoese are discomfited, and the king has
given orders to slay them all; and all the while between our folk and
them there is so great disorder that they stumble one over another and
hinder us greatly.’  ‘Ha!’ said the king, ‘that is an ill sign for us;
where is Sir Charles, my son?’  ‘My lord, we know not; we have reason to
believe that he is elsewhere in the fight.’  ‘Sirs,’ replied the old
king, ‘ye are my liegemen, my friends, and my comrades; I pray you and
require you to lead me so far to the front in the work of this day that I
may strike a blow with my sword; it shall not be said that I came hither
to do nought.’  So his train, who loved his honor and their own
advancement,” says Froissart, “did his bidding.  For to acquit themselves
of their duty, and that they might not lose him in the throng, they tied
themselves all together by the reins of their horses, and set the king,
their lord, right in front, that he might the better accomplish his
desire, and thus they bore down on the enemy.  And the king went so far
forward that he struck a good blow, yea, three and four; and so did all
those who were with him.  And they served him so well and charged so well
forward upon the English, that all fell there and were found next day on
the spot around their lord, and their horses tied together.”

“The King of France,” continues Froissart, “had great anguish at heart
when he saw his men thus discomfited and falling one after another before
a handful of folk as the English were.  He asked counsel of Sir John of
Hainault, who was near him and who said to him, ‘Truly, sir, I can give
you no better counsel than that you should withdraw and place yourself in
safety, for I see no remedy here.  It will soon be late; and then you
would be as likely to ride upon your enemies as amongst your friends, and
so be lost.’  Late in the evening, at nightfall, King Philip left the
field with a heavy heart--and for good cause; he had just five barons
with him, and no more!  He rode, quite broken-hearted, to the castle of
Broye.  When he came to the gate, he found it shut and the bridge drawn
up, for it was fully night, and was very dark and thick.  The king had
the castellan summoned, who came forward on the battlements and cried
aloud, ‘Who’s there? who knocks at such an hour?’  ‘Open, castellan,’
said Philip; ‘it is the unhappy King of France.’  The castellan went out
as soon as he recognized the voice of the King of France; and he well
knew already that they had been discomfited, from some fugitives who had
passed at the foot of the castle.  He let down the bridge and opened the
gate.  Then the king, with his following, went in, and remained there up
to midnight, for the king did not care to stay and shut himself up
therein.  He drank a draught, and so did they who were with him; then
they mounted to horse, took guides to conduct them, and rode in such wise
that at break of day they entered the good city of Amiens.  There the
king halted, took up his quarters in an abbey, and said that he would go
no farther until he knew the truth about his men, which of them were left
on the field and which had escaped.”

Whilst Philip, with all speed, was on the road back to Paris with his
army as disheartened as its king, and more disorderly in retreat than it
had been in battle, Edward was hastening, with ardor and intelligence, to
reap the fruits of his victory.  In the difficult war of conquest he had
undertaken, what was clearly of most importance to him was to possess on
the coast of France, as near as possible to England, a place which he
might make, in his operations by land and sea, a point of arrival and
departure, of occupancy, of provisioning, and of secure refuge.  Calais
exactly fulfilled these conditions.  It was a natural harbor, protected,
for many centuries past, by two huge towers, of which one, it is said,
was built by the Emperor Caligula and the other by Charlemagne; it had
been deepened and improved, at the end of the tenth century, by Baldwin
IV., Count of Flanders, and in the thirteenth by Philip of France, called
Toughskin (Hurepel), Count of Boulogne; and, in the fourteenth, it had
become an important city, surrounded by a strong wall of circumvallation,
and having erected in its midst a huge keep, furnished with bastions and
towers, which was called the Castle.  On arriving before the place,
September 3, 1346, Edward “immediately had built all round it,” says
Froissart, “houses and dwelling-places of solid carpentry, and arranged
in streets as if he were to remain there for ten or twelve years, for his
intention was not to leave it winter or summer, whatever time and
whatever trouble he must spend and take.  He called this new town
Villeneuve la Hardie; and he had therein all things necessary for an
army, and more too, as a place appointed for the holding of a market on
Wednesday and Saturday; and therein were mercers’ shops, and butchers’
shops, and stores for the sale of cloth, and bread, and all other
necessaries.  King Edward did not have the city of Calais assaulted by
his men, well knowing that he would lose his pains, but said he would
starve it out, however long a time it might cost him, if King Philip of
France did not come to fight him again, and raise the siege.”

Calais had for its governor John de Vienne, a valiant and faithful
Burgundian knight, “the which, seeing,” says Froissart, “that the King of
England was making every sacrifice to keep up the siege, ordered that all
sorts of small folk, who had no provisions, should quit the city without
further notice.  They went forth on a Wednesday morning, men, women, and
children, more than seventeen hundred of them, and passed through King
Edward’s army.  They were asked why they were leaving; and they answered,
because they had no means of living.  Then the king permitted them to
pass, and caused to be given to all of them, male and female, a hearty
dinner, and after dinner two shillings apiece, the which grace was
commended as very handsome; and so indeed it was.”  Edward probably hoped
that his generosity would produce, in the town itself which remained in a
state of siege, a favorable impression; but he had to do with a
population ardently warlike and patriotic, burghers as well as knights.
They endured for eleven months all the sufferings arising from isolation
and famine; though, from time to time, fishermen and seamen in their
neighborhood, and amongst others two seamen of Abbeville, the names of
whom have been preserved in history, Marant and Mestriel, succeeded in
getting victuals in to them.  The King of France made two attempts to
relieve them.  On the 20th of May, 1347, he assembled his troops at
Amiens; but they were not ready to march till about the middle of July,
and as long before as the 23d of June a French fleet of ten galleys and
thirty-five trans-ports had been driven off by the English.  John de
Vienne wrote to Philip, “Everything has been eaten, cats, dogs, and
horses, and we can no longer find victual in the town unless we eat human
flesh.  .  .  .  If we have not speedy succor, we will issue forth from
the town to fight, whether to live or die, for we would rather die
honorably in the field than eat one another.  .  .  .  If a remedy be not
soon applied, you will never more have letter from me, and the town will
be lost as well as we who are in it.  May our Lord grant you a happy life
and a long, and put you in such a disposition that, if we die for your
sake, you may settle the account therefor with our heirs!”  On the 27th
of July Philip arrived in person before Calais.  If Froissart can be
trusted, “he had with him full two hundred thousand men, and these French
rode up with banners flying as if to fight, and it was a fine sight to
see such puissant array; and so, when they of Calais who were on the
walls saw them appear and their banners floating on the breeze, they had
great joy, and believed that they were going to be soon delivered!  But
when they saw camping and tenting going forward they were more angered
than before, for it seemed to them an evil sign.”  The marshals of France
went about everywhere looking for a passage, and they reported that it
was nowhere possible to open a road without exposing the army to loss,
so well all the approaches to the place, by sea and land, were guarded by
the English.  The pope’s two legates, who had accompanied King Philip,
tried in vain to open negotiations.  Philip sent four knights to the King
of England to urge him to appoint a place where a battle might be fought
without advantage on either side; but, “Sirs,” answered Edward, “I have
been here nigh upon a year, and have been at heavy charges by it; and
having done so much that before long I shall be master of Calais.  I will
by no means retard my conquest which I have so much desired.  Let mine
adversary and his people find out a way, as they please, to fight me.”

Other testimony would have us believe that Edward accepted Philip’s
challenge, and that it was the King of France who raised fresh
difficulties in consequence of which the proposed battle did not take
place.  Froissart’s account, however, seems the more truth-like in
itself, and more in accordance with the totality of facts.  However that
may be, whether it were actual powerlessness or want of spirit both on
the part of the French army and of the king, Philip, on the 2d of August,
1347, took the road back to Amiens, and dismissed all those who had gone
with him, men-at-arms and common folk.

When the people of Calais saw that all hope of a rescue had slipped from
them, they held a council, resigned themselves to offer submission to the
King of England rather than die of hunger, and begged their governor,
John de Vienne, to enter into negotiations for that purpose with the
besiegers.  Walter de Manny, instructed by Edward to reply to these
overtures, said to John de Vienne, “The king’s intent is, that ye put
yourselves at his free will to ransom or put to death such as it shall
please him; the people of Calais have caused him so great displeasure,
cost him so much money, and lost him so many men, that it is not
astonishing if that weighs heavily upon him.”  “Sir Walter,” answered
John de Vienne, “it would be too hard a matter for us if we were to
consent to what you say.  There are within here but a small number of us
knights and squires who have loyally served our lord the King of France
even as you would serve yours in like case; but we would suffer greater
evils than ever men have had to endure rather than consent that the
meanest ‘prentice-boy or varlet of the town should have other evil than
the greatest of us.  We pray you be pleased to return to the King of
England, and pray him to have pity upon us; and you will do us courtesy.”
 “By my faith,” answered Walter de Manny, “I will do it willingly, Sir
John; and I would that, by God’s help, the king might be pleased to
listen unto me.”  And the brave English knight reported to the king the
prayer of the French knights in Calais, saying, “My lord, Sir John de
Vienne told me that they were in very sore extremity and famine, but
that, rather than surrender all to your will, to live or die as it might
please you, they would sell themselves so dearly as never did men-at-
arms.”  “I will not do otherwise than I have said,” answered the king.
“My lord,” replied Walter, “you will perchance be wrong, for you will
give us a bad example; if you should be pleased to send us to defend any
of your fortresses, we should of a surety not go willingly if you have
these people put to death, for thus would they do to us in like case.”
 These words caused Edward to reflect; and the greater part of the English
barons came to the aid of Walter de Manny.  “Sirs,” said the king, “I
would not be all alone against you all.  Go, Walter, to them of Calais,
and say to the governor that the greatest grace they can find in my sight
is that six of the most notable burghers come forth from their town,
bare-headed, bare-footed, with ropes round their necks, and with the keys
of the town and castle in their hands.  With them I will do according to
my will, and the rest I will receive to mercy.”  “My lord,” said Walter,
“I will do it willingly.”  He returned to Calais, where John de Vienne
was awaiting him, and reported the king’s decision.  The governor
immediately left the ramparts, went to the market-place, and had the bell
rung to assemble the people.  At sound of the bell men and women came
hurrying up hungering for news, as was natural for people so hard-pressed
by famine that they could not hold out any longer.  John de Vienne then
repeated to them what he had just been told, adding that there was no
other way, and that they would have to make short answer.  On this they
all fell a-weeping and crying out so bitterly that no heart in the world,
however hard, could have seen and heard them without pity.  Even John de
Vienne shed tears.  Then rose up to his feet the richest burgher of the
town, Eustace de St. Pierre, who, at the former council, had been for
capitulation.  “Sir,” said he, “it would be great pity to leave this
people to die, by famine or otherwise, when any remedy can be found
against it; and he who should keep them from such a mishap would find
great favor in the eyes of our Lord.  I have great hope to find favor in
the eyes of our Lord if I die to save this people; I would fain be the
first herein, and I will willingly place myself in my shirt and
bare-headed and with a rope round my neck, at the mercy of the King of
England.”  At this speech, men and women cast themselves at the feet of
Eustace de St. Pierre, weeping piteously.  Another right-honorable
burgher, who had great possessions and two beautiful damsels for
daughters, rose up and said that he would act comrade to Eustace de St.
Pierre: his name was John d’Aire.  Then, for the third, James de Vissant,
a rich man in personalty and realty; then his brother Peter de Vissant;
and then the fifth and sixth, of whom none has told the names.  On the
5th of August, 1347, these six burghers, thus apparelled, with cords
round their necks and each with a bunch of the keys of the city and of
the castle, were conducted outside the gates by John de Vienne, who rode
a small hackney, for he was in such ill plight that he could not go
a-foot.  He gave them up to Sir Walter, who was awaiting him, and said to
him, “As captain of Calais I deliver to you, with the consent of the poor
people of the town, these six burghers, who are, I swear to you, the most
honorable and notable in person, in fortune, and in ancestry, in the town
of Calais.  I pray you be pleased to pray the King of England that these
good folks be not put to death.”  “I know not,” answered De Manny, “what
my lord the king may mean to do with them; but I promise you that I will
do mine ability.”  When Sir Walter brought in the six burghers in this
condition, King Edward was in his chamber with a great company of earls,
barons, and knights.  As soon as he heard that the folks of Calais were
there as he had ordered, he went out and stood in the open space before
his hostel and all those lords with him; and even Queen Philippa of
England, who was with child, followed the king her lord.  He gazed most
cruelly on those six poor men, for he had his heart possessed with so
much rage that at first he could not speak.  When he spoke, he commanded
them to be straightway beheaded, All the barons and knights who were
there prayed him to show them mercy.  “Gentle sir,” said Walter de Manny,
“restrain your wrath; you have renown for gentleness and nobleness; be
pleased to do nought whereby it may be diminished; if you have not pity
on yonder folk, all others will say that it was great cruelty on your
part to put to death these six honorable burghers, who of their own free
will have put themselves at your mercy to save the others.”  The king
gnashed his teeth, saying, “Sir Walter, hold your peace; let them fetch
hither my headsman; the people of Calais have been the death of so many
of my men that it is but meet that yon fellows die also.”  Then, with
great humility, the noble queen, who was very nigh her delivery, threw
herself on her knees at the feet of the king, saying, “Ah gentle sir, if,
as you know, I have asked nothing of you from the time that I crossed the
sea in great peril, I pray you humbly that as a special boon, for the
sake of Holy Mary’s Son and for the love of me, you will please to have
mercy on these six men.”

[Illustration: Queen Philippa at the Feet of the King----314]

The king did not speak at once, and fixed his eyes on the good dame his
wife, who was weeping piteously on her knees.  She softened his stern
heart, for he would have been loath to vex her in the state in which she
was; and he said to her, “Ha! dame, I had much rather you had been
elsewhere than here; but you pray me such prayers that I dare not refuse
you, and though it irks me much to do so, there!  I give them up to you;
do with them as you will.”  “Thanks, hearty thanks, my lord,” said the
good queen.  Then she rose up and raised up the six burghers, had the
ropes taken off their necks, and took them with her to her chamber, where
she had fresh clothes and dinner brought to them.  Afterwards she gave
them six nobles apiece, and had them led out of the host in all safety.

Edward was choleric and stern in his choler, but judicious and politic.
He had sense enough to comprehend the impressions exhibited around him
and to take them into account.  He had yielded to the free-spoken
representations of Walter de Manny and to the soft entreaties of his
royal wife.  When he was master of Calais he did not suffer himself to be
under any illusion as to the sentiments of the population he had
conquered, and, without excluding the French from the town, he took great
care to mingle with them an English population.  He had allowed a free
passage to the poor Calaisians driven out by famine; he now fetched from
London thirty-six burghers of position and three hundred others of
inferior condition, with their wives and children, and he granted to the
town thus depeopled and repeopled all such municipal and commercial
privileges as were likely to attract new inhabitants thither.  But, at
the same time, he felt what renown and importance a devotion like that of
the six burghers of Calais could not fail to confer upon such men, and
not only did he trouble himself to get them back to their own hearths,
but on the 8th of October, 1347, two months after the surrender of
Calais, he gave Eustace de St. Pierre a considerable pension “on account
of the good services he was to render in the town by maintaining good
order there,” and he re-instated him, him and his heirs, in possession of
the properties that had belonged to him.  Eustace, more concerned for the
interests of his own town than for those of France, and being more of a
Calaisian burgher than a national patriot, showed no hesitation, for all
that appears, in accepting this new fashion of serving his native city,
for which he had shown himself so ready to die.  He lived four years as a
subject of the King of England.  At his death, which happened in 1351,
his heirs declared themselves faithful subjects of the King of France,
and Edward confiscated away from them the possessions he had restored to
their predecessor.  Eustace de St. Pierre’s cousin and comrade in
devotion to their native town, John d’Aire, would not enter Calais again;
his property was confiscated, and his house, the finest, it is said, in
the town, was given by King Edward to Queen Philippa, who showed no more
hesitation in accepting it than Eustace in serving his new king.
Long-lived delicacy of sentiment and conduct was rarer in those rough and
rude times than heroic bursts of courage and devotion.

Philip of Valois tried to afford some consolation and supply some remedy
for the misfortune of the Calaisians banished from their town.  He
secured to them exemption from certain imposts, no matter whither they
removed, and the possession of all property and inheritances that might
fall to them, and he promised to confer upon them all vacant offices
which it might suit them to fill.  But it was not in his gift to repair.
even superficially and in appearance, the evils he had not known how to
prevent or combat to any purpose.  The outset of his reign had been
brilliant and prosperous; but his victory at Cassel over the Flemings
brought more cry than wool.  He had vanity enough to flaunt it rather
than wit enough to turn it to account.  He was a prince of courts, and
tournaments, and trips, and galas, whether regal or plebeian; he was
volatile, imprudent, haughty, and yet frivolous, brave without ability,
and despotic without anything to show for it.  The battle of Crecy and
the loss of Calais were reverses from which he never even made a serious
attempt to recover; he hastily concluded with Edward a truce, twice
renewed, which served only to consolidate the victor’s successes.  A
calamity of European extent came as an addition to the distresses of
France.  From 1347 to 1349 a frightful disease, brought from Egypt and
Syria through the ports of Italy, and called the black plague or the
plague of Florence, ravaged Western Europe, especially Provence and
Languedoc, where it carried off, they say, two thirds of the inhabitants.
Machiavelli and Boccaccio have described with all the force of their
genius the material and moral effects of this terrible plague.  The court
of France suffered particularly from it, and the famous object of
Petrarch’s tender sonnets, Laura de Noves, married to Hugh de Sade, fell
a victim to it at Avignon.  When the epidemic had well nigh disappeared,
the survivors, men and women, princes and subjects, returned passionately
to their pleasures and their galas; to mortality, says a contemporary
chronicler, succeeded a rage for marriage; and Philip of Valois himself,
now fifty-eight years of age, took for his second wife Blanche of
Navarre, who was only eighteen.  She was a sister of that young King of
Navarre, Charles II., who was soon to get the name of Charles the Bad,
and to become so dangerous an enemy for Philip’s successors.  Seven
months after his marriage, and on the 22d of August, 1350, Philip died at
Nogent-le-Roi in the Haute-Marne, strictly enjoining his son John to
maintain with vigor his well-ascertained right to the crown he wore, and
leaving his people bowed down beneath a weight “of extortions so heavy
that the like had never been seen in the kingdom of France.”

Only one happy event distinguished the close of this reign.  As early as
1343 Philip had treated, on a monetary basis, with Humbert II., Count and
Dauphin of Vienness, for the cession of that beautiful province to the
crown of France after the death of the then possessor.  Humbert, an
adventurous and fantastic prince, plunged, in 1346, into a crusade
against the Turks, from which he returned in the following year without
having obtained any success.  Tired of seeking adventures as well as of
reigning, he, on the 16th of July, 1349, before a solemn assembly held at
Lyons, abdicated his principality in favor of Prince Charles of France,
grandson of Philip of Valois, and afterwards Charles V.  The new dauphin
took the oath, between the hands of the Bishop of Grenoble, to maintain
the liberties, franchises, and privileges of the Dauphiny; and the
ex-dauphin, after having taken holy orders and passed successively
through the Archbishopric of Rheims and the Bishopric of Paris, both of
which he found equally unpalatable, went to die at Clermont in Auvergne,
in a convent belonging to the order of Dominicans, whose habit he had
donned.

In the same year, on the 18th of April, 1349, Philip of Valois bought of
Jayme of Arragon, the last king of Majorca, for one hundred and twenty
thousand golden crowns, the lordship and town of Montpellier, thus trying
to repair to some extent, for the kingdom of France, the losses he had
caused it.

[Illustration: John II., called the Good----318]

His successor, John II., called the Good, on no other ground than that he
was gay, prodigal, credulous, and devoted to his favorites, did nothing
but reproduce, with aggravations, the faults and reverses of his father.
He had hardly become king when he witnessed the arrival in Paris of the
Constable of France, Raoul, Count of Eu and of Guines, whom Edward III.
had made prisoner at Caen, and who, after five years’ captivity, had just
obtained, that is, purchased, his liberty.  Raoul lost no time in
hurrying to the side of the new king, by whom he believed himself to be
greatly beloved.  John, as soon as he perceived him, gave him a look,
saying, “Count, come this way with me; I have to speak with you aside.”
 “Right willingly, my lord.”  The king took him into an apartment, and
showing him a letter, asked, “Have you ever, count, seen this letter
anywhere but here?”  The constable appeared astounded and troubled.
“Ah! wicked traitor,” said the king, “you have well deserved death, and,
by my father’s soul, it shall assuredly not miss you;” and he sent him
forthwith to prison in the tower of the Louvre.  “The lords and barons of
France were sadly astonished,” says Froissart, “for they held the count
to be a good man and true, and they humbly prayed the king that he would
be pleased to say wherefore he had imprisoned their cousin, so gentle a
knight, who had toiled so much and so much lost for him and for the
kingdom.  But the king would not say anything, save that he would never
sleep so long as the Count of Guines was living; and he had him secretly
beheaded in the castle of the Louvre, whether rightly or wrongly; for
which the king was greatly blamed, behind his back, by many of the barons
of high estate in the kingdom of France, and the dukes and counts of the
border.”  Two months after this execution, John gave the office of
constable and a large portion of Count Raoul’s property to his favorite,
Charles of Spain, a descendant of King Alphonso of Castille and
naturalized in France; and he added thereto before long some lands
claimed by the King of Navarre, Charles the Bad, a nickname which at
eighteen years of age he had already received from his Navarrese
subjects, but which had not prevented King John from giving him in
marriage his own daughter, Joan of France.  From that moment a deep
hatred sprang up between the King of Navarre and the favorite.  The
latter was sometimes disquieted thereby.  “Fear nought from my son of
Navarre,” said John; “he durst not vex you, for, if he did, he would have
no greater enemy than myself.”  John did not yet know his son-in-law.
Two years later, in 1354, his favorite, Charles of Spain, arrived at
Laigle in Normandy.  The King of Navarre, having notice thereof,
instructed one of his agents, the Bastard de Mareuil, to go with a troop
of men-at-arms and surprise him in that town; and he himself remained
outside the walls, awaiting the result of his design.  At break of day,
he saw galloping up the Bastard de Mareuil, who shouted to him from afar,
“‘Tis done.”  “What is done?”  asked Charles.  “He is dead,” answered
Mareuil.  King John’s favorite had been surprised and massacred in his
bed.  John burst out into threats; he swore he would have vengeance, and
made preparations for war against his son-in-law.  But the King of
England promised his support to the King of Navarre.  Charles the Bad was
a bold and able intriguer; he levied troops and won over allies amongst
the lords; dread of seeing the recommencement of a war with England
gained ground; and amongst the people, and even in the king’s council,
there was a cry of “Peace with the King of Navarre!”  John took fright
and pretended to give up his ideas of vengeance; he received his son-in-
law, who thanked him on bended knee.  But the king gave him never a word.
The King of Navarre, uneasy but bold as ever, continued his intrigues for
obtaining partisans and for exciting troubles and enmities against the
king.  “I will have no master in France but myself,” said John to his
confidant: “I shall have no joy so long as he is living.”  His eldest
son, the young Duke of Normandy, who was at a later period Charles V.,
had contracted friendly relations with the King of Navarre.  On the 16th
of April, 1356, the two princes were together at a banquet in the castle
of Rouen, as well as the Count d’Harcourt and some other lords.  All on a
sudden King John, who had entered the castle by a postern with a troop of
men-at-arms, strode abruptly into the hall, preceded by the Marshal
Arnoul d’Audenham, who held a naked sword in his hand, and said, “Let
none stir, whatever he may see, unless he wish to fall by this sword.”
 The king went up to the table; and all rose as if to do him reverence.
John seized the King of Navarre roughly by the arm, and drew him towards
him, saying, “Get up, traitor; thou art not worthy to sit at my son’s
table; by my father’s soul I cannot think of meat or drink so long as
thou art living.”  A servant of the King of Navarre, to defend his
master, drew his cutlass, and pointed it at the breast of the King of
France, who thrust him back, saying to his sergeants, “Take me this
fellow and his master too.”  The King of Navarre dissolved in humble
protestations and repentant speeches over the assassination of the
Constable Charles of Spain.  “Go, traitor, go,” answered John: “you will
need to learn good rede or some infamous trick to escape from me.”  The
young Duke of Normandy had thrown himself at the feet of the king his
father, crying, “Ah! my lord, for God’s sake have mercy; you do me
dishonor; for what will be said of me, having prayed King Charles and his
barons to dine with me, if you do treat me thus?  It will be said that I
betrayed them.”  “Hold your peace, Charles,” answered his father: “you
know not all I know.”  He gave orders for the instant removal of the King
of Navarre, and afterwards of the Count d’Harcourt and three others of
those present under arrest.  “Rid us of these men,” said he to the
captain of the Ribalds, forming the soldiers of his guard; and the four
prisoners were actually beheaded in the king’s presence outside Rouen, in
a field called the Field of Pardon.  John was with great difficulty
prevailed upon not to mete out the same measure to the King of Navarre,
who was conducted first of all to Gaillard Castle, then to the tower of
the Louvre, and then to the prison of the Chatelet: “and there,” says
Froissart, “they put him to all sorts of discomforts and fears, for every
day and every night they gave him to understand that his head would be
cut off at such and such an hour, or at such and such another he would be
thrown into the Seine .  .  .  whereupon he spoke so finely and so softly
to his keepers that they who were so entreating him by the command of the
King of France had great pity on him.”

With such violence, such absence of all legal procedure, such a mixture
of deceptive indulgence and thoughtless brutality, did King John treat
his son-in-law, his own daughter, some of his principal barons, their
relations, their friends, and the people with whom they were in good
credit.  He compromised more and more seriously every day his own safety
and that of his successor, by vexing more and more, without destroying,
his most dangerous enemy.  He showed no greater prudence or ability in
the government of his kingdom.  Always in want of money, because he spent
it foolishly on galas or presents to his favorites, he had recourse, for
the purpose of procuring it, at one time to the very worst of all
financial expedients, debasement of the coinage; at another, to
disreputable imposts, such as the tax upon salt, and upon the sale of all
kinds of merchandise.  In the single year of 1352 the value of a silver
mark varied sixteen times, from four livres ten sous to eighteen livres.
To meet the requirements of his government and the greediness of his
courtiers, John twice, in 1355 and 1356, convoked the states-general, to
the consideration of which we shall soon recur in detail, and which did
not refuse him their support; but John had not the wit either to make
good use of the powers with which he was furnished, or to inspire the
states-general with that confidence which alone could decide them upon
continuing their gifts.  And, nevertheless, King John’s necessities were
more evident and more urgent than ever: war with England had begun again.

The truth is that, in spite of the truce still existing, the English,
since the accession of King John, had at several points resumed
hostilities.  The disorders and dissensions to which France was a prey,
the presumptuous and hare-brained incapacity of her new king, were, for
so ambitious and able a prince as Edward III., very strong temptations.
Nor did opportunities for attack, and chances of success, fail him any
more than temptations.  He found in France, amongst the grandees of the
kingdom, and even at the king’s court, men disposed to desert the cause
of the king and of France to serve a prince who had more capacity, and
who pretended to claim the crown of France as his lawful right.  The
feudal system lent itself to ambiguous questions and doubts of
conscience: a lord who had two suzerains, and who, rightly or wrongly,
believed that he had cause of complaint against one of them, was
justified in serving that one who could and would protect him.  Personal
interest and subtle disputes soon make traitors; and Edward had the
ability to discover them and win them over.  The alternate outbursts and
weaknesses of John in the case of those whom he suspected; the snares he
laid for them; the precipitancy and cruel violence with which he struck
them down, without form of trial, and almost with his own hand, forbid
history to receive his suspicious and his forcible proceedings as any
kind of proof; but amongst those whom he accused there were undoubtedly
traitors to the king and to France.  There is one about whom there can be
no doubt at all.  As early as 1351, amidst all his embroilments and all
his reconciliations with his father-in-law, Charles the Bad, King of
Navarre, had concluded with Edward III. a secret treaty, whereby, in
exchange for promises he received, he recognized his title as King of
France.  In 1355 his treason burst forth.  The King of Navarre, who had
gone for refuge to Avignon, under the protection of Pope Clement VI.,
crossed France by English Aquitaine, and went and landed at Cherbourg,
which he had an idea of throwing open to the King of England.  He once
more entered into communications with King John, once more obtained
forgiveness from him, and for a while appeared detached from his English
alliance.  But Edward III. had openly resumed his hostile attitude; and
he demanded that Aquitaine and the courtship of Ponthieu, detached from
the kingdom of France, should be ceded to him in full sovereignty, and
that Brittany should become all but independent.  John haughtily rejected
these pretensions, which were merely a pretext for recommencing war.  And
it recommenced accordingly, and the King of Navarre resumed his course of
perfidy.  He had lands and castles in Normandy, which John put under
sequestration, and ordered the officers commanding in them to deliver up
to him.  Six of them, the commandants of the castles of Cherbourg and
Evreux, amongst others, refused, believing, no doubt, that in betraying
France and her king, they were remaining faithful to their own lord.

At several points in the kingdom, especially in the northernprovinces,
the first fruits of the war were not favorable for the English.  King
Edward, who had landed at Calais with a body of troops, made an
unsuccessful campaign in Artois and Picardy, and was obliged to re-embark
for England, falling back before King John, whom he had at one time
offered and at another refused to meet and fight at a spot agreed upon.
But in the south-west and south of France, in 1355 and 1356, the Prince
of Wales, at the head of a small picked army, and with John Chandos for
comrade, victoriously overran Limousin, Perigord, Languedoc, Auvergne,
Berry, and Poitou, ravaging the country and plundering the towns into
which he could force an entrance, and the environs of those that defended
themselves behind their walls.  He met with scarcely any resistance, and
he was returning by way of Berry and Poitou back again to Bordeaux, when
he heard that King John, starting from Normandy with a large army, was
advancing to give him battle.  John, in fact, with easy self-complacency,
and somewhat proud of his petty successes against King Edward in Picardy,
had been in a hurry to move against the Prince of Wales, in hopes of
forcing him also to re-embark for England.  He was at the head of forty
or fifty thousand men, with his four sons, twenty-six dukes or counts,
and nearly all the baronage of France; and such was his confidence in
this noble army, that on crossing the Loire he dismissed the burgher
forces, “which was madness in him and in those who advised him,” said
even his contemporaries.  John, even more than his father Philip, was a
king of courts, ever surrounded by his nobility, and caring little for
his people.  Jealous of the order of the Garter, lately instituted by
Edward III. in honor of the beautiful Countess of Salisbury, John had
created, in 1351, by way of following suit, a brotherhood called Our Lady
of the Noble House, or of the Star, the knights of which, to the number
of five hundred, had to swear, that if they were forced to recoil in a
battle they would never yield to the enemy more than four acres of
ground, and would be slain rather than retreat.  John was destined to
find out before long that neither numbers nor bravery can supply the
place of prudence, ability, and discipline.  When the two armies were
close to one another, on the platform of Maupertuis, two leagues to the
north of Poitiers, two legates from the pope came hurrying up from that
town, with instructions to negotiate peace between the Kings of France,
England, and Navarre.  John consented to an armistice of twenty-four
hours.  The Prince of Wales, seeing himself cut off from Bordeaux by
forces very much superior to his own,--for he had but eight or ten
thousand men,--offered to restore to the King of France “all that he had
conquered this bout, both towns and castles, and all the prisoners that
he and his had taken, and to swear that, for seven whole years, he would
bear arms no more against the King of France; “but King John and his
council would not accept anything of the sort, saying that “the prince
and a hundred of his knights must come and put themselves as prisoners in
the hands of the King of France.”  Neither the Prince of Wales nor
Chandos had any hesitation in rejecting such a demand: “God forbid,” said
Chandos, “that we should go without a fight!  If we be taken or
discomfited by so many fine men-at-arms, and in so great a host, we shall
incur no blame; and if the day be for us, and fortune be pleased to
consent thereto, we shall be the most honored folk in the world.”  The
battle took place on the 19th of September, 1356, in the morning.  There
is no occasion to give the details of it here, as was done but lately in
the case of Crecy; we should merely have to tell an almost perfectly
similar story.  The three battles which, from the fourteenth to the
fifteenth century, were decisive as to the fate of France, to wit, Crecy,
on the 26th of August, 1346; Poictiers, on the 19th of September, 1356;
and Azincourt, on the 25th of October, 1415, considered as historical
events, were all alike, offering a spectacle of the same faults and the
same reverses, brought about by the same causes.  In all three, no matter
what was the difference in date, place, and persons engaged, it was a
case of undisciplined forces, without co-operation or order, and
ill-directed by their commanders, advancing, bravely and one after
another, to get broken against a compact force, under strict command, and
as docile as heroic.  From the battle of Poictiers we will cull but that
glorious feat which was peculiar to it, and which might be called as
unfortunate as glorious if the captivity of King John had been a
misfortune for France.  Nearly all his army had been beaten and
dispersed; and three of his sons, with the eldest, Charles, Duke of
Normandy, at their head, had left the field of battle with the wreck of
the divisions they commanded.  John still remained there with the knights
of the Star, a band of faithful knights from Picardy, Burgundy, Normandy,
and Poitou, his constable, the Duke of Artois, his standard-bearer,
Geoffrey de Charny, and his youngest son Philip, a boy of fourteen, who
clung obstinately to his side, saying, every instant, “Father, ware
right! Father, ware left!”

[Illustration: “Father, ware right!  Father, ware left!”----326]

The king was surrounded by assailants, of whom some did and some did not
know him, and all of whom kept shouting, “Yield you! yield you! else you
die.”  The banner of France fell at his side; for Geoffrey de Charny was
slain.  Denis de Morbecque, a knight of St. Omer, made his way up to the
king, and said to him, in good French, “Sir, sir, I pray you, yield!”
 “To whom shall I yield me?” said John:
where is my cousin, the Prince of Wales?”  “Sir, yield you to me; I will
bring you to him.”  “Who are you?”  “Denis de Morbecque, a knight of
Artois; I serve the King of England, not being able to live in the
kingdom of France, for I have lost all I possessed there.”  “I yield me
to you,” said John: and he gave his glove to the knight, who led him away
“in the midst of a great press, for every one was dragging the king,
saying, ‘I took him!’ and he could not get forward, nor could my lord
Philip, his young son.  .  .  .  The king said to them all, Sirs, conduct
me courteously, and quarrel no more together about the taking of me, for
I am rich and great enough to make every one of you rich.’”  Hereupon,
the two English marshals, the Earl of Warwick and the Earl of Suffolk,
“seeing from afar this throng, gave spur to their steeds, and came up,
asking, ‘What is this yonder?’  And answer was made to them, ‘It is the
King of France who is taken, and more than ten knights and squires would
fain have him.’  Then the two barons broke through the throng by dint of
their horses, dismounted and bowed full low before the king, who was very
joyful at their coming, for they saved him from great danger.”  A very
little while afterwards, the two marshals “entered the pavilion of the
Prince of Wales, and made him a present of the King of France; the which
present the prince could not but take kindly as a great and noble one,
and so truly he did, for he bowed full low before the king, and received
him as king, properly and discreetly, as he well knew how to do.  .  .  .
When evening came, the Prince of Wales gave a supper to the King of
France, and to my lord Philip, his son, and to the greater part of the
barons of France, who were prisoners.  .  .  .  And the prince would not
sit at the king’s table for all the king’s entreaty, but waited as a
serving-man at the king’s table, bending the knee before him, and saying,
‘Dear sir, be pleased not to put on so sad a countenance because it hath
not pleased God to consent this day to your wishes, for assuredly my lord
and father will show you all the honor and friendship he shall be able,
and he will come to terms with you so reasonably that ye shall remain
good friends forever.”

[Illustration: King John taken Prisoner----326]

Henceforth it was, fortunately, not on King John, or on peace or war
between him and the King of England, that the fate of France depended.



CHAPTER XXI.----THE STATES--GENERAL OF THE FOURTEENTH CENTURY.

Let us turn back a little, in order to understand the government and
position of King John before he engaged in the war which, so far as he
was concerned, ended with the battle of Poitiers and imprisonment in
England.

A valiant and loyal knight, but a frivolous, hare-brained, thoughtless,
prodigal, and obstinate as well as impetuous prince, and even more
incapable than Philip of Valois in the practice of government, John,
after having summoned at his accession, in 1351, a states-assembly
concerning which we have no explicit information left to us, tried
for a space of four years to suffice in himself for all the perils,
difficulties, and requirements of the situation he had found bequeathed
to him by his father.  For a space of four years, in order to get money,
he debased the coinage, confiscated the goods and securities of foreign
merchants, and stopped payment of his debts; and he went through several
provinces, treating with local councils or magistrates in order to obtain
from them certain subsidies which he purchased by granting them new
privileges.  He hoped by his institution of the order of the Star to
resuscitate the chivalrous zeal of his nobility.  All these means were
vain or insufficient.  The defeat of Crecy and the loss of Calais had
caused discouragement in the kingdom and aroused many doubts as to the
issue of the war with England.  Defection and even treason brought
trouble into the court, the councils, and even the family of John.  To
get the better of them he at one time heaped favors upon the men he
feared, at another he had them arrested, imprisoned, and even beheaded in
his presence.  He gave his daughter Joan in marriage to Charles the Bad,
King of Navarre, and, some few months afterwards, Charles himself, the
real or presumed head of all the traitors, was seized, thrown into
prison, and treated with extreme rigor, in spite of the supplications of
his wife, who vigorously took the part of her husband against her father.
After four years thus consumed in fruitless endeavors, by turns violently
and feebly enforced, to reorganize an army and a treasury, and to
purchase fidelity at any price or arbitrarily strike down treason, John
was obliged to recognize his powerlessness and to call to his aid the
French nation, still so imperfectly formed, by convoking at Paris, for
the 30th of November, 1355, the states-general of _Langue d’oil_.  that
is, Northern France, separated by the Dordogne and the Garonne from
_Langue d’oc,_ which had its own assembly distinct.  Auvergne belonged to
_Langue d’oil_.

It is certain that neither this assembly nor the king who convoked it had
any clear and fixed idea of what they were meeting together to do.  The
kingship was no longer competent for its own government and its own
perils; but it insisted none the less, in principle, on its own all but
unregulated and unlimited power.  The assembly did not claim for the
country the right of self-government, but it had a strong leaven of
patriotic sentiment, and at the same time was very much discontented with
the king’s government: it had equally at heart the defence of France
against England and against the abuses of the kingly power.  There was no
notion of a social struggle and no systematic idea of political
revolution; a dangerous crisis and intolerable sufferings constrained
king and nation to come together in order to make an attempt at an
understanding and at a mutual exchange of the supports and the reliefs of
which they were in need.

On the 2d of December, 1355, the three orders, the clergy, the nobility,
and the deputies from the towns assembled at Paris in the great hall of
the Parliament.  Peter de la Forest, Archbishop of Rouen and Chancellor
of France, asked them in the king’s name “to consult together about
making him a subvention which should suffice for the expenses of the
war,” and the king offered to “make a sound and durable coinage.”  The
tampering with the coinage was the most pressing of the grievances for
which the three orders solicited a remedy.  They declared that “they were
ready to live and die with the king, and to put their bodies and what
they had at his service;” and they demanded authority to deliberate
together--which was granted them.  John de Craon, Archbishop of Rheims;
Walter de Brienne, Duke of Athens; and Stephen Marcel, provost of the
tradesmen of Paris, were to report the result, as presidents, each of his
own order.  The session of the states lasted not more than a week.  They
replied to the king “that they would give him a subvention of thirty
thousand men-at-arms every year,” and, for their pay, they voted an
impost of fifty hundred thousand livres (five millions of livres), which
was to be levied “on all folks, of whatever condition they might be,
Church folks, nobles, or others,” and the gabel or tax on salt “over the
whole kingdom of France.”  On separating, the states appointed beforehand
two fresh sessions at which they would assemble, one, in the month of
March, to estimate the sufficiency of the impost, and to hear, on that
subject, the report of the nine superintendents charged with the
execution of their decision; the other, in the month of November
following, to examine into the condition of the kingdom.”

They assembled, in fact, on the 1st of March, and on the 8th of May, 1356
[N. B.  As the year at that time began with Easter, the 24th of April was
the first day of the year 1356: the new style, however, is here in every
case adopted]; but they had not the satisfaction of finding their
authority generally recognized and their patriotic purpose effectually
accomplished.  The impost they had voted, notably the salt-tax, had met
with violent opposition.  “When the news thereof reached Normandy,” says
Froissart, “the country was very much astounded at it, for they had not
learned to pay any such thing.  The Count d’Harcourt told the folks of
Rouen, where he was puissant, that they would be very serfs and very
wicked if they agreed to this tax, and that, by God’s help, it should
never be current in his country.”  The King of Navarre used much the same
language in his countship of Evreux.  At other spots the mischief was
still more serious.  Close to Paris itself, at Malun, payment was
peremptorily refused; and at Arras, on the 5th of March, 1356, “the
commonalty of the town,” says Froissart, “rose upon the rich burghers and
slew fourteen of the most substantial, which was a pity and loss; and so
it is when wicked folk have the upper hand of valiant men.  However, the
people of Arras paid for it afterwards, for the king sent thither his
cousin, my lord James of Bourbon, who gave orders to take all them by
whom the sedition had been caused, and, on the spot, had their heads cut
off.”

The states-general at their re-assembly on the 1st of March, 1356,
admitted the feebleness of their authority and the insufficiency of their
preceding votes for the purpose of aiding the king in the war.  They
abolished the salt-tax and the sales-duty, which had met with such
opposition; but, stanch in their patriotism and loyalty, they substituted
therefor an income-tax, imposed on every sort of folk, nobles or
burghers, ecclesiastical or lay, which was to be levied “not by the high
justiciers of the king, but by the folks of the three estates
themselves.”  The king’s ordinance, dated the 12th of March, 1356, which
regulates the execution of these different measures, is (article 10) to
this import: “there shall be, in each city, three deputies, one for each
estate.  These deputies shall appoint, in each parish, collectors, who
shall go into the houses to receive the declaration which the persons who
dwell there shall make touching their property, their estate, and their
servants.  When a declaration shall appear in conformity with truth, they
shall be content therewith; else they shall have him who has made it sent
before the deputies of the city in the district whereof he dwells, and
the deputies shall cause him to take, on this subject, such oaths as they
shall think proper.  .  .  .  The collectors in the villages shall cause
to be taken therein, in the presence of the pastor, suitable oaths on the
subject of the declarations.  If, in the towns or villages, any one
refuse to take the oaths demanded, the collectors shall assess his
property according to general opinion, and on the deposition of his
neighbors.”  (_Ordonnances des Bois de France,_ t. iv.  pp. 171 175.)

In return for so loyal and persevering a co-operation on the part of the
states-general, notwithstanding the obstacles en-countered by their votes
and their agents, King John confirmed expressly, by an ordinance of May
26, 1356 [art. 9: _Ordonnances des Bois de France,_ t. iii.  p. 55], all
the promises he had made them and all the engagements he had entered into
with them by his ordinance of December 28, 1355, given immediately after
their first session (Ibidem, t. iii.  pp. 19 37): a veritable reformatory
ordinance, which enumerated the various royal abuses, administrative,
judicial, financial, and military, against which there had been a public
clamor, and regulated the manner of redressing them.

After these mutual concessions and promises the states-general broke up,
adjourning until the 30th of November following (1356); but two months
and a half before this time King John, proud of some success obtained by
him in Normandy and of the brilliant army of knights remaining to him
after he had dismissed the burgher-forces, rushed, as has been said, with
conceited impetuosity to encounter the Prince of Wales, rejected with
insolent demands the modest proposals of withdrawal made to him by the
commander of the little English army, and, on the 19th of September,
lost, contrary to all expectation, the lamentable battle of Poitiers.
We have seen how he was deserted before the close of the action by his
eldest son, Prince Charles, with his body of troops, and how he himself
remained with his youngest son, Prince Philip, a boy of fourteen years, a
prisoner in the hands of his victorious enemies.  “At this news,” says
Froissart, “the kingdom of France was greatly troubled and excited, and
with good cause, for it was a right grievous blow and vexatious for all
sorts of folk.  The wise men of the kingdom might well predict that great
evils would come of it, for the king, their head, and all the chivalry of
the kingdom were slain or taken; the knights and squires who came back
home were on that account so hated and blamed by the commoners that they
had great difficulty in gaining admittance to the good towns; and the
king’s three sons who had returned, Charles, Louis, and John, were very
young in years and experience, and there was in them such small resource
that none of the said lads liked to undertake the government of the said
kingdom.”

The eldest of the three, Prince Charles, aged nineteen, who was called
the Dauphin after the cession of Dauphiny to France, nevertheless assumed
the office, in spite of his youth and his anything but glorious retreat
from Poitiers.  He took the title of lieutenant of the king, and had
hardly re-entered Paris, on the 29th of September, when he summoned, for
the 15th of October, the states-general of _Langue d’oil,_ who met, in
point of fact, on the 17th, in the great chamber of parliament.  “Never
was seen,” says the report of their meeting, “an assembly so numerous, or
composed of wiser folk.”  The superior clergy were there almost to a man;
the nobility had lost too many in front of Poitiers to be abundant at
Paris, but there were counted at the assembly four hundred deputies from
the good towns, amongst whom special mention is made, in the documents,
of those from Amiens, Tournay, Lille, Arras, Troyes, Auxerre, and Sens.
The total number of members at the assembly amounted to more than eight
hundred.

The session was opened by a speech from the chancellor, Peter de la
Forest, who called upon the estates to aid the dauphin with their
counsels under the serious and melancholy circumstances of the kingdom.
The three orders at first attempted to hold their deliberations each in a
separate hall; but it was not long before they felt the inconveniences
arising from their number and their separation, and they resolved to
choose from amongst each order commissioners who should examine the
questions together, and afterwards make their report and their proposals
to the general meeting of the estates.  Eighty commissioners were
accordingly elected, and set themselves to work.  The dauphin appointed
some of his officers to be present at their meetings, and to furnish them
with such information as they might require.  As early as the second day
“these officers were given to understand that the deputies would not work
whilst anybody belonging to the king’s council was with them.”  So the
officers withdrew; and a few days afterwards, towards the end of October,
1356, the commissioners reported the result of their conferences to each
of the three orders.  The general assembly adopted their proposals, and
had the dauphin informed that they were desirous of a private audience.
Charles repaired, with some of his councillors, to the monastery of the
Cordeliers, where the estates were holding their sittings, and there he
received their representations.  They demanded of him “that he should
deprive of their offices such of the king’s councillors as they should
point out, have them arrested, and confiscate all their property.
Twenty-two men of note, the chancellor, the premier president of the
Parliament, the king’s stewards, and several officers in the household of
the dauphin himself, were thus pointed out.  They were accused of having
taken part to their own profit in all the abuses for which the government
was reproached, and of having concealed from the king the true state of
things and the misery of the people.  The commissioners elected by the
estates were to take proceedings against them: if they were found guilty,
they were to be punished; and if they were innocent, they were at the
very least to forfeit their offices and their property, on account of
their bad counsels and their bad administration.”

The chronicles of the time are not agreed as to these last demands.  We
have, as regards the events of this period, two contemporary witnesses,
both full of detail, intelligence, and animation in their narratives,
namely, Froissart and the continuer of William of Nangis’ _Latin
Chronicle_.  Froissart is in general favorable to kings and princes; the
anonymous chronicler, on the contrary, has a somewhat passionate bias
towards the popular party.  Probably both of them are often given to
exaggeration in their assertions and impressions; but, taking into
account none but undisputed facts, it is evident that the claims of the
states-general, though they were, for the most part, legitimate enough at
bottom, by reason of the number, gravity, and frequent recurrence of
abuses, were excessive and violent, and produced the effect of complete
suspension in the regular course of government and justice.  The dauphin,
Charles, was a young man, of a naturally sound and collected mind, but
without experience, who had hitherto lived only in his father’s court,
and who could not help being deeply shocked and disquieted by such
demands.  He was still more troubled when the estates demanded that the
deputies, under the title of reformers, should traverse the provinces as
a check upon the malversations of the royal officials, and that twenty-
eight delegates, chosen from amongst the three orders, four prelates,
twelve knights, and twelve burgesses, should be constantly placed near
the king’s person, “with power to do and order everything in the kingdom,
just like the king himself, as well for the purpose of appointing and
removing public officers as for other matters.”  It was taking away the
entire government from the crown, and putting it into the hands of the
estates.

The dauphin’s surprise and suspicion were still more vivid when the
deputies spoke to him about setting at liberty the King of Navarre, who
had been imprisoned by King John, and told him that “since this deed of
violence no good had come to the king or the kingdom, because of the sin
of having imprisoned the said King of Navarre.”  And yet Charles the Bad
was already as infamous as he has remained in history; he had labored to
embroil the dauphin with his royal father; and there was no plot or
intrigue, whether with the malcontents in France or with the King of
England, in which he was not, with good reason, suspected of having been
mixed up, and of being ever ready to be mixed up.  He was clearly a
dangerous enemy for the public peace, as well as for the crown, and,
for the states-general who were demanding his release, a bad associate.

[Illustration: Charles the Bad, King of Navarre, in Prison----335]

In the face of such demands and such forebodings, the dauphin did all he
could to gain time.  Before he gave an answer he must know, he said, what
subvention the states-general would be willing to grant him.  The reply
was a repetition of the promise of thirty thousand men-at-arms, together
with an enumeration of the several taxes whereby there was a hope of
providing for the expense.  But the produce of these taxes was so
uncertain, that both parties doubted the worth of the promise.  Careful
calculation went to prove that the subvention would suffice, at the very
most, for the keep of no more than eight or nine thousand men.  The
estates were urgent for a speedy compliance with their demands.  The
dauphin persisted in his policy of delay.  He was threatened with a
public and solemn session, at which all the questions should be brought
before the people, and which was fixed for the 3d of November.  Great was
the excitement in Paris; and the people showed a disposition to support
the estates at any price.  On the 2d of November, the dauphin summoned at
the Louvre a meeting of his councillors and of the principal deputies;
and there he announced that he was obliged to set out for Metz, where he
was going to follow up the negotiations entered into with the Emperor
Charles IV. and Pope Innocent VI. for the sake of restoring peace between
France and England.  He added that the deputies, on returning for a while
to their provinces, should get themselves enlightened as to the real
state of affairs, and that he would not fail to recall them so soon as he
had any important news to tell them, and any assistance to request of
them.

[Illustration: The Louvre in the Fourtheenth Century----336]

It was not without serious grounds that the dauphin attached so much
importance to gaining time.  When, in the preceding month of October, he
had summoned to Paris the states-general of _Langue d’oil_, he had
likewise convoked at Toulouse those of _Langue d’oe_, and he was informed
that the latter had not only just voted a levy of fifty thousand men-at-
arms, with an adequate subsidy, but that, in order to show their royalist
sentiments, they had decreed a sort of public mourning, to last for a
year, if King John were not released from his captivity.  The dauphin’s
idea was to summon other provincial assemblies, from which he hoped for
similar manifestations.  It was said, moreover, that several deputies,
already gone from Paris, had been ill received in their towns, at
Soissons amongst others, on account of their excessive claims, and their
insulting language towards all the king’s councillors.  Under such
flattering auspices the dauphin set out, according to the announcement he
had made, from Paris, on the 5th of December, 1356, to go and meet the
Emperor Charles IV. at Metz; but, at his departure, he committed exactly
the fault which was likely to do him the most harm at Paris: being in
want of money for his costly trip, he subjected the coinage to a fresh
adulteration, which took effect five days after his departure.

The leaders in Paris seized eagerly upon so legitimate a grievance for
the support of their claims.  As early as the 3d of the preceding
November, when they were apprised of the dauphin’s approaching departure
for Metz, and the adjournment of their sittings, the states-general had
come to a decision that their remonstrances and demands, summed up in
twenty-one articles, should be read in general assembly, and that a
recital of the negotiations which had taken place on that subject between
the estates and the dauphin should be likewise drawn up, “in order that
all the deputies might be able to tell in their districts wherefore the
answers had not been received.”  When, after the dauphin’s departure, the
new debased coins were put in circulation, the people were driven to an
outbreak thereby, and the provost of tradesmen, “Stephen Marcel, hurried
to the Louvre to demand of the Count of Anjou, the dauphin’s brother and
lieutenant, a withdrawal of the decree.  Having obtained no answer, he
returned the next day, escorted by a throng of the inhabitants of Paris.
At length, on the third day, the numbers assembled were so considerable
that the young prince took alarm, and suspended the execution of the
decree until his brother’s return.  For the fist time Stephen Marcel had
got himself supported by an outbreak of the people; for the first time
the mob had imposed its will upon the ruling power; and from this day
forth pacific and lawful resistance was transformed into a violent
struggle.”

At his re-entry into Paris, on the 19th of January, 1357, the dauphin
attempted to once more gain possession of some sort of authority.  He
issued orders to Marcel and the sheriffs to remove the stoppage they had
placed on the currency of the new coinage.  This was to found his
opposition on the worst side of his case.  “We will do nothing of the
sort,” replied Marcel; and in a few moments, at the provost’s orders, the
work-people left their work, and shouts of “To arms!” resounded through
the streets.  The prince’s councillors were threatened with death.  The
dauphin saw the hopelessness of a struggle; for there were hardly a
handful of men left to guard the Louvre.  On the morrow, the 20th of
January, he sent for Marcel and the sheriffs into the great hall of
parliament, and giving way on almost every point, bound himself to no
longer issue new coin, to remove from his council the officers who had
been named to him, and even to imprison them until the return of his
father, who would do full justice to them.  The estates were at the same
time authorized to meet when they pleased: on all which points the
provost of tradesmen requested letters, which were granted him; “and he
demanded that the dauphin should immediately place sergeants in the
houses of those of his councillors who still happened to be in Paris, and
that proceedings should be taken without delay for making an inventory of
their goods, with a view to confiscation of them.

The estates met on the 5th of February. It was not without surprise that
they found themselves less numerous than they had hitherto been.  The
deputies from the duchy of Burgundy, from the countships of Flanders and
Alencon, and several nobles and burghers from other provinces, did not
repair to the session.  The kingdom was falling into anarchy; bands of
plunderers roved hither and thither, threatening persons and ravaging
lands; the magistrates either could not or would not exercise their
authority; disquietude and disgust were gaining possession of many honest
folks.  Marcel and his partisans, having fallen into somewhat of
disrepute and neglect, keenly felt how necessary, and also saw how easy,
it was for them to become completely masters.  They began by drawing up a
series of propositions, which they had distributed and spread abroad far
and wide in the provinces.  On the 3d of March, they held a public
meeting, at which the dauphin and his two brothers were present.  A
numerous throng filled the hall.  The Bishop of Laon, Robert Lecoeq, the
spokesman of the party, made a long and vehement statement of all the
public grievances, and declared that twenty-two of the king’s officers
should be deprived forever of all offices, that all the officers of the
kingdom should be provisionally suspended, and that reformers, chosen by
the estates, and commissioned by the dauphin himself, should go all over
France, to hold inquiries as to these officers, and, according to their
deserts, either reinstate them in their offices or condemn them.  At the
same time, the estates bound themselves to raise thirty thousand men-at-
arms, whom they themselves would pay and keep; and as the produce of the
impost voted for this purpose was very uncertain, they demanded their
adjournment to the fortnight of Easter, and two sessions certain, for
which they should be free to fix the time, before the 15th of February in
the following year.  This was simply to decree the permanence of their
power.  To all these demands the dauphin offered no resistance.  In the
month of March following, a grand ordinance, drawn up in sixty-one
articles, enumerated all the grievances which had been complained of, and
prescribed the redress for them.  A second ordinance, regulating all that
appertained to the suspension of the royal officers, was likewise, as it
appears, drawn up at the same time, but has not come down to us.  At last
a grand commission was appointed, composed of thirty-six members, twelve
elected by each of the three orders.  “These thirty-six persons,” says
Froissart, “were bound to often meet together at Paris, for to order the
affairs of the kingdom, and all kinds of matters were to be disposed of
by these three estates, and all prelates, all lords, and all commonalties
of the cities and good towns were bound to be obedient to what these
three estates should order.”  Having their power thus secured in their
absence, the estates adjourned to the 25th of April.

The rumor of these events reached Bordeaux, where, since the defeat at
Poitiers, King John had been living as the guest of the Prince of Wales,
rather than as a prisoner of the English.  Amidst the galas and pleasures
to which he abandoned himself, he was indignant to learn that at Paris
the royal authority was ignored, and he sent three of his comrades in
captivity to notify to the Parisians that he rejected all the claims of
the estates, that he would not have payment made of the subsidy voted by
them, and that he forbade their meeting on the 25th of April following.
This strange manifesto on the part of imprisoned royalty excited in Paris
such irritation amongst the people, that the dauphin hastily sent out of
the city the king’s three envoys, whose lives might have been threatened,
and declared to the thirty-six commissioners of the estates that the
subsidy should be raised, and that the general assembly should be
perfectly free to meet at the time it had appointed.

And it did meet towards the end of April, but in far fewer numbers than
had been the case hitherto, and with more and more division from day to
day.  Nearly all the nobles and ecclesiastics were withdrawing from it;
and amongst the burgesses themselves many of the more moderate spirits
were becoming alarmed at the violent proceedings of the commission of the
thirty-six delegates, who, under the direction of Stephen Marcel, were
becoming a small oligarchy, little by little usurping the place of the
great national assembly.  A cry was raised in the provinces “against the
injustice of those chief governors who were no more than ten or a dozen;”
 and there was a refusal to pay the subsidy voted.  These symptoms and the
disorganization which was coming to a head throughout the whole kingdom
made the dauphin think that the moment had arrived for him to seize the
reins again.  About the middle of August, 1357, he sent for Marcel and
three sheriffs, accustomed to direct matters at Paris, and let them know
“that he intended thence-forward to govern by himself, without curators.”
 He at the same time restored to office some of the lately dismissed royal
officers.  The thirty-six commissioners made a show of submission; and
their most faithful ecclesiastical ally, Robert Lecocq, Bishop of Laon,
returned to his diocese.  The dauphin left Paris and went a trip into
some of the provinces, halting at the principal towns, such as Rouen and
Chartres, and everywhere, with intelligent but timid discretion, making
his presence and his will felt, not very successfully, however, as
regarded the re-establishment of some kind of order on his route in the
name of the kingship.

[Illustration: Stephen Marcel----342]

Marcel and his partisans took advantage of his absence to shore up their
tottering supremacy.  They felt how important it was for them to have a
fresh meeting of the estates, whose presence alone could restore strength
to their commissioners; but the dauphin only could legally summon them.
They, therefore, eagerly pressed him to return in person to Paris, giving
him a promise that, if he agreed to convoke there the deputies from
twenty or thirty towns, they would supply him with the money of which he
was in need, and would say no more about the dismissal of royal officers,
or about setting at liberty the king of Navarre.  The dauphin, being
still young and trustful, though he was already discreet and reserved,
fell into the snare.  He returned to Paris, and summoned thither, for the
7th of November following, the deputies from seventy towns, a sufficient
number to give their meeting a specious resemblance to the
states-general.  One circumstance ought to have caused him some
glimmering of suspicion.  At the same time that the dauphin was sending
to the deputies his letters of convocation, Marcel himself also sent to
them, as if he possessed the right, either in his own name or in that of
the thirty-six delegate-commissioners, of calling them together.  But a
still more serious matter came to open the dauphin’s eyes to the danger
he had fallen into.  During the night between the 8th and 9th of
November, 1357, immediately after the re-opening of the states, Charles
the Bad, King of Navarre, was carried off by a surprise from the castle
of Arleux in Cambresis, where he had been confined; and his liberators
removed him first of all to Amiens and then to Paris itself, where the
popular party gave him a triumphant reception.  Marcel and his sheriffs
had decided upon and prepared, at a private council, this dramatic
incident, so contrary to the promises they had but lately made to the
dauphin.  Charles the Bad used his deliverance like a skilful workman;
the very day after his arrival in Paris he mounted a platform set against
the walls of St. Germain’s abbey, and there, in the presence of more than
ten thousand persons, burgesses and populace, he delivered a long speech,
“seasoned with much venom,” says a chronicler of the time.  After having
denounced the wrongs which he had been made to endure, he said, for
eighteen months past, he declared that the would live and die in defence
of the kingdom of France, giving it to be understood that “if he were
minded to claim the crown, he would soon show by the laws of right and
wrong that he was nearer to it than the King of England was.”  He was
insinuating, eloquent, and an adept in the art of making truth subserve
the cause of falsehood.  The people were moved by his speech.  The
dauphin was obliged not only to put up with the release and the triumph
of his most dangerous enemy, but to make an outward show of
reconciliation with him, and to undertake not only to give him back the
castles confiscated after his arrest, but “to act towards him as a good
brother towards his brother.”  These were the exact words made use of in
the dauphin’s name, “and without having asked his pleasure about it,” by
Robert Lecocq, Bishop of Laon, who himself also had returned from his
diocese to Paris at the time of the recall of the estates.

The consequences of this position were not slow to exhibit themselves.
Whilst the King of Navarre was re-entering Paris and the dauphin
submitting to the necessity of a reconciliation with him, several of the
deputies who had but lately returned to the states-general, and amongst
others nearly all those from Champagne and Burgundy, were going away
again, being unwilling either to witness the triumphal re-entry of
Charles the Bad or to share the responsibility for such acts as they
foresaw.  Before long the struggle, or rather the war, between the King
of Navarre and the dauphin broke out again; several of the nobles in
possession of the castles which were to have been restored to Charles the
Bad, and especially those of Breteuil, Pacy-sur-Eure, and Pont-Audemer,
flatly refused to give them back to him; and the dauphin was suspected,
probably not without reason, of having encouraged them in their
resistance.  Without the walls of Paris it was really war that was going
on between the two princes.  Philip of Navarre, brother of Charles the
Bad, went marching with bands of pillagers over Normandy and Anjou, and
within a few leagues of Paris, declaring that he had not taken, and did
not intend to take, any part in his brother’s pacific arrangements, and
carrying fire and sword all through the country.  The peasantry from the
ravaged districts were overflowing Paris.  Stephen Marcel had no mind to
reject the support which many of them brought him; but they had to be
fed, and the treasury was empty.  The wreck of the states-general,
meeting on the 2d of January, 1358, themselves had recourse to the
expedient which they had so often and so violently reproached the king
and the dauphin with employing: they notably depreciated the coinage,
allotting a fifth of the profit to the dauphin, and retaining the other
four fifths for the defence of the kingdom.  What Marcel and his party
called the defence of the kingdom was the works of fortification round
Paris, begun in October, 1356, against the English, after the defeat of
Poitiers, and resumed in 1358 against the dauphin’s party in the
neighboring provinces, as well as against the robbers that were laying
them waste.  Amidst all this military and popular excitement the dauphin
kept to the Louvre, having about him two thousand men-at-arms, whom he
had taken into his pay, he said, solely “on account of the prospect of a
war with the Navarrese.”  Before he went and plunged into a civil war
outside the gates of Paris, he resolved to make an effort to win back the
Parisians themselves to his cause.  He sent a crier through the city to
bid the people assemble in the market-place, and thither he repaired on
horseback, on the 11th of January, with five or six of his most trusty
servants.  The astonished mob thronged about him, and he addressed them
in vigorous language.  He meant, he said, to live and die amongst the
people of Paris; if he was collecting his men-at-arms, it was not for the
purpose of plundering and oppressing Paris, but that he might march
against their common enemies; and if he had not done so sooner, it was
because “the folks who had taken the government gave him neither money
nor arms; but they would some day be called to strict account for it.”
 The dauphin was small, thin, delicate, and of insignificant appearance;
but at this juncture he displayed unexpected boldness and eloquence; the
people were deeply moved; and Marcel and his friends felt that a heavy
blow had just been dealt them.

They hastened to respond with a blow of another sort.  It was everywhere
whispered abroad that if Paris was suffering so much from civil war and
the irregularities and calamities which were the concomitants of it, the
fault lay with the dauphin’s surroundings, and that his noble advisers
deterred him from measures which would save the people from their
miseries.

“Provost Marcel and the burgesses of Paris took counsel together and
decided that it would be a good thing if some of those attendants on the
regent were to be taken away from the midst of this world.  They all put
on caps, red on one side and blue on the other, which they wore as a sign
of their confederation in defence of the common weal.  This done, they
reassembled in large numbers on the 22d of February, 1358, with the
provost at their head, and marched to the palace where the duke was
lodged.”  This crowd encountered on its, way, in the street called
Juiverie (Jewry), the advocate-general Regnault d’Aci, one of the
twenty-two royal officers denounced by the estates in the preceding year;
and he was massacred in a pastry-cook’s shop.  Marcel, continuing his
road, arrived at the palace, and ascended, followed by a band of armed
men, to the apartments of the dauphin, “whom he requested very sharply,”
 says Froissart, “to restrain so many companies from roving about on all
sides, damaging and plundering the country.  The duke replied that he
would do so willingly if he had the wherewithal to do it, but that it was
for him who received the dues belonging to the kingdom to discharge that
duty.  I know not why or how,” adds Froissart, “but words were multiplied
on the part of all, and became very high.”  “My lord duke,” suddenly said
the provost, “do not alarm yourself; but we have somewhat to do here;”
 and turning towards his fellows in the caps, he said, “Dearly beloved, do
that for the which ye are come.”  Immediately the Lord de Conflans,
Marshal of Champagne, and Robert de Clermont, Marshal of Normandy, noble
and valiant gentlemen, and both at the time unarmed, were massacred so
close to the dauphin and his couch, that his robe was covered with their
blood.  The dauphin shuddered; and the rest of his officers fled.  “Take
no heed, lord duke,” said Marcel; “you have nought to fear.”  He handed
to the dauphin his own red and blue cap, and himself put on the
dauphin’s, which was of black stuff with golden fringe.  The corpses of
the two marshals were dragged into the court-yard of the palace, where
they remained until evening without any one’s daring to remove them; and
Marcel with his fellows repaired to the mansion-house, and harangued from
an open window the mob collected on the Place de Greve.  “What has been
done is for the good and the profit of the kingdom,” said he; “the dead
were false and wicked traitors.”  “We do own it, and will maintain it!”
 cried the people who were about him.

[Illustration: The Murder of the Marshals----345]

The house from which Marcel thus addressed the people was his own
property, and was called the Pillar-house.  There he accommodated the
town-council, which had formerly held its sittings in divers parlors.

For a month after this triple murder, committed with such official
parade, Marcel reigned dictator in Paris.  He removed from the council
of thirty-six deputies such members as he could not rely upon, and
introduced his own confidants.  He cited the council, thus modified, to
express approval of the blow just struck; and the deputies, “some from
conviction and others from doubt (that is, fear), answered that they
believed that for what had been done there had been good and just cause.”
 The King of Navarre was recalled from Nantes to Paris, and the dauphin
was obliged to assign to him, in the king’s name, “as a make-up for his
losses,” ten thousand livres a year on landed property in Languedoc.
Such was the young prince’s condition that, almost every day, he was
reduced to the necessity of dining with his most dangerous and most
hypocritical enemy.  A man of family, devoted to the dauphin, who was now
called regent, Philip de Repenti by name, lost his head on the 19th of
March, 1358, on the market-place, for having attempted, with a few bold
comrades, “to place the regent beyond the power and the reach of the
people of Paris.”  Six days afterwards, however, on the 25th of March,
the dauphin succeeded in escaping, and repaired first of all to Senlis,
and then to Provins, where he found the estates of Champagne eager to
welcome him.  Marcel at once sent to Provins two deputies with
instructions to bind over the three orders of Champagne “to be at one
with them of Paris, and not to be astounded at what had been done.”
 Before answering, the members of the estates withdrew into a garden to
parley together, and sent to pray the regent to come and meet them.  “My
lord,” said the Count de Braine to him in the name of the nobility, “did
you ever suffer any harm or villany at the hands of De Conflans, Marshal
of Champagne, for which he deserved to be put to death as he hath been by
them of Paris?  “The prince replied that he firmly held and believed that
the said marshal and Robert de Clermont had well and loyally served and
advised him.  “My lord,” replied the Count de Braine, “we Champagnese who
are here do thank you for that which you have just said, and do desire
you to do full justice on those who have put our friend to death without
cause;” and they bound themselves to support him with their persons and
their property, for the chastisement of them who had been the authors of
the outrage.

The dauphin, with full trust in this manifestation and this promise,
convoked at Compiegne, for the 4th of May, 1858, no longer the estates of
Champagne only, but the states-general in their entirety, who, on
separating at the close of their last session, had adjourned to the 1st
of May following.  The story of this fresh session, and of the events
determined by it, is here reproduced textually, just as it has come down
to us from the last continuer of the Chronicle of William of Nangis, the
most favorable amongst all the chroniclers of the time to Stephen Marcel
and the popular party in Paris.  “All the deputies, and especially the
friends of the nobles slain, did with one heart and one mind counsel the
lord Charles, Duke of Normandy, to have the homicides stricken to death;
and, if he could not do so by reason of the number of their defenders,
they urged him to lay vigorous siege to the city of Paris, either with an
armed force or by forbidding the entry of victuals thereinto, in such
sort that it should understand and perceive for a certainty that the
death of the provost of tradesmen and of his accomplices was intended.
The said provost and those who, after the regent’s departure, had taken
the government of the city, clearly understood this intention, and they
then implored the University of studies at Paris to send deputies to the
said lord-regent, to humbly adjure him, in their name and in the name of
the whole city, to banish from his heart the wrath he had conceived
against their fellow-citizens, offering and promising, moreover, a
suitable reparation for the offence, provided that the lives of the
persons were spared.  The University, concerned for the welfare of the
city, sent several deputies of weight to treat about the matter.  They
were received by the lord Duke Charles and the other lords with great
kindness; and they brought back word to Paris that the demand made at
Compiegne was, that ten or a dozen, or even only five or six, of the men
suspected of the crime lately committed at Paris should be sent to
Compiegne, where there was no design of putting them to death, and, if
this were done, the duke-regent would return to his old and intimate
friendship with the Parisians.  But Provost Marcel and his accomplices,
who were afeard for themselves, did not believe that if they fell into
the hands of the lord duke they could escape a terrible death, and they
had no mind to run such a risk.  Taking, therefore, a bold resolution,
they desired to be treated as all the rest of the citizens, and to that
end sent several deputations to the lord-regent either to Compiegne or to
Meaux, whither he sometimes removed; but they got no gracious reply, and
rather words of bitterness and threatening.  Thereupon, being seized with
alarm for their city, into the which the lord-regent and his noble
comrades were so ardently desirous of re-entering, and being minded to
put it out of reach from the peril which threatened it, they began to
fortify themselves therein, to repair the walls, to deepen the ditches,
to build new ramparts on the eastern side, and to throw up barriers at
all the gates.  .  .  .  As they lacked a captain, they sent to Charles
the Bad, King of Navarre, who was at that time in Normandy, and whom they
knew to be freshly embroiled with the regent; and they requested him to
come to Paris with a strong body of men-at-arms, and to be their captain
there and their defender against all their foes, save the lord John, King
of, France, a prisoner in England.  The King of Navarre, with all his
men, was received in state, on the 15th of June, by the Parisians, to the
great indignation of the prince-regent, his friends, and many others.
The nobles thereupon began to draw near to Paris, and to ride about in
the fields of the neighborhood, prepared to fight if there should be a
sortie from Paris to attack them.  .  .  .  On a certain day the
besiegers came right up to the bridge of Charenton, as if to draw out the
King of Navarre and the Parisians to battle.  The King of Navarre issued
forth, armed, with his men, and drawing near to the besiegers, had long
conversations with them without fighting, and afterwards went back into
Paris.  At sight hereof the Parisians suspected that this king, who was
himself a noble, was conspiring with the besiegers, and was preparing to
deal some secret blow to the detriment of Paris; so they conceived
mistrust of him and his, and stripped him of his office of captain.  He
went forth sore vexed from Paris, he and his; and the English especially,
whom he had brought with him, insulted certain Parisians, whence it
happened that before they were out of the city several of them were
massacred by the folks of Paris, who afterwards confined themselves
within their walls, carefully guarding the gates by day, and by night
keeping up strong patrols on the ramparts.”

Whilst Marcel inside Paris, where he reigned supreme, was a prey, on his
own account and that of his besieged city, to these anxieties and perils,
an event occurred outside which seemed to open to him a prospect of
powerful aid, perhaps of decisive victory.  Throughout several provinces
the peasants, whose condition, sad and hard as it already was under the
feudal system, had been still further aggravated by the outrages and
irregularities of war, not finding any protection in their lords, and
often being even oppressed by them as if they had been foes, had recourse
to insurrection in order to escape from the evils which came down upon
them every day and from every quarter.

They bore and would bear anything, it was said, and they got the name of
Jacques Bonhomme (Jack Goodfellow); but this taunt they belied in a
terrible manner.  We will quote from the last continuer of William of
Nangis, the least declamatory and the least confused of all the
chroniclers of that period: “In this same year 1358,” says he, “in the
summer [the first rising took place on the 28th of May], the peasants in
the neighborhood of St. Loup de Cerent and Clermont, in the diocese of
Beauvais, took up arms against the nobles of France.  They assembled in
great numbers, set at their head a certain peasant named William Karle
[or Cale, or Callet], of more intelligence than the rest, and marching by
companies under their own flag, roamed over the country, slaying and
massacring all the nobles they met, even their own lords.  Not content
with that, they demolished the houses and castles of the nobles; and,
what is still more deplorable, they villanously put to death the noble
dames and little children who fell into their hands; and afterwards they
strutted about, they and their wives, bedizened with the garments they
had stripped from their victims.  The number of men who had thus risen
amounted to five thousand, and the rising extended to the outskirts of
Paris.  They had begun it from sheer necessity and love of justice, for
their lords oppressed instead of defending them; but before long they
proceeded to the most hateful and criminal deeds.  They took and
destroyed from top to bottom the strong castle of Ermenonville, where
they put to death a multitude of men and dames of noble family who had
taken refuge there.  For some time the nobles no longer went about as
before; none of them durst set a foot outside the fortified places.”
 Jacquery had taken the form of a fit of demagogic fury, and the Jacks [or
Goodfellows] swarming out of their hovels were the terror of the castles.

Had Marcel provoked this bloody insurrection?  There is strong
presumption against him; many of his contemporaries say he had; and the
dauphin himself wrote on the 30th of August, 1359, to the Count of Savoy,
that one of the most heinous acts of Marcel and his partisans was
exciting the folks of the open country in France, of Beauvaisis and
Champagne, and other districts, against the nobles of the said kingdom;
whence so many evils have proceeded as no man should or could conceive.”
 It is quite certain, however, that, the insurrection having once broken
out, Marcel hastened to profit by it, and encouraged and even supported
it at several points.  Amongst other things he sent from Paris a body of
three hundred men to the assistance of the peasants who were besieging
the castle of Ermenonville.  It is the due penalty paid by reformers who
allow themselves to drift into revolution, that they become before long
accomplices in mischief or crime which their original design and their
own personal interest made it incumbent on them to prevent or repress.

The reaction against Jaequery was speedy and shockingly bloody.  The
nobles, the dauphin, and the King of Navarre, a prince and a noble at the
same time that he was a scoundrel, made common cause against the
Goodfellows, who were the more disorderly in proportion as they had
become more numerous, and believed themselves more invincible.  The
ascendency of the masters over the rebels was soon too strong for
resistance.  At Meaux, of which the Goodfellows had obtained possession,
they were surprised and massacred to the number, it is said, of seven
thousand, with the town burning about their ears.  In Beauvaisis, the
King of Navarre, after having made a show of treating with their
chieftain, William Karle or Callet, got possession of him, and had him
beheaded, wearing a trivet of red-hot iron, says one of the chroniclers,
by way of crown.  He then moved upon a camp of Goodfellows assembled near
Montdidier, slew three thousand of them, and dispersed the remainder.
These figures are probably very much exaggerated, as nearly always
happens in such accounts; but the continuer of William of Nangis, so
justly severe on the outrages and barbarities of the insurgent peasants,
is not less so on those of their conquerors.  “The nobles of France,” he
says, “committed at that time such ravages in the district of Meaux that
there was no need for the English to come and destroy our country those
mortal enemies of the kingdom could not have done what was done by the
nobles at home.”

Marcel from that moment perceived that his cause was lost, and no longer
dreamed of anything but saving himself and his, at any price; “for he
thought,” says Froissart, “that it paid better to slay than to be slain.”
 Although he had more than once experienced the disloyalty of the King of
Navarre, he entered into fresh negotiation with him, hoping to use him as
an intermediary between himself and the dauphin, in order to obtain
either an acceptable peace or guarantees for his own security in case of
extreme danger.  The King of Navarre lent a ready ear to these overtures;
he had no scruple about negotiating with this or that individual, this or
that party, flattering himself that he would make one or the other useful
for his own purposes.  Marcel had no difficulty in discovering that the
real design of the King of Navarre was to set aside the house of Valois
and the Plantagenets together, and to become King of France himself, as a
descendant, in his own person, of St. Louis, though one degree more
remote.  An understanding was renewed between the two, such as it is
possible to have between two personal interests fundamentally different,
but capable of being for the moment mutually helpful.  Marcel, under
pretext of defence against the besiegers, admitted into Paris a pretty
large number of English in the pay of the King of Navarre.  Before long,
quarrels arose between the Parisians and these unpopular foreigners; on
the 21st of July, 1358, during one of these quarrels, twenty-four English
were massacred by the people; and four hundred others, it is said, were
in danger of undergoing the same fate, when Marcel came up and succeeded
in saving their lives by having them imprisoned in the Louvre.  The
quarrel grew hotter and spread farther.  The people of Paris went and
attacked other mercenaries of the King of Navarre, chiefly English, who
were occupying St. Denis and St. Cloud.  The Parisians were beaten; and
the King of Navarre withdrew to St. Denis.  On the 27th of July, Marcel
boldly resolved to set at liberty and send over to him the four hundred
English imprisoned in the Louvre.  He had them let out, accordingly, and
himself escorted them as far as the gate St. Honore, in the midst of a
throng that made no movement for all its irritation.  Some of Marcel’s
satellites who formed the escort cried out as they went, “Has anybody
aught to say against the setting of these prisoners at liberty?”  The
Parisians remembered their late reverse, and not a voice was raised.
“Strongly moved as the people of Paris were in their hearts against the
provost of tradesmen,” says a contemporary chronicle, there was not a man
who durst commence a riot.”

Marcel’s position became day by day more critical.  The dauphin, encamped
with his army around Paris, was keeping up secret but very active
communications with it; and a party, numerous and already growing in
popularity, was being formed there in his favor.  Men of note, who were
lately Marcel’s comrades, were now pronouncing against him; and John
Maillart, one of the four chosen captains of the municipal forces, was
the most vigilant.  Marcel, at his wit’s end, made an offer to the King
of Navarre to deliver Paris up to him on the night between the 31st of
July and the 1st of August.  All was ready for carrying out this design.
During the day of the 31st of July, Marcel would have changed the keepers
of the St. Denis gate, but Maillart opposed him, rushed to the Hotel de
Ville, seized the banner of France, jumped on horseback and rode through
the city shouting, “Mountjoy St. Denis, for the king and the duke!”  This
was the rallying-cry of the dauphin’s partisans.  The day ended with a
great riot amongst the people.  Towards eleven o’clock at night Marcel,
followed by his people armed from head to foot, made his way to the St.
Anthony gate, holding in his hands, it is said, the keys of the city.
Whilst he was there, waiting for the arrival of the King of Navarre’s
men, Maillart came up “with torches and lanterns and a numerous
assemblage.  He went straight to the provost and said to him, ‘Stephen,
Stephen, what do you here at this hour?’  ‘John, what business have you
to meddle?  I am here to take the guard of the city of which I have the
government.’  ‘By God,’ rejoined Maillart, ‘that will not do; you are not
here at this hour for any good, and I’ll prove it to you,’ said he,
addressing his comrades.  ‘See, he holds in his hands the keys of the
gates, to betray the city.’

[Illustration: “In his Hands the Keys of the Gates.”----354]

‘You lie, John,’ said Marcel.  ‘By God, you traitor, ‘tis you who lie,’
replied Maillart: ‘death! death! to all on his side!’  “And he raised his
battle-axe against Marcel.  Philippe Giffard, one of the provost’s
friends, threw himself before Marcel and covered him for a moment with
his own body; but the struggle had begun in earnest.  Maillart plied his
battle-axe upon Marcel, who fell pierced with many wounds.  Six of his
comrades shared the same fate; and Robert Lecocq, Bishop of Laon, saved
himself by putting on a Cordelier’s habit.  Maillart’s company divided
themselves into several bands, and spread themselves all over the city,
carrying the news everywhere, and despatching or arresting the partisans
of Marcel.  The next morning, the 1st of August, 1358, “John Maillart
brought together in the market-place the greater part of the community of
Paris, explained for what reason he had slain the provost of tradesmen
and in what offence he had detected him, and pointed out quietly and
discreetly how that on this very night the city of Paris must have been
overrun and destroyed if God of His grace had not applied a remedy.  When
the people who were present heard these news they were much astounded at
the peril in which they had been, and the greater part thanked God with
folded hands for the grace He had done them.”  The corpse of Stephen
Marcel was stripped and exposed quite naked to the public gaze, in front
of St. Catherine du Val des Beoliers, on the very spot where, by his
orders, the corpses of the two marshals, Robert de Clermont and John de
Conflans, had been exposed five months before.  He was afterwards cast
into the river in the presence of a great concourse.  “Then were
sentenced to death by the council of prud’hommes of Paris, and executed
by divers forms of deadly torture, several who had been of the sect of
the provost,” the regent having declared that he would not re-enter Paris
until these traitors had ceased to live.

Thus perished, after scarcely three years’ political life, and by the
hands of his former friends, a man of rare capacity and energy, who at
the outset had formed none but patriotic designs, and had, no doubt,
promised himself a better fate.  When, in December, 1355, at the summons
of a deplorably incapable and feeble king, Marcel, a simple burgher of
Paris and quite a new man, entered the assembly of the states-general of
France, itself quite a new power, he was justly struck with the vices and
abuses of the kingly government, with the evils and the dangers being
entailed thereby upon France, and with the necessity for applying some
remedy.  But, notwithstanding this perfectly honest and sound conviction,
he fell into a capital error; he tried to abolish, for a time at least,
the government he desired to reform, and to substitute for the kingship
and its agents the people and their elect.  For more than three centuries
the kingship had been the form of power which had naturally assumed shape
and development in France, whilst seconding the natural labor attending
the formation and development of the French nation; but this labor had as
yet advanced but a little way, and the nascent nation was not in a
condition to take up position at the head of its government.  Stephen
Marcel attempted by means of the states-general of the fourteenth century
to bring to pass what we in the nineteenth, and after all the advances of
the French nation, have not yet succeeded in getting accomplished, to
wit, the government of the country by the country itself.  Marcel, going
from excess to excess and from reverse to reverse in the pursuit of his
impracticable enterprise, found himself before long engaged in a fierce
struggle with the feudal aristocracy, still so powerful at that time, as
well as with the kingship.  Being reduced to depend entirely during this
struggle upon such strength as could be supplied by a municipal democracy
incoherent, inexperienced, and full of divisions in its own ranks, and by
a mad insurrection in the country districts, he rapidly fell into the
selfish and criminal condition of the man whose special concern is his
own personal safety.  This he sought to secure by an unworthy alliance
with the most scoundrelly amongst his ambitious contemporaries, and he
would have given up his own city as well as France to the King of Navarre
and the English had not another burgher of Paris, John Maillart, stopped
him, and put him to death at the very moment when the patriot of the
states-general of 1355 was about to become a traitor to his country.
Hardly thirteen years before, when Stephen Marcel was already a
full-grown man, the great Flemish burgher, James Van Artevelde, had,
in the cause of his country’s liberties, attempted a similar enterprise,
and, after a series of great deeds at the outset and then of faults also
similar to those of Marcel, had fallen into the same abyss, and had
perished by the hand of his fellow-citizens, at the very moment when he
was laboring to put Flanders, his native country, into the hands of a
foreign master, the Prince of Wales, son of Edward III., King of England.
Of all political snares the democratic is the most tempting, but it is
also the most demoralizing and the most deceptive when, instead of
consulting the interests of the democracy by securing public liberties, a
man aspires to put it in direct possession of the supreme power, and with
its sole support to take upon himself the direction of the helm.

One single result of importance was won for France by the states-general
of the fourteenth century, namely, the principle of the nation’s right to
intervene in their own affairs, and to set their government straight when
it had gone wrong or was incapable of performing that duty itself.  Up to
that time, in the thirteenth century and at the opening of the
fourteenth, the states-general had been hardly anything more than a
temporary expedient employed by the kingship itself to solve some special
question, or to escape from some grave embarrassment.  Starting from King
John, the states-general became one of the principles of national right;
a principle which did not disappear even when it remained without
application, and the prestige of which survived even its reverses.  Faith
and hope fill a prominent place in the lives of peoples as well as of
individuals; having sprung into real existence in 1355, the
states-general of France found themselves alive again in 1789; and we may
hope that, after so long a trial, their rebuffs and their mistakes will
not be more fatal to them in our day.



CHAPTER XXII.----THE HUNDRED YEARS’ WAR.--CHARLES V.

So soon as Marcel and three of his chief confidants had been put to death
at the St. Anthony gate, at the very moment when they were about to open
it to the English, John Maillart had information sent to the regent, at
that time at Charenton, with an urgent entreaty that he would come back
to Paris without delay.  “The news, at once spread abroad through the
city, was received with noisy joy there, and the red caps, which had been
worn so proudly the night before, were everywhere taken off and hidden.
The next morning a proclamation ordered that whosoever knew any of the
faction of Marcel should arrest them and take them to the Chatelet, but
without laying hands on their goods and without maltreating their wives
or children.  Several were taken, put to the question, brought out into
the public square, and beheaded by virtue of a decree.  They were the men
who but lately had the government of the city and decided all matters.
Some were burgesses of renown, eloquent and learned, and one of them, on
arriving at the square, cried out, ‘Woe is me!  Would to Heaven, O King
of Navarre, that I had never seen thee or heard thee!’”  On the 2d of
August, 1358, in the evening, the dauphin, Charles, re-entered Paris, and
was accompanied by John Maillart, who “was mightily in his grace and
love.”  On his way a man cried out, “By God, sir, if I had been listened
to, you would never have entered in here; but, after all, you will get
but little by it.”  The Count of Tancarville, who was in the prince’s
train, drew his sword, and “spurred his horse upon this rascal;” but the
dauphin restrained him, and contented himself with saying smilingly to
the man, “You will not be listened to, fair sir.”  Charles had the spirit
of coolness and discretion; and “he thought,” says his contemporary,
Christine de Pisan, “that if this fellow had been slain, the city which
had been so rebellious might probably have been excited thereby.”
 Charles, on being resettled in Paris, showed neither clemency nor
cruelty.  He let the reaction against Stephen Marcel run its course, and
turned it to account without further exciting it or prolonging it beyond
measure.  The property of some of the condemned was confiscated; some
attempts at a conspiracy for the purpose of avenging the provost of
trades-men were repressed with severity, and John Maillart and his family
were loaded with gifts and favors.  On becoming king, Charles determined
himself to hold his son at the baptismal font; but Robert Lecocq, Bishop
of Laon, the most intimate of Marcel’s accomplices, returned quietly to
his diocese; two of Marcel’s brothers, William and John, owing their
protection, it is said, to certain youthful reminiscences on the prince’s
part, were exempted from all prosecution; Marcels widow even recovered a
portion of his property; and as early as the 10th of August, 1358,
Charles published an amnesty, from which he excepted only “those who had
been in the secret council of the provost of tradesmen in respect of the
great treason;” and on the same day another amnesty quashed all
proceedings for deeds done during the Jacquery, “whether by nobles or
ignobles.”  Charles knew that in acts of rigor or of grace impartiality
conduces to the strength and the reputation of authority.

The death of Stephen Marcel and the ruin of his party were fatal to the
plots and ambitious hopes of the King of Navarre.  At the first moment he
hastened to renew his alliance with the King of England, and to
recommence war in Normandy, Picardy, and Champagne against the regent of
France.  But several of his local expeditions were unsuccessful; the
temperate and patient policy of the regent rallied round him the
populations aweary of war and anarchy; negotiations were opened between
the two princes; and their agents were laboriously discussing conditions
of peace when Charles of Navarre suddenly interfered in person, saying,
“I would fain talk over matters with the lord duke regent, my brother.”
 We know that his wife was Joan of France, the dauphin’s sister.  “Hereat
there was great joy,” says the chronicler, “amongst their councillors.
The two princes met, and the King of Navarre with modesty and gentleness
addressed the regent in these terms: ‘My lord duke and brother, know that
I do hold you to be my proper and especial lord; though I have for a long
while made war against you and against France, our country, I wish not to
continue or to foment it; I wish henceforth to be a good Frenchman, your
faithful friend and close ally, your defender against the English and
whoever it may be: I pray you to pardon me thoroughly, me and mine, for
all that I have done to you up to this present.  I wish for neither the
lands nor the towns which are offered to me or promised to me; if I order
myself well, and you find me faithful in all matters, you shall give me
all that my deserts shall seem to you to justify.’  At these words the
regent arose and thanked the king with much sweetness; they, one and the
other, proffered and accepted wine and spices; and all present rejoiced
greatly, rendering thanks to God, who doth blow where He listeth, and
doth accomplish in a moment that which men with their own sole
intelligence have nor wit nor power to do in a long while.  The town of
Melun was restored to the lord duke; the navigation of the river once
more became free up stream and down; great was the satisfaction in Paris
and throughout the whole country; and peace being thus made, the two
princes returned both of them home.”

The King of Navarre knew how to give an appearance of free will and
sincerity to changes of posture and behavior which seemed to be pressed
upon him by necessity; and we may suppose that the dauphin, all the while
that he was interchanging graceful acts, was too well acquainted by this
time with the other to become his dupe; but, by their apparent
reconciliation, they put an end, for a few brief moments, between
themselves to a position which was burdensome to both.

Whilst these events, from the battle of Poitiers to the death of Stephen
Marcel (from the 19th of September, 1356, to the 1st of August, 1358),
were going on in France, King John was living as a prisoner in the hands
of the English, first at Bordeaux, and afterwards in London, and was much
more concerned about the reception he met with, and the galas he was
present at, than about the affairs of his kingdom.  When, after his
defeat, he was conducted to Bordeaux by the Prince of Wales, who was
governor of English Aquitaine, he became the object of the most courteous
attentions, not only on the part of his princely conqueror, but of all
Gascon society, “dames and damsels, old and young, and their fair
attendants, who took pleasure in consoling him by providing him with
diversion.”  Thus he passed the winter of 1356; and in the spring the
Prince of Wales received from his father, King Edward III., the
instructions and the vessels he had requested for the conveyance of his
prisoner to England.  In the month of May, 1357, “he summoned,” says
Froissart, “all the highest barons of Gascony, and told them that he had
made up his mind to go to England, whither he would take some of them,
leaving the rest in the country of Bordelais and Gascony, to keep the
land and the frontiers against the French.  When the Gaseous heard that
the Prince of Wales would carry away out of their power the King of
France, whom they had helped to take, they were by no means of accord
therewith, and said to the prince, ‘Dear sir, we owe you, in all that is
in our power, all honor, obedience, and loyal service; but it is not our
desire that you should thus remove from us the King of France, in respect
of whom we have had great trouble to put him in the place where he is;
for, thank God, he is in a good strong city, and we are strong and men
enough to keep him against the French, if they by force would take him
from you.’  The prince answered, ‘Dear sirs, I grant it heartily; but my
lord my father wishes to hold and behold him; and with the good service
that you have done my father, and me also, we are well pleased, and it
shall be handsomely requited.’  Nevertheless, these words did not suffice
to appease the Gascons, until a means thereto was found by Sir Reginald
de Cobham and Sir John Chandos; for they knew the Gascons to be very
covetous.  So they said to the prince, ‘Sir, offer them a sum of florins,
and you will see them come down to your demands.’  The prince offered
them sixty thousand florins; but they would have nothing to do with them.
At last there was so much haggling that an agreement was made for a
hundred thousand francs, which the prince was to hand over to the barons
of Gascony to share between them.  He borrowed the money; and the said
sum was paid and handed over to them before the prince started.  When
these matters were done, the prince put to sea with a fine fleet, crammed
with men-at-arms and archers, and put the King of France in a vessel
quite apart, that he might be more at his ease.”

“They were at sea eleven days and eleven nights,” continues Froissart,
and on the 12th they arrived at Sandwich harbor, where they landed, and
halted two days to refresh themselves and their horses.  On the third day
they set out and came to St. Thomas of Canterbury.”

“When the news reached the King and Queen of England that the prince
their son had arrived and had brought with him the King of France, they
were greatly rejoiced thereat, and gave orders to the burgesses of London
to get themselves ready in as splendid fashion as was beseeming to
receive the King of France.  They of the city of London obeyed the king’s
commandment, and arrayed themselves by companies most richly, all the
trades in cloth of different kinds.”  According to the poet
herald-at-arms of John Chandos, King Edward III. went in person, with his
barons and more than twenty counts, to meet King John, who entered London
“mounted on a tall white steed right well harnessed and accoutred at all
points, and the Prince of Wales, on a little black hackney, at his side.”
 King John was first of all lodged in London at the Savoy hotel, and
shortly afterwards removed, with all his people, to Windsor; “there,”
 says Froissart, “to hawk, hunt, disport himself, and take his pastime
according to his pleasure, and Sir Philip, his son, also; and all the
rest of the other lords, counts, and barons, remained in London, but they
went to see the king when it pleased them, and they were put upon their
honor only.”  Chandos’s poet adds, “Many a dame and many a damsel, right
amiable, gay, and lovely, came to dance there, to sing, and to cause
great galas and jousts, as in the days of King Arthur.”

In the midst of his pleasures in England King John sometimes also
occupied himself at Windsor with his business in France, but with no more
wisdom or success than had been his wont during his actual reign.
Towards the end of April, 1359, the dauphin-regent received at Paris the
text of a treaty which the king his father had concluded, in London, with
the King of England.  “The cession of the western half of France, from
Calais to Bayonne, and the immediate payment of four million golden
crowns,” such was, according to the terms of this treaty, the price of
King John’s ransom, says M. Picot, in his work concerning the History of
the States-General, which was crowned in 1869 by the _Academie des
Sciences Morales et Politiques_, and the regent resolved to leave to the
judgment of France the acceptance or refusal of such exorbitant demands.
He summoned a meeting, to be held at Paris on the 19th of May, of
churchmen, nobles, and deputies from the good towns; but “there came but
few deputies, as well because full notice had not by that time been given
of the said summons, as because the roads were blocked by the English and
the Navarrese, who occupied fortresses in all parts whereby it was
possible to get to Paris.”  The assembly had to be postponed from day to
day.  At last, on the 25th of May, the regent repaired to the palace.  He
halted on the marble staircase; around him were ranged the three estates;
and a numerous multitude filled the court-yard.  In presence of all the
people, William de Dormans, king’s advocate in parliament, read the
treaty of peace, which was to divide the kingdom into two parts, so as to
hand over one to the foes of France.  The reading of it roused the
indignation of the people.  The estates replied that the treaty was not
“tolerable or feasible,” and in their patriotic enthusiasm “decreed to
make fair war on the English.”  But it was not enough to spare the
kingdom the shame of such a treaty; it was necessary to give the regent
the means of concluding a better.  On the 2d of June, the nobles
announced to the dauphin that they would serve for a month at their own
expense, and that they would pay besides such imposts as should be
decreed by the good towns.  The churchmen also offered to pay them.  The
city of Paris undertook to maintain “six hundred swords, three hundred
archers, and a thousand brigands.”  The good towns offered twelve
thousand men; but they could not keep their promise, the country being
utterly ruined.

When King John heard at Windsor that the treaty, whereby he had hoped to
be set at liberty, had been rejected at Paris, he showed his displeasure
by a single outburst of personal animosity, saying, “Ah! Charles, fair
son, you were counselled by the King of Navarre, who deceives you, and
would deceive sixty such as you!”  Edward III., on his side, at once took
measures for recommencing the war; but before engaging in it he had King
John removed from Windsor to Hertford Castle, and thence to Somerton,
where he set a strong guard.  Having thus made certain that his prisoner
would not escape from him, he put to sea, and, on the 28th of October,
1359, landed at Calais with a numerous and well-supplied army.  Then,
rapidly traversing Northern France, he did not halt till he arrived
before Rheims, which he was in hopes of surprising, and where, it is
said, he purposed to have himself, without delay, crowned King of France.
But he found the place so well provided, and the population so determined
to make a good defence, that he raised the siege and moved on Chalons,
where the same disappointment awaited him.  Passing from Champagne to
Burgundy, he then commenced the same course of scouring and ravaging; but
the Burgundians entered into negotiations with him, and by a treaty
concluded on the 10th of March, 1360, and signed by Joan of Auvergne,
Queen of France, second wife of King John, and guardian of the young Duke
of Burgundy, Philip de Rouvre, they obtained, at the cost of two hundred
thousand golden sheep (moutons), an agreement that for three years Edward
and his army “would not go scouring and burning” in Burgundy, as they
were doing in the other parts of France.  Such was the powerlessness, or
rather absence, of all national government, that a province made a treaty
all alone, and on its own account, without causing the regent to show any
surprise, or to dream of making any complaint.

As a make-weight, at this same time, another province, Picardy, aided by
many Normans and Flemings, its neighbors, “nobles, burgesses, and
common-folk,” was sending to sea an expedition which was going to try,
with God’s help, to deliver King John from his prison in England, and
bring him back in triumph to his kingdom.”  “Thus,” says the chronicler,
“they who, God-forsaken or through their own faults, could not defend
themselves on the soil of their fathers, were going abroad to seek their
fortune and their renown, to return home covered with honor and boasting
of divine succor!  The Picard expedition landed in England on the 14th of
March, 1360; it did not deliver King John, but it took and gave over to
flames and pillage for two days the town of Winchelsea, after which it
put to sea again, and returned to its hearths.”  (_The Continuer of
William of Nangis,_ t. ii.  p. 298.)

Edward III., weary of thus roaming with his army over France without
obtaining any decisive result, and without even managing to get into his
hands any one “of the good towns which he had promised himself,” says
Froissart, “that he would tan and hide in such sort that they would be
glad to come to some accord with him,” resolved to direct his efforts
against the capital of the kingdom, where the dauphin kept himself close.
On the 7th of April, 1360, he arrived hard by Montrouge, and his troops
spread themselves over the outskirts of Paris in the form of an investing
or besieging force.  But he had to do with a city protected by good
ramparts, and well supplied with provisions, and with a prince cool,
patient, determined, free from any illusion as to his danger or his
strength, and resolved not to risk any of those great battles of which he
had experienced the sad issue.  Foreseeing the advance of the English, he
had burned the villages in the neighborhood of Paris, where they might
have fixed their quarters; he did the same with the suburbs of St.
Germain, St. Marcel, and Notre-Dame-des-Champs; he turned a deaf ear to
all King Edward’s warlike challenges; and some attempts at an assault on
the part of the English knights, and some sorties on the part of the
French knights, impatient of their inactivity, came to nothing.  At the
end of a week Edward, whose “army no longer found aught to eat,” withdrew
from Paris by the Chartres road, declaring his purpose of entering the
good country of Beauce, where he would recruit himself all the summer,”
 and whence he would return after vintage to resume the siege of Paris,
whilst his lieutenants would ravage all the neighboring provinces.  When
he was approaching Chartres, “there burst upon his army,” says Froissart,
“a tempest, a storm, an eclipse, a wind, a hail, an upheaval so mighty,
so wondrous, so horrible, that it seemed as if the heaven were all
a-tumble, and the earth were opening to swallow up everything; the stones
fell so thick and so big that they slew men and horses, and there was
none so bold but that they were all dismayed.  There were at that time in
the army certain wise men, who said that it was a scourge of God, sent as
a warning, and that God was showing by signs that He would that peace
should be made.”  Edward had by him certain discreet friends, who added
their admonitions to those of the tempest.  His cousin, the Duke of
Lancaster, said to him, “My lord, this war that you are waging in the
kingdom of France is right wondrous, and too costly for you; your men
gain by it, and you lose your time over it to no purpose; you will spend
your life on it, and it is very doubtful whether you will attain your
desire; take the offers made to you now, whilst you can come out with
honor; for, my lord, we may lose more in one day than we have won in
twenty years.”  The Regent of France, on his side, indirectly made
overtures for peace; the Abbot of Cluny, and the General of the
Dominicans, legates of Pope Innocent VI., warmly seconded them; and
negotiations were opened at the hamlet of Bretigny, close to Chartres.
“The King of England was a hard nut to crack,” says Froissart; he yielded
a little, however, and on the 8th of May, 1360, was concluded the treaty
of Bretigny, a peace disastrous indeed, but become necessary.  Aquitaine
ceased to be a French fief, and was exalted, in the King of England’s
interest, to an independent sovereignty, together with the provinces
attached to Poitou, Saintonge, Aunis, Agenois, Perigord, Limousin,
Quercy, Bigorre, Angoumois, and Rouergue.  The King of England, on his
side, gave up completely to the King of France Normandy, Maine, and the
portion of Touraine and Anjou situated to the north of the Loire.  He
engaged, further, to solemnly renounce all pretensions to the crown of
France so soon as King John had renounced all rights of suzerainty over
Aquitaine.  King John’s ransom was fixed at three millions of golden
crowns, payable in six years, and John Galeas Visconti, Duke of Milan,
paid the first instalment of it (six hundred thousand florins) as the
price of his marriage with Isabel of France, daughter of King John.  Hard
as these conditions were, the peace was joyfully welcomed in Paris, and
throughout Northern France; the bells of the country churches, as well as
of Notre-Dame in Paris, songs and dances amongst the people, and liberty
of locomotion and of residence secured to the English in all places, “so
that none should disquiet them or insult them,” bore witness to the
general satisfaction.  But some of the provinces ceded to the King of
England had great difficulty in resigning themselves to it.  “In Poitou,
and in all the district of Saintonge,” says Froissart, “great was the
displeasure of barons, knights, and good towns when they had to be
English.  The town of La Rochelle was especially unwilling to agree
thereto; it is wonderful what sweet and piteous words they wrote, again
and again, to the King of France, begging him, for God’s sake, to be
pleased not to separate them from his own domains, or place them in
foreign hands, and saying that they would rather be clipped every year of
half their revenue than pass into the hands of the English.  And when
they saw that neither excuses, nor remonstrances, nor prayers were of any
avail, they obeyed , but the men of most mark in the town said, ‘We will
recognize the English with the lips, but the heart shall beat to it
never.’”  Thus began to grow in substance and spirit, in the midst of war
and out of disaster itself [_per damna, per caedes ab ipso Duxit opes
animumque ferro_], that national patriotism which had hitherto been such
a stranger to feudal France, and which was so necessary for her progress
towards unity--the sole condition for her of strength, security, and
grandeur, in the state characteristic of the European world since the
settlement of the Franks in Gaul.

Having concluded the treaty of Bretigny, the King of England returned on
the 18th of May, 1360, to London; and, on the 8th of July following, King
John, having been set at liberty, was brought over by the Prince of Wales
to Calais, where Edward III. came to meet him.  The two kings treated one
another there with great courtesy.  “The King of England,” says
Froissart, “gave the King of France at Calais Castle a magnificent
supper, at which his own children, and the Duke of Lancaster, and the
greatest barons of England, waited at table, bareheaded.”  Meanwhile the
Prince-Regent of France was arriving at Amiens, and there receiving from
his brother-in-law, Galdas Visconti, Duke of Milan, the sum necessary to
pay the first instalment of his royal father’s ransom.  Payment having
been made, the two kings solemnly ratified at Calais the treaty of
Britigny.  Two sons of King John, the Duke of Anjou and the Duke of
Berry, with several other personages of consideration, princes of the
blood, barons, and burgesses of the principal good towns, were given as
hostages to the King of England for the due execution of the treaty; and
Edward III. negotiated between the King of France and Charles the Bad,
King of Navarre, a reconciliation precarious as ever.  The work of
pacification having been thus accomplished, King John departed on foot
for Boulogne, where he was awaited by the dauphin, his son, and where the
Prince of Wales and his two brothers, like-wise on foot, came and joined
him.  All these princes passed two days together at Boulogne in religious
ceremonies and joyous galas; after which the Prince of Wales returned to
Calais, and King John set out for Paris, which he once more entered,
December 13, 1360.  “He was welcomed there,” says Froissart, “by all
manner of folk, for he had been much desired there.  Rich presents were
made him; the prelates and barons of his kingdom came to visit him; they
feasted him and rejoiced with him, as it was seemly to do; and the king
received them sweetly and handsomely, for well he knew how.”

And that was all King John did know.  When he was once more seated on his
throne, the counsels of his eldest son, the late regent, induced him to
take some wise and wholesome administrative measures.  All adulteration
of the coinage was stopped; the Jews were recalled for twenty years, and
some securities were accorded to their industry and interests; and an
edict renewed the prohibition of private wars.  But in his personal
actions, in his bearing and practices as a king, the levity, frivolity,
thoughtlessness, and inconsistency of King John were the same as ever.
He went about his kingdom, especially in Southern France, seeking
everywhere occasions for holiday-making and disbursing, rather than for
observing and reforming the state of the country.  During the visit he
paid in 1362 to the new pope, Urban V., at Avignon, he tried to get
married to Queen Joan of Naples, the widow of two husbands already, and,
not being successful, he was on the point of involving himself in a new
crusade against the Turks.  It was on his return from this trip that he
committed the gravest fault of his reign, a fault which was destined to
bring upon France and the French kingship even more evils and disasters
than those which had made the treaty of Bretigny a necessity.  In 1362,
the young Duke of Burgundy, Philip de Louvre, the last of the first house
of the Dukes of Burgundy, descendants of King Robert, died without issue,
leaving several pretenders to his rich inheritance.  King John was,
according to the language of the genealogists, the nearest of blood, and
at the same time the most powerful; and he immediately took possession of
the duchy, went, on the 23d of December, 1362, to Dijon, swore on the
altar of St. Benignus that he would maintain the privileges of the city
and of the province, and, nine months after, on the 6th of September,
1363, disposed of the duchy of Burgundy in the following terms:
“Recalling again to memory the excellent and praise-worthy services of
our right dearly beloved Philip, the fourth of our sons, who freely
exposed himself to death with us, and, all wounded as he was, remained
unwavering and fearless at the battle of Poitiers .  .  .  we do concede
to him and give him the duchy and peerage of Burgundy, together with all
that we may have therein of right, possession, and proprietorship .  .  .
for the which gift our said son hath done us homage as duke and premier
peer of France.”  Thus was founded that second house of the Dukes of
Burgundy which was destined to play, for more than a century, so great
and often so fatal a part in the fortunes of France.

Whilst he was thus preparing a gloomy future for his country and his
line, King John heard that his second son, the Duke of Anjou, one of the
hostages left in the hands of the King of England as security for the
execution of the treaty of Bretigny, had broken his word of honor and
escaped from England, in order to go and join his wife at Guise Castle.
Knightly faith was the virtue of King John; and it was, they say, on this
occasion, that he cried, as he was severely upbraiding his son, that “if
good faith were banished from the world, it ought to find an asylum in
the hearts of kings.”  He announced to his councillors, assembled at
Amiens, his intention of going in person to England.  An effort was made
to dissuade him; and “several prelates and barons of France told him that
he was committing great folly when he was minded to again put himself in
danger from the King of England.  He answered that he had found in his
brother, the King of England, in the Queen, and in his nephews, their
children, so much loyalty, honor, and courtesy, that he had no doubt but
that they would be courteous, loyal, and amiable to him, in any case.
And so he was minded to go and make the excuses of his son, the Duke of
Anjou, who had returned to France.”  According to the most intelligent of
the chroniclers of the time, the Continuer of William of Nangis, “some
persons said that the king was minded to go to England in order to amuse
himself;” and they were probably right, for kingly and knightly
amusements were the favorite subject of King John’s meditations.  This
time he found in England something else besides galas; he before long
fell seriously ill, “which mightily disconcerted the King and Queen of
England, for the wisest in the country judged him to be in great peril.”
 He died, in fact, on the 8th of April, 1364, at the Savoy Hotel, in
London; “whereat the King of England, the Queen, their children, and many
English barons were much moved,” says Froissart, “for the honor of the
great love which the King of France, since peace was made, had shown
them.”  France was at last about to have in Charles V. a practical and
an effective king.

[Illustration: Charles V.----371]

In spite of the discretion he had displayed during his four years of
regency (from 1356 to 1360), his reign opened under the saddest auspices.
In 1363, one of those contagious diseases, all at that time called the
plague, committed cruel ravages in France.  “None,” says the contemporary
chronicler, “could count the number of the dead in Paris, young or old,
rich or poor; when death entered a house, the little children died first,
then the menials, then the parents.  In the smallest villages, as well as
in Paris, the mortality was such that at Argenteuil, for example, where
there were wont to be numbered seven hundred hearths, there remained no
more than forty or fifty.”  The ravages of the armed thieves, or bandits,
who scoured the country added to those of the plague.  Let it suffice to
quote one instance.  “In Beauce, on the Orleans and Chartres side, some
brigands and prowlers, with hostile intent, dressed as pig-dealers or
cow-drivers, came to the little castle of Murs, close to Corbeil, and
finding outside the gate the master of the place, who was a knight, asked
him to get them back their pigs, which his menials, they said, had the
night before taken from them, which was false.  The master gave them
leave to go in, that they might discover their pigs and move them away.
As soon as they had crossed the drawbridge they seized upon the master,
threw off their false clothes, drew their weapons, and blew a blast upon
the bagpipe; and forthwith appeared their comrades from their
hiding-places in the neighboring woods.  They took possession of the
castle, its master and mistress, and all their folk; and, settling
themselves there, they scoured from thence the whole country, pillaging
everywhere, and filling the castle with the provisions they carried off.
At the rumor of this thievish capture, many men-at-arms in the
neighborhood rushed up to expel the thieves and retake from them the
castle.  Not succeeding in their assault, they fell back on Corbeil,
and then themselves set to ravaging the country, taking away from the
farm-houses provisions and wine without paying a dolt, and carrying them
off to Corbeil for their own use.  They became before long as much feared
and hated as the brigands; and all the inhabitants of the neighboring
villages, leaving their homes and their labor, took refuge, with their
children and what they had been able to carry off, in Paris, the only
place where they could find a little security.”  Thus the population was
without any kind of regular force, anything like effectual protection;
the temporary defenders of order themselves went over, and with alacrity
too, to the side of disorder when they did not succeed in repressing it;
and the men-at-arms set readily about plundering, in their turn, the
castles and country-places whence they had been charged to drive off the
plunderers.

Let us add a still more striking example of the absence of all publicly
recognized power at this period, and of the necessity to which the
population was nearly everywhere reduced of defending itself with its own
hands, in order to escape ever so little from the evils of war and
anarchy.  It was a little while ago pointed out why and how, after the
death of Marcel and the downfall of his faction, Charles the Bad, King of
Navarre, suddenly determined upon making his peace with the regent of
France.  This peace was very displeasing to the English, allies of the
King of Navarre, and they continued to carry on war, ravaging the country
here and there, at one time victorious and at another vanquished in a
multiplication of disconnected encounters.  “I will relate,” says the
Continuer of William of Nangis, “one of those incidents just as it
occurred in my neighborhood, and as I have been truthfully told about it.
The struggle there was valiantly maintained by peasants, Jacques Bonhomme
(Jack Goodfellows), as they are called.  There is a place pretty well
fortified in a little town named Longueil, not far from Compiegne, in the
diocese of Beauvais, and near to the banks of the Oise.  This place is
close to the monastery of St. Corneille-de-Compiegne.  The inhabitants
perceived that there would be danger if the enemy occupied this point;
and, after having obtained authority from the lord-regent of France and
the abbot of the monastery, they settled themselves there, provided
themselves with arms and provisions, and appointed a captain taken from
among themselves, promising the regent that they would defend this place
to the death.  Many of the villagers came thither to place themselves in
security, and they chose for captain a tall, fine man, named William a-
Larks (aux Alouettes).  He had for servant, and held as with bit and
bridle, a certain peasant of lofty stature, marvellous bodily strength,
and equal boldness, who had joined to these advantages an extreme
modesty: he was called _Big Ferre_.  These folks settled themselves at
this point to the number of about two hundred men, all tillers of the
soil, and getting a poor livelihood by the labor of their hands.  The
English, hearing it said that these folks were there and were determined
to resist, held them in contempt, and went to them, saying, ‘Drive we
hence these peasants, and take we possession of this point so well
fortified and well supplied.’  They went thither to the number of two
hundred.  The folks inside had no suspicion thereof, and had left their
gates open.  The English entered boldly into the place, whilst the
peasants were in the inner courts or at the windows, a-gape at seeing men
so well armed making their way in.  The captain, William a-Larks, came
down at once with some of his people, and bravely began the fight; but he
had the worst of it, was surrounded by the English, and himself stricken
with a mortal wound.  At sight hereof, those of his folk who were still
in the courts, with Big Ferre at their head, said one to another, ‘Let us
go down and sell our lives clearly, else they will slay us without
mercy.’  Gathering themselves discreetly together, they went down by
different gates, and struck out with mighty blows at the English, as if
they had been beating out their corn on the threshing-floor; their arms
went up and down again, and every blow dealt out a deadly wound.  Big
Ferre, seeing his captain laid low and almost dead already, uttered a
bitter cry, and advancing upon the English he topped them all, as he did
his own fellows, by a head and shoulders.  Raising his axe, he dealt
about him deadly blows, insomuch that in front of him the place was soon
a void; he felled to the earth all those whom he could reach; of one he
broke the head, of another he lopped off the arms; he bore himself so
valiantly that in an hour he had with his own hand slain eighteen of
them, without counting the wounded; and at this sight his comrades were
filled with ardor.  What more shall I say?  All that band of English were
forced to turn their backs and fly; some jumped into the ditches full of
water; others tried with tottering steps to regain the gates.  Big Ferre,
advancing to the spot where the English had planted their flag, took it,
killed the bearer, and told one of his own fellows to go and hurl it into
a ditch where the wall was as not yet finished.  ‘I cannot,’ said the
other, ‘there are still so many English yonder.’  ‘Follow me with the
flag,’ said Big Ferre; and marching in front, and laying about him right
and left with his axe, he opened and cleared the way to the point
indicated, so that his comrade could freely hurl the flag into the ditch.
After he had rested a moment, he returned to the fight, and fell so
roughly on the English who remained, that all those who could fly
hastened to profit thereby.  It is said that on that day, with the help
of God and Big Ferre, who, with his own hand, as is certified, laid low
more than forty, the greater part of the English who had come to this
business never went back from it.  But the captain on our side, William
a-Larks, was there stricken mortally: he was not yet dead when the fight
ended; he was carried away to his bed; he recognized all his comrades who
were there, and soon afterwards sank under his wounds.  They buried him
in the midst of weeping, for he was wise and good.”

“At the news of what had thus happened at Longueil the English were very
disconsolate, saying that it was a shame that so many and such brave
warriors should have been slain by such rustics.  Next day they came
together again from all their camps in the neighborhood, and went and
made a vigorous attack at Longueil on our folks, who no longer feared
them hardly at all, and went out of their walls to fight them.  In the
first rank was Big Ferre, of whom the English had heard so much talk.
When they saw him, and when they felt the weight of his axe and his arm,
many of those who had come to this fight would have been right glad not
to be there.  Many fled or were grievously wounded or slain.  Some of the
English nobles were taken.  If our folks had been willing to give them up
for money, as the nobles do, they might have made a great deal; but they
would not.

[Illustration: Big Ferre----376]

When the fight was over, Big Ferre, overcome with heat and fatigue, drank
a large quantity of cold water, and was forthwith seized of a fever.  He
put himself to bed without parting from his axe, which was so heavy that
a man of the usual strength could scarcely lift it from the ground with
both hands.  The English, hearing that Big Ferre was sick, rejoiced
greatly, and for fear he should get well they sent privily, round about
the place where he was lodged, twelve of their men bidden to try and rid
them of him.  On espying them from afar, his wife hurried up to his bed
where he was laid, saying to him, ‘My dear Ferre, the English are coming,
and I verily believe it is for thee they are looking; what wilt thou do?’
Big Ferre, forgetting his sickness, armed himself in all haste, took his
axe which had already stricken to death so many foes, went out of his
house, and entering into his little yard, shouted to the English as soon
as he saw them, ‘Ah! scoundrels, you are coming to take me in my bed; but
you shall not get me.’  He set himself against a wall to be in surety
from behind, and defended himself manfully with his good axe and his
great heart.  The English assailed him, burning to slay or to take him;
but he resisted them so wondrously, that he brought down five much
wounded to the ground, and the other seven took to flight.  Big Ferre,
returning in triumph to his bed, and heated again by the blows he had
dealt, again drank cold water in abundance, and fell sick of a more
violent fever.  A few days afterwards, sinking under his sickness, and
after having received the holy sacraments, Big Ferre went out of this
world, and was buried in the burial-place of his own village.  All his
comrades and his country wept for him bitterly, for, so long as he lived,
the English would not have come nigh this place.”

There is probably some exaggeration about the exploits of Big Ferre and
the number of his victims.  The story just quoted is not, however, a
legend; authentic and simple, it has all the characteristics of a real
and true fact, just as it was picked up, partly from eye-witnesses and
partly from hearsay, by the contemporary narrator.  It is a faithful
picture of the internal state of the French nation in the fourteenth
century; a nation in labor of formation, a nation whose elements, as yet
scattered and incohesive, though under one and the same name, were
fermenting each in its own quarter and independently of the rest, with a
tendency to mutual coalescence in a powerful unity, but, as yet, far from
succeeding in it.

Externally, King Charles V. had scarcely easier work before him.  Between
himself and his great rival, Edward III., King of England, there was only
such a peace as was fatal and hateful to France.  To escape some day from
the treaty of Bretigny, and recover some of the provinces which had been
lost by it--this was what king and country secretly desired and labored
for.  Pending a favorable opportunity for promoting this higher interest,
war went on in Brittany between John of Montfort and Charles of Blois,
who continued to be encouraged and patronized, covertly, one by the King
of England, the other by the King of France.  Almost immediately after
the accession of Charles V. it broke out again between him and his
brother-in-law, Charles the Bad, King of Navarre, the former being
profoundly mistrustful, and the latter brazen-facedly perfidious, and
both detesting one another, and watching to seize the moment for taking
advantage one of the other.  The states bordering on France, amongst
others Spain and Italy, were a prey to discord and even civil wars, which
could not fail to be a source of trouble or serious embarrassment to
France.  In Spain two brothers, Peter the Cruel and Henry of Transtamare,
were disputing the throne of Castile.  Shortly after the accession of
Charles V., and in spite of his lively remonstrances, in 1267, Pope Urban
V. quitted Avignon for Rome, whence he was not to return to Avignon till
three years afterwards, and then only to die.  The Emperor of Germany
was, at this period, almost the only one of the great sovereigns of
Europe who showed for France and her kings a sincere good will.  When, in
1378, he went to Paris to pay a visit to Charles V., he was pleased to go
to St. Denis to see the tombs of Charles the Handsome and Philip of
Valois.  “In my young days,” he said to the abbot, “I was nurtured at the
homes of those good kings, who showed me much kindness; I do request you
affectionately to make good prayer to God for them.”  Charles V., who had
given him a very friendly reception, was, no doubt, included in this
pious request.

In order to maintain the struggle against these difficulties, within and
without, the means which Charles V.  had at his disposal were of but
moderate worth.  He had three brothers and three sisters calculated
rather to embarrass and sometimes even injure him than to be of any
service to him.  Of his brothers, the eldest, Louis, Duke of Anjou, was
restless, harsh, and bellicose.  He upheld authority with no little
energy in Languedoc, of which Charles had made him governor, but at the
same time made it detested; and he was more taken up with his own
ambitious views upon the kingdom of Naples, which Queen Joan of Hungary
had transmitted to him by adoption, than with the interests of France and
her king.  The second, John, Duke of Berry, was an insignificant prince,
who has left no strong mark on history.  The third, Philip the Bold, Duke
of Burgundy, after having been the favorite of his father, King John, was
likewise of his brother Charles V., who did not hesitate to still farther
aggrandize this vassal, already so great, by obtaining for him in
marriage the hand of Princess Marguerite, heiress to the countship of
Flanders; and this marriage, which was destined at a later period to
render the Dukes of Burgundy such formidable neighbors for the Kings of
France, was even in the lifetime of Charles V. a cause of unpleasant
complications both for France and Burgundy.  Of King Charles’s three
sisters, the eldest, Joan, was married to the King of Navarre, Charles
the Bad, and much more devoted to her husband than to her brother; the
second, Mary, espoused Robert, Duke of Bar, who caused more annoyance
than he rendered service to his brother-in-law, the king of France; and
the third, Isabel, wife of Galas Visconti, Duke of Milan, was of no use
to her brother beyond the fact of contributing, as we have seen, by her
marriage, to pay a part of King John’s ransom.  Charles V., by kindly and
judicious behavior in the bosom of his family, was able to keep serious
quarrels or embarrassments from arising thence; but he found therein
neither real strength nor sure support.

His civil councillors, his chancellor, William de Dormans,
cardinal-bishop of Beauvais, his minister of finance, John de la Grange,
cardinal-bishop of Amiens; his treasurer, Philip de Savoisy; and his
chamberlain and private secretary, Bureau de la Riviere, were,
undoubtedly, men full of ability and zeal for his service, for he had
picked them out and maintained them unchangeably in their offices.  There
is reason to believe that they conducted themselves discreetly, for we do
not observe that after their master’s death there was any outburst
against them, on the part either of court or people, of that violent and
deadly hatred which has so often caused bloodshed in the history of
France.  Bureau de la Riviere was attacked and prosecuted, without,
however, becoming one of the victims of judicial authority at the command
of political passions.  None of Charles V.’s councillors exercised over
his master that preponderating and confirmed influence which makes a man
a premier minister.  Charles V.  himself assumed the direction of his own
government, exhibiting unwearied vigilance, “but without hastiness and
without noise.”  There is a work, as yet unpublished, of M. Leopold
Delisle, which is to contain a complete explanatory catalogue of all the
_Mandements et Actes divers de Charles V_.  This catalogue, which forms a
pendant to a similar work performed by M. Delisle for the reign of Philip
Augustus, is not yet concluded; and, nevertheless, for the first seven
years only of Charles V.’s reign, from 1364 to 1371, there are to be
found enumerated and described in it eight hundred and fifty-four
_mandements, ordonnances et actes divers de Charles V._, relating to the
different branches of administration, and to daily incidents of
government; acts all bearing the impress of an intellect active,
farsighted, and bent upon becoming acquainted with everything, and
regulating everything, not according to a general system, but from actual
and exact knowledge.  Charles always proved himself reflective,
unhurried, and anxious solely to comport himself in accordance with the
public interests and with good sense.  He was one day at table in his
room with some of his intimates, when news was brought him that the
English had laid siege, in Guienne, to a place where there was only a
small garrison, not in a condition to hold out unless it were promptly
succored.  “The king,” says Christine de Pisan, “showed no great outward
emotion, and quite coolly, as if the topic of conversation were something
else, turned and looked about him, and, seeing one of his secretaries,
summoned him courteously, and bade him, in a whisper, write word to Louis
de Sancerre, his marshal, to come to him directly.  They who were there
were amazed that, though the matter was so weighty, the king took no
great account of it.  Some young esquires who were waiting upon him at
table were bold enough to say to him,

‘Sir, give us the money to fit ourselves out, as many of us are of your
household, for to go on this business; we will be new-made knights, and
will go and raise the siege.’  The king began to smile, and said, ‘It is
not new-made knights that are suitable; they must be all old.’  Seeing
that he said no more about it, some of them added, ‘What are your orders,
sir, touching this affair, which is of haste?’  ‘It is not well to give
orders in haste; when we see those to whom it is meet to speak, we will
give our orders.’”

On another occasion, the treasurer of Nimes had died, and the king
appointed his successor.  His brother, the Duke of Anjou, came and asked
for the place on behalf of one of his own intimates, saying that he to
whom the king had granted it was a man of straw, and without credit.
Charles caused inquiries to be made, and then said to the duke, “Truly,
fair brother, he for whom you have spoken to me is a rich man, but one of
little sense and bad behavior.”  “Assuredly,” said the Duke of Anjou, “he
to whom you have given the office is a man of straw, and incompetent to
fill it.”  “Why, prithee?” asked the king.  “Because he is a poor man,
the son of small laboring folks, who are still tillers of the ground in
our country.”  “Ah!” said Charles; “is there nothing more?  Assuredly,
fair brother, we should prize more highly the poor man of wisdom than the
profligate ass;” and he maintained in the office him whom he had put
there.

The government of Charles V. was the personal government of an
intelligent, prudent, and honorable king, anxious for the interests of
the state, at home and abroad, as well as for his own; with little
inclination for, and little confidence in, the free co-operation of the
country in its own affairs, but with wit enough to cheerfully call upon
it when there was any pressing necessity, and accepting it then without
chicanery or cheating, but safe to go back as soon as possible to that
sole dominion, a medley of patriotism and selfishness, which is the very
insufficient and very precarious resource of peoples as yet incapable of
applying their liberty to the art of their own government.  Charles V.
had recourse three times, in July, 1367, and in May and December, 1369,
to a convocation of the states-general, in order to be put in a position
to meet the political and financial difficulties of France.  At the
second of these assemblies, when the chancellor, William de Dormans, had
explained the position of the kingdom, the king himself rose up “for to
say to all that if they considered that he had done anything he ought not
to have done, they should tell him so, and he would amend what he had
done, for there was still time to repair it, if he had done too much or
not enough.”  The question at that time was as to entertaining the appeal
of the barons of Aquitaine to the King of France as suzerain of the
Prince of Wales, whose government had become intolerable, and to thus
make a first move to struggle out of the humiliating pace of Bretigny.
Such a step, and such words, do great honor to the memory of the pacific
prince who was at that time bearing the burden of the government of
France.  It was Charles V.’s good fortune to find amongst his servants
a man who was destined to be the thunderbolt of war and the glory of
knighthood of his reign.  About 1314, fifty years before Charles’s
accession, there was born at the castle of Motte-Broon, near Rennes, in a
family which could reckon two ancestors amongst Godfrey de Bouillon’s
comrades in the first crusade, Bertrand du Guesclin, “the ugliest child
from Rennes to Dinan,” says a contemporary chronicle, flat-nosed and
swarthy, thick-set, broad-shouldered, big-headed, a bad fellow, a regular
wretch, according to his own mother’s words, given to violence, always
striking or being struck, whom his tutor abandoned without having been
able to teach him to read.  At sixteen years of age, he escaped from the
paternal mansion, went to Rennes, entered upon a course of adventures,
quarrels, challenges, and tourneys, in which he distinguished himself by
his strength, his valor, and likewise his sense of honor.  He joined the
cause of Charles of Blois against John of Montfort, when the two were
claimants for the duchy of Brittany; but at the end of thirty years,
“neither the good of him, nor his prowess, were as yet greatly renowned,”
 says Froissart, “save amongst the knights who were about him in the
country of Brittany.”  But Charles V., at that time regent, had taken
notice of him in 1359, at the siege of Melun, where Du Guesclin had for
the first time borne arms in the service of France.  When, in 1364,
Charles became king, he said to Boucicaut, marshal of France, “Boucicaut,
get you hence, with such men as you have, and ride towards Normandy; you
will there find Sir Bertrand du Guesclin , hold yourselves in readiness,
I pray you, you and he, to recover from the King of Navarre the town of
Mantes, which would make us masters of the River Seine.”  “Right
willingly, sir,” answered Boucicaut; and a few weeks afterwards, on the
7th of April, 1364, Boucicaut, by stratagem, entered Mantes with his
troop, and Du Guesclin, coming up suddenly with his, dashed into the town
at a gallop, shouting, “St. Yves!  Guesclin! death, death to all
Navarrese!”  The two warriors did the same next day at the gates of
Meulan, three leagues from Mantes.  “Thus were the two cities taken,
whereat King Charles V. was very joyous when he heard the news; and the
King of Navarre was very wroth, for he set down as great hurt the loss of
Mantes and of Meulan, which made a mighty fine entrance for him into
France.”

It was at Rheims, during the ceremony of his coronation, that Charles V.
heard of his two officers’ success.  The war thus begun against the King
of Navarre was hotly prosecuted on both sides.  Charles the Bad hastily
collected his forces, Gascons, Normans, and English, and put them under
the command of John de Grailli, called the Captal of Buch, an officer of
renown.  Du Guesclin recruited in Normandy, Picardy, and Brittany, and
amongst the bands of warriors which were now roaming all over France.
The plan of the Captal of Buch was to go and disturb the festivities at
Rheims, but at Cockerel, on the banks of the Eure, two leagues from
Evreux, he met the troops of Du Guesclin; and the two armies, pretty
nearly equal in number, halted in view of one another.  Du Guesclin held
counsel, and said to his comrades in arms, “Sirs, we know that in front
of us we have in the Captal as gallant a knight as can be found to-day on
all the earth; so long as he shall be on the spot he will do us great
hurt; set we then a-horseback thirty of ours, the most skilful and the
boldest; they shall give heed to nothing but to make straight towards the
Captal, break through the press, and get right up to him; then they shall
take him, pin him, carry him off amongst them, and lead him away some
whither in safety, without waiting for the end of the battle.  If he can
be taken and kept in such way, the day will be ours, so astounded will
his men be at his capture.”  Battle ensued at all points [May 16, 1364];
and, whilst it led to various encounters, with various results, “the
picked thirty, well mounted on the flower of steeds,” says Froissart,
“and with no thought but for their enterprise, came all compact together
to where was the Captal, who was fighting right valiantly with his axe,
and was dealing blows so mighty that none durst come nigh him; but the
thirty broke through the press by dint of their horses, made right up to
him, halted hard by him, took him and shut him in amongst them by force;
then they voided the place, and bare him away in that state, whilst his
men, who were like to mad, shouted, ‘A rescue for the Captal! a rescue!’
but nought could avail them, or help them; and the Captal was carried off
and placed in safety.  In this bustle and turmoil, whilst the Navarrese
and English were trying to follow the track of the Captal, whom they saw
being taken off before their eyes, some French agreed with hearty good
will to bear down on the Captal’s banner, which was in a thicket, and
whereof the Navarrese made their own standard.  Thereupon there was a
great tumult and hard fighting there, for the banner was well guarded,
and by good men; but at last it was seized, won, torn, and cast to the
ground.  The French were masters of the battle-field; Sir Bertrand and
his Bretons acquitted themselves loyally, and ever kept themselves well
together, giving aid one to another; but it cost them dear in men.”

Charles was highly delighted, and, after the victory, resolutely
discharged his kingly part, rewarding, and also punishing.  Du Guesclin
was made marshal of Normandy, and received as a gift the countship of
Longueville, confiscated from the King of Navarre.  Certain Frenchmen who
had become confidants of the King of Navarre were executed, and Charles
V. ordered his generals to no longer show any mercy for the future to
subjects of the kingdom who were found in the enemy’s ranks.  The war
against Charles the Bad continued.  Charles V., encouraged by his
successes, determined to take part likewise in that which was still going
on between the two claimants to the duchy of Brittany, Charles of Blois
and John of Montfort.  Du Guesclin was sent to support Charles of Blois;
“whereat he was greatly rejoiced,” says Froissart, “for he had always
held the said lord Charles for his rightful lord.”  The Count and
Countess of Blois “received him right joyously and pleasantly, and the
best part of the barons of Brittany likewise had lord Charles of Blois in
regard and affection.”  Du Guesclin entered at once on the campaign, and
marched upon Auray, which was being besieged by the Count of Montfort.
But there he was destined to encounter the most formidable of his
adversaries.  John of Montfort had claimed the support of his patron, the
king of England, and John Chandos, the most famous of the English
commanders, had applied to the Prince of Wales to know what he was to do.
“You may go full well,” the prince had answered, “since the French are
going for the Count of Blois; I give you good leave.”  Chandos,
delighted, set hastily to work recruiting.  Only a few Aquitanians
decided to join him, for they were beginning to be disgusted with English
rule, and the French national spirit was developing itself throughout
Gascony, even in the Prince of Wales’s immediate circle.  Chandos
recruited scarcely any but English or Bretons, and when, to the great joy
of the Count of Montfort, he arrived before Auray, “he brought,” says
Froissart, “full sixteen hundred fighting men, knights, and squires,
English and Breton, and about eight or nine hundred archers.”  Du
Guesclin’s troops were pretty nearly equal in number, and not less brave,
but less well disciplined, and probably also less ably commanded.  The
battle took place on the 29th of September, 1364, before Auray.  The
attendant circumstances and the result have already been recounted in the
twentieth chapter of this history; Charles of Blois was killed, and Du
Guesclin was made prisoner.  The cause of John of Montfort was clearly
won; and he, on taking possession of the duchy of Brittany, asked nothing
better than to acknowledge himself vassal of the King of France, and
swear fidelity to him.  Charles V. had too much judgment not to foresee
that, even after a defeat, a peace which gave a lawful and definite
solution to the question of Brittany, rendered his relations and means of
influence with this important province much more to be depended upon than
any success which a prolonged war might promise him.  Accordingly he made
peace at Guerande, on the 11th of April, 1365, after having disputed the
conditions inch by inch; and some weeks previously, on the 6th of March,
at the indirect instance of the King of Navarre, who, since the battle of
Gocherel, had felt himself in peril, Charles V. had likewise put an end
to his open struggle against his perfidious neighbor, of whom he
certainly did not cease to be mistrustful.  Being thus delivered from
every external war and declared enemy, the wise King of France was at
liberty to devote himself to the re-establishment of internal peace and
of order throughout his kingdom, which was in the most pressing need
thereof.

We have, no doubt, even in our own day, cruel experience of the disorders
and evils of war; but we can form, one would say, but a very incomplete
idea of what they were in the fourteenth century, without any of those
humane administrative measures, still so ineffectual,--provisionings,
hospitals, ambulances, barracks, and encampments,--which are taken in the
present day to prevent or repair them.  The _Recueil des Ordonnances des
Lois de France_ is full of safeguards granted by Charles V. to
monasteries and hospices and communes, which implored his protection,
that they might have a little less to suffer than the country in general.
We will borrow from the best informed and the most intelligent of the
contemporary chroniclers, the Continuer of William of Nangis, a picture
of those sufferings and the causes of them.  “There was not,” he says,
“in Anjou, in Touraine, in Beauce, near Orleans and up to the approaches
of Paris, any corner of the country which was free from plunderers and
robbers.  They were so numerous everywhere, either in little forts
occupied by them or in the villages and country-places, that peasants and
tradesfolks could not travel but at great expense and great peril.  The
very guards told off to defend cultivators and travellers took part most
shamefully in harassing and despoiling them.  It was the same in Burgundy
and the neighboring countries.  Some knights who called themselves
friends of the king and of the king’s majesty, and whose names I am not
minded to set down here, kept in their service brigands who were quite as
bad.  What is far more strange is, that when those folks went into the
cities, Paris or elsewhere, everybody knew them and pointed them out, but
none durst lay a hand upon them.  I saw one night at Paris, in the suburb
of St. Germain des Pres, while the people were sleeping, some brigands
who were abiding with their chieftains in the city, attempting to sack
certain hospices: they were arrested and imprisoned in the Chatelet; but,
before long, they were got off, declared innocent, and set at liberty
without undergoing the least punishment--a great encouragement for them
and their like to go still farther.  .  .  .  When the king gave Bertrand
du Guesclin the countship of Longueville, in the diocese of Rouen, which
had belonged to Philip, brother of the King of Navarre, Du Guesclin
promised the king that he would drive out by force of arms all the
plunderers and robbers, those enemies of the kingdom; but he did nothing
of the sort; nay, the Bretons even of Du Guesclin, on returning from
Rouen, pillaged and stole in the villages whatever they found there--
garments, horses, sheep, oxen, and beasts of burden and of tillage.”

Charles V. was not, as Louis XII. and Henry IV. were, of a disposition
full of affection, and sympathetically inclined towards his people; but
he was a practical man, who, in his closet and in the library growing up
about him, took thought for the interests of his kingdom as well as for
his own; he had at heart the public good, and lawlessness was an
abomination to him.  He had just purchased, at a ransom of a hundred
thousand francs, the liberty of Bertrand du Guesclin, who had remained a
prisoner in the hands of John Chandos, after the battle of Auray.  An
idea occurred to him that the valiant Breton might be of use to him in
extricating France from the deplorable condition to which she had been
reduced by the bands of plunderers roaming everywhere over her soil.  We
find in the Chronicle in verse of Bertrand Guesclin, by Cuvelier, a
troubadour of the fourteenth century, a detailed account of the king’s
perplexities on this subject, and of the measures he took to apply a
remedy.  We cannot regard this account as strictly historical; but it is
a picture, vivid and morally true, of events and men as they were
understood and conceived to be by a contemporary, a mediocre poet, but a
spirited narrator.  We will reproduce the principal features, modifying
the language to make it more easily intelligible, but without altering
the fundamental character.

“There were so many folk who went about pillaging the country of France
that the king was sad and doleful at heart.  He summoned his council, and
said to them, ‘What shall we do with this multitude of thieves who go
about destroying our people?  If I send against them my valiant baronage
I lose my noble barons, and then I shall never more have any joy of my
life.  If any could lead these folk into Spain against the miscreant and
tyrant Pedro, who put our sister to death, I would like it well, whatever
it might cost me.’

[Illustration: Bertrand du Guesclin----388]

“Bertrand du Guesclin gave ear to the king, and ‘Sir King,’ said he, ‘it
is my heart’s desire to cross over the seas and go fight the heathen with
the edge of the sword; but if I could come nigh this folk which Both
anger you, I would deliver the kingdom from them.’  ‘I should like it
well,’ said the king.  ‘Say no more,’ said Bertrand to him; ‘I will learn
their pleasure; give it no further thought.’

“Bertrand du Guesclin summoned his herald, and said to him, ‘Go thou to
the Grand Company and have all the captains assembled; thou wilt go and
demand for me a safe-conduct, for I have a great desire to parley with
them.’  The herald mounted his horse, and went a-seeking these folk
toward Chalon-sur-la-Saone.  They were seated together at dinner, and
were drinking good wine from the cask they had pierced.  ‘Sirs,’ said the
herald, ‘the blessing of Jesus be on you!  Bertrand du Guesclin prayeth
you to let him parley with all in company.’  ‘ By my faith, gentle
herald,’ said Hugh de Calverley, who was master of the English, ‘I will
readily see Bertrand here, and will give him good wine; I can well give
it him, in sooth, I do assure you, for it costs me nothing.’  Then the
herald departed, and returned to his lord, and told the news of this
company.

“So away rode Bertrand, and halted not; and he rode so far that he came
to the Grand Company, and then did greet them.  ‘God keep,’ said he, ‘the
companions I see yonder!’  Then they bowed down; each abased himself.  ‘I
vow to God,’ said Bertrand, ‘whosoever will be pleased to believe me; I
will make you all rich.’  And they answered, ‘Right welcome here sir, we
will all do whatsoever is your pleasure.’  ‘Sirs,’ said Bertrand, ‘be
pleased to listen to me; wherefore I am come I will tell unto you.  I
come by order of the king in whose keeping is France, and who would be
right glad, to save his people, that ye should come with me whither I
should be glad to go into good company I fain would bring ye.  If we
would all of us look into our hearts, we might full truly consider that
we have done enough to damn our souls; think we but how we have dealt
with life, outraged ladies and burned houses, slain men, children, and
everybody set to ransom, how we have eaten up cows, oxen, and sheep,
drunk good wines, and done worse than robbers do.  Let us do honor to God
and forsake the devil.  Ask, if it may please you, all the companions,
all the knights, and all the barons; if you be of accord, we will go to
the king, and I will have the gold got ready which we do promise you I
would fain get together all my friends to make the journey we so strongly
desire.’”

Du Guesclin then explained, in broad terms which left the choice to the
Grand Company, what this journey was which was so much desired.  He spoke
of the King of Cyprus, of the Saracens of Granada, of the Pope of
Avignon, and especially of Spain and the King of Castile, Pedro the
Cruel, “scoundrel-murderer of his wife (Blanche of Bourbon),” on whom,
above all, Du Gueselin wished to draw down the wrath of his hearers.  “In
Spain,” he said to them, we might largely profit, for the country is a
good one for leading a good life, and there are good wines which are neat
and clear.”  Nearly all present, whereof were twenty-five famous
captains, “confirmed what was said by Bertrand.”  “Sirs,” said he to them
at last, “listen to me: I will go my way and speak to the King of the
Franks; I will get for you those two hundred thousand francs; you shall
come and dine with me at Paris, according to my desire, when the time
shall have come for it; and you shall see the king, who will be rejoiced
thereat.  We will have no evil suspicion in anything, for I never was
inclined to treason, and never shall be as long as I live.”  Then said
the valiant knights and esquires to him, “Never was more valiant man seen
on earth; and in you we have more belief and faith than in all the
prelates and great clerics who dwell at Avignon or in France.”

When Du Gueselin returned to Paris, “Sir,” said he to the king, “I have
accomplished your wish; I will put out of your kingdom all the worst folk
of this Grand Company, and I will so work it that everything shall be
saved.”  “Bertrand,” said the king to him, “may the Holy Trinity be
pleased to have you in their keeping, and may I see you a long while in
joy and health!”  “Noble king,” said Bertrand, “the captains have a very
great desire to come to Paris, your good city.”  “I am heartily willing,”
 said the king; “if they come, let them assemble at the Temple; elsewhere
there is too much people and too much abundance; there might be too much
alarm.  Since they have reconciled themselves to us, I would have nought
but friendship with them.”

The poet concludes the negotiation thus: “At the bidding of Bertrand,
when he understood the pleasure of the noble King of France, all the
captains came to Paris in perfect safety; they were conducted straight to
the Temple; there they were feasted and dined nobly, and received many a
gift, and all was sealed.”

Matters went, at the outset at least, as Du Guesclin had promised to the
king on the one side, and on the other to the captains of the Grand
Company.  There was, in point of fact, a civil war raging in Spain
between Don Pedro the Cruel, King of Castile, and his natural brother,
Henry of Transtamare, and that was the theatre on which Du Guesclin had
first proposed to launch the vagabond army which he desired to get out of
France.  It does not appear, however, that at their departure from
Burgundy at the end of November, 1365, this army and its chiefs had in
this respect any well-considered resolution, or any well-defined aim in
their movements.  They made first for Avignon, and Pope Urban V., on
hearing of their approach, was somewhat disquieted, and sent to them one
of his cardinals to ask them what was their will.  If we may believe the
poet-chronicler, Cuvelier, the mission was anything but pleasing to the
cardinal, who said to one of his confidants, “I am grieved to be set to
this business, for I am sent to a pack of madmen who have not an hour’s,
nay, not even half-an-hour’s conscience.”  The captains replied that they
were going to fight the heathen either in Cyprus or in the kingdom of
Granada, and that they demanded of the pope absolution of their sins and
two hundred thousand livres, which Du Guesclin had promised them in his
name.  The pope cried out against this.  “Here,” said he, “at Avignon, we
have money given us for absolution, and we must give it gratis to yonder
folks, and give them money also: it is quite against reason.”  Du
Guesclin insisted.  “Know you,” said he to the cardinal, “that there are
in this army many folks who care not a whit for absolution, and who would
much rather have money; we are making them proper men in spite of
themselves, and are leading them abroad that they may do no mischief to
Christians.  Tell that to the pope; for else we could not take them
away.”  The pope yielded, and gave them the two hundred thousand livres.
He obtained the money by levies upon the population of Avignon.  They, no
doubt, complained loudly, for the chiefs of the Grand Company were
informed thereof, and Du Guesclin said, “By the faith that I owe to the
Holy Trinity, I will not take a denier of that which these poor folks
have given; let the pope and the clerics give us of their own; we desire
that all they who have paid the tax do recover their money without losing
a doit; “and, according to contemporary chronicles, the vagabond army did
not withdraw until they had obtained this satisfaction.  The piety of the
middle ages, though sincere, was often less disinterested and more rough
than it is commonly represented.

On arriving at Toulouse from Avignon, Du Guesclin and his bands, with a
strength, it is said, of thirty thousand men, took the decided resolution
of going into Spain to support the cause of Prince Henry of Transtamare
against the King of Castile his brother, Don Pedro the Cruel.  The Duke
of Anjou, governor of Languedoc, gave them encouragement, by agreement,
no doubt with King Charles V., and from anxiety on his own part to rid
his province of such inconvenient visitors.  On the 1st of January, 1366,
Du Guesclin entered Barcelona, whither Henry of Transtamare came to join
him.  There is no occasion to give a detailed account here of that
expedition, which appertains much more to the history of Spain than to
that of France.  There was a brief or almost no struggle.  Henry of
Transtamare was crowned king, first at Calahorra, and afterwards at
Burgos.  Don Pedro, as much despised before long as he was already
detested, fled from Castile to Andalusia, and from Andalusia to Portugal,
whose king would not grant him an asylum in his dominions, and he ended
by embarking at Corunna for Bordeaux, to implore the assistance of the
Prince of Wales, who gave him a warm and a magnificent reception.  Edward
III., King of England, had been disquieted by the march of the Grand
Company into Spain, and had given John Chandos and the rest of his chief
commanders in Guienne orders to be vigilant in preventing the English
from taking part in the expedition against his cousin the King of
Castile; but several of the English chieftains, serving in the bands and
with Du Guesclin, set at nought this prohibition, and contributed
materially to the fall of Don Pedro.  Edward III. did not consider that
the matter was any infraction, on the part of France, of the treaty of
Bretigne, and continued to live at peace with Charles V., testifying his
displeasure, however, all the same.  But when Don Pedro had reached
Bordeaux, and had told the Prince of Wales that, if he obtained the
support of England, he would make the prince’s eldest son, Edward, king
of Galicia, and share amongst the prince’s warriors the treasure he had
left in Castile, so well concealed that he alone knew where, “the knights
of the Prince of Wales,” says Froissart, “gave ready heed to his words,
for English and Gascons are by nature covetous.”  The Prince of Wales
immediately summoned the barons of Aquitaine, and on the advice they gave
him sent four knights to London to ask for instructions from the king his
father.  Edward III. assembled his chief councillors at Westminster, and
finally “it seemed to all course due and reasonable on the part of the
Prince of Wales to restore and conduct the King of Spain to his kingdom;
to which end they wrote official letters from the King and the council of
England to the prince and the barons of Aquitaine.  When the said barons
heard the letters read they said to the prince, ‘My lord, we will obey
the command of the king our master and your father; it is but reason, and
we will serve you on this journey and King Pedro also; but we would know
who shall pay us and deliver us our wages, for one does not take
men-at-arms away from their homes to go a warfare in a foreign land,
without they be paid and delivered.  If it were a matter touching our
dear lord your father’s affairs, or your own, or your honor or our
country’s, we would not speak thereof so much beforehand as we do.’  Then
the Prince of Wales looked towards the Prince Don Pedro, and said to him,
‘Sir King, you hear what these gentlemen say; to answer is for you, who
have to employ them.’  Then the King Don Pedro answered the prince, ‘My
dear cousin, so far as my gold, my silver, and all my treasure which I
have brought with me hither, and which is not a thirtieth part so great
as that which there is yonder, will go, I am ready to give it and share
it amongst your gentry.’  ‘You say well,’ said the prince, ‘and for the
residue I will be debtor to them, and I will lend you all you shall have
need of until we be in Castile.’  ‘By my head,’ answered the King Don
Pedro, you will do me great grace and great courtesy.’”

When the English and Gascon chieftains who had followed Du Guesclin
into Spain heard of the resolutions of their king, Edward III., and the
preparations made by the Prince of Wales for going and restoring Don
Pedro to the throne of Castile, they withdrew from the cause which they
had just brought to an issue to the advantage of Henry of Transtamare,
separated from the French captain who had been their leader, and marched
back into Aquitaine, quite ready to adopt the contrary cause, and follow
the Prince of Wales in the service of Don Pedro.  The greater part of the
adventurers, Burgundian, Picard, Champagnese, Norman, and others who had
enlisted in the bands which Du Guesclin had marched out of France,
likewise quitted him, after reaping the fruits of their raid, and
recrossed the Pyrenees to go and resume in France their life of roving
and pillage.  There remained in Spain about fifteen hundred men-at-arms
faithful to Du Guesclin, himself faithful to Henry of Transtamare, who
had made him Constable of Castile.

Amidst all these vicissitudes, and at the bottom of all events as well as
of all hearts, there still remained the great fact of the period, the
struggle between the two kings of France and England for dominion in that
beautiful country which, in spite of its dismemberment, kept the name of
France.  Edward III. in London, and the Prince of Wales at Bordeaux,
could not see, without serious disquietude, the most famous warrior
amongst the French crossing the Pyrenees with a following for the most
part French, and setting upon the throne of Castile a prince necessarily
allied to the King of France.  The question of rivalry between the two
kings and the two peoples had thus been transferred into Spain, and for
the moment the victory remained with France.  After several months’
preparation the prince of Wales, purchasing the complicity of the King of
Navarre, marched into Spain in February, 1367, with an army of twenty-
seven thousand men, and John Chandos, the most able of the English
warriors.  Henry of Transtamare had troops more numerous, but less
disciplined and experienced.  The two armies joined battle on the 3d of
April, 1367, at Najara or Navarette, not far from the Ebro.  Disorder and
even sheer rout soon took place amongst that of Henry, who flung himself
before the fugitives, shouting, “Why would ye thus desert and betray me,
ye who have made me King of Castile?  Turn back and stand by me; and by
the grace of God the day shall be ours.”  Du Guesclin and his men-at-arms
maintained the fight with stubborn courage, but at last they were beaten,
and either slain or taken.  To the last moment Du Guesclin, with his back
against a wall, defended himself heroically against a host of assailants.
The Prince of Wales, coming up, cried out, “Gentle marshals of France,
and you too, Bertrand, yield yourselves to me.”  “Why, yonder men are my
foes,” cried the king, Don Pedro; “it is they who took from me my
kingdom, and on them I mean to take vengeance.”  Du Guesclin, darting
forward, struck so rough a blow with his sword at Don Pedro, that he
brought him fainting to the ground, and then turning to the Prince of
Wales said, “Nathless I give up my sword to the most valiant prince on
earth.”  The Prince of Wales took the sword, and charged the Captal of
Buch with the prisoner’s keeping.  “Aha!  sir Bertrand,” said the Captal
to Du Guesclin, “you took me at the battle of Cocherel, and to-day I’ve
got you.”  “Yes,” replied Du Guesclin; “but at Cocherel I took you
myself, and here you are only my keeper.”

The battle of Najara being over, and Don Pedro the Cruel restored to a
throne which he was not to occupy for long, the Prince of Wales returned
to Bordeaux with his army and his prisoner Du Guesclin, whom he treated
courteously, at the same time that he kept him pretty strictly.  One of
the English chieftains who had been connected with Du Guesclin at the
time of his expedition into Spain, Sir Hugh Calverley, tried one day to
induce the Prince of Wales to set the French warrior at liberty.  “Sir,”
 said he, “Bertrand is a right loyal knight, but he is not a rich man, or
in estate to pay much money; he would have good need to end his captivity
on easy terms.”  “Let be,” said the prince; “I have no care to take aught
of his; I will cause his life to be prolonged in spite of himself: if he
were released, he would be in battle again, and always a-making war.”
 After supper, Hugh, without any beating about the bush, told Bertrand the
prince’s answer.  “Sir,” he said, “I cannot bring about your release.”
 “Sir,” said Bertrand, “think no more of it; I will leave the matter to
the decision of God, who is a good and just master.”  Some time after,
Du Guesclin having sent a request to the Prince of Wales to admit him to
ransom, the prince, one day when he was in a gay humor, had him brought
up, and told him that his advisers had urged him not to give him his
liberty so long as the war between France and England lasted.  “Sir,”
 said Du Guesclin to him, “then am I the most honored knight in the world,
for they say, in the kingdom of France and elsewhere, that you are more
afraid of me than of any other.”  “Think you, then, it is for your
knighthood that we do keep you?” said the prince: “nay, by St. George;
fix you your own ransom, and you shall be released.”  Du Guesclin proudly
fixed his ransom at a hundred thousand francs, which seemed a large sum
even to the Prince of Wales.  “Sir,” said Du Guesclin to him, “the king
in whose keeping is France will lend me what I lack, and there is not a
spinning wench in France who would not spin to gain for me what is
necessary to put me out of your clutches.”  The advisers of the Prince of
Wales would have had him think better of it, and break his promise; but
“that which we have agreed to with him we will hold to,” said the prince;
“it would be shame and confusion of face to us if we could be reproached
with not setting him to ransom when he is ready to set himself down at so
much as to pay a hundred thousand francs.”  Prince and knight were both
as good as their word.  Du Guesclin found amongst his Breton friends a
portion of the sum he wanted; King Charles V. lent him thirty thousand
Spanish doubloons, which, by a deed of December 27, 1367, Du Guesclin
undertook to repay; and at the beginning of 1368 the Prince of Wales set
the French warrior at liberty.

The first use Du Guesclin made of it was to go and put his name and his
sword at the service first of the Duke of Anjou, governor of Languedoc,
who was making war in Provence against Queen Joan of Naples, and then of
his Spanish patron, Henry of Transtamare, who had recommenced the war in
Spain against his brother, Pedro the Cruel, whom he was before long to
dethrone for the second time and slay with his own hand.  But whilst Du
Guesclin was taking part in this settlement of the Spanish question,
important events called him back to the north of the Pyrenees for the
service of his own king, the defence of his own country, and the
aggrandizement of his own fortunes.  The English and Gascon bands which,
in 1367, had recrossed the Pyrenees with the Prince of Wales, after
having restored Don Pedro the Cruel to the throne of Castile had not
disappeared.  Having no more to do in their own prince’s service, they
had spread abroad over France, which they called “their apartment,” and
recommenced, in the countries between the Seine and the Loire, their life
of vagabondage and pillage.  A general outcry was raised; it was the
Prince of Wales, men said, who had let them loose, and the people called
them the host (army) of England.  A proceeding of the Prince of Wales
himself had the effect of adding to the rage of the people that of the
aristocratic classes.  He was lavish of expenditure, and held at Bordeaux
a magnificent court, for which the revenues from his domains and ordinary
resources were insufficient; so he imposed a tax for five years of ten
sous per hearth or family, “in order to satisfy,” he said, “the large
claims against him.”  In order to levy this tax legally, he convoked the
estates of Aquitaine, first at Niort, and then, successively, at
Angouleme, Poitiers, Bordeaux, and Bergerac; but nowhere could he obtain
the vote he demanded.  “When we obeyed the King of France,” said the
Gascons, “we were never so aggrieved with subsidies, hearth-taxes, or
gabels, and we will not be, as long as we can defend ourselves.”  The
Prince of Wales persisted in his demands.  He was ill and irritable, and
was becoming truly the Black Prince.  The Aquitanians too became
irritated.  The prince’s more temperate advisers, even those of English
birth, tried in vain to move him from his stubborn course.  Even John
Chandos, the most notable as well as the wisest of them, failed, and
withdrew to his domain of St. Sauveur, in Normandy, that he might have
nothing to do with measures of which he disapproved.  Being driven to
extremity, the principal lords of Aquitaine, the Counts of Comminges, of
Armagnac, of Perigord, and many barons besides, set out for France, and
made complaint, on the 30th of June, 1368, before Charles V.  and his
peers, “on account of the grievances which the Prince of Wales was
purposed to put upon them.”  They had recourse, they said, to the King of
France as their sovereign lord, who had no power to renounce his
suzerainty or the jurisdiction of his court of peers and of his
parliament.

Nothing could have corresponded better with the wishes of Charles V.  For
eight years past he had taken to heart the treaty of Bretigny, and he was
as determined not to miss as he was patient in waiting for an opportunity
for a breach of it.  But he was too prudent to act with a precipitation
which would have given his conduct an appearance of a premeditated and
deep-laid purpose for which there was no legitimate ground.  He did not
care to entertain at once and unreservedly the appeal of the Aquitanian
lords.  He gave them a gracious reception, and made them “great cheer and
rich gifts;” but he announced his intention of thoroughly examining the
stipulations of the treaty of Bretigny, and the rights of his kingship.
“He sent for into his council chamber all the charters of the peace, and
then he had them read on several days and at full leisure.”  He called
into consultation the schools of Boulogne, of Montpellier, of Toulouse,
and of Orleans, and the most learned clerks of the papal court.  It was
not until he had thus ascertained the legal means of maintaining that the
stipulations of the treaty of Bretigny had not all of them been performed
by the King of England, and that, consequently, the King of France had
not lost all his rights of suzerainty over the ceded provinces, that on
the 25th of January, 1369, just six months after the appeal of the
Aquitanian lords had been submitted to him, he adopted it, in the
following terms, which he addressed to the Prince of Wales, at Bordeaux,
and which are here curtailed in their legal expressions: --

“Charles, by the grace of God King of France, to our nephew the Prince of
Wales and of Aquitaine, greeting.  Whereas many prelates, barons,
knights, universities, communes, and colleges of the country of Gascony
and the duchy of Aquitaine, have come thence into our presence, that they
might have justice touching certain undue grievances and vexations which
you, through weak counsel and silly advice, have designed to impose upon
them, whereat we are quite astounded, .  .  .  we, of our kingly majesty
and lordship, do command you to come to our city of Paris, in your own
person, and to present yourself before us in our chamber of peers, for to
hear justice touching the said complaints and grievances proposed by you
to be done to your people which claims to have resort to our court.  .  .
And be it as quickly as you may.”

“When the Prince of Wales had read this letter,” says Froissart, “he
shook his head, and looked askant at the aforesaid Frenchmen; and when he
had thought a while, he answered, ‘We will go willingly, at our own time,
since the King of France doth bid us, but it shall be with our Basque on
our head, and with sixty thousand men at our back.’”

This was a declaration of war; and deeds followed at once upon words.
Edward III., after a short and fruitless attempt at an accommodation,
assumed, on the 3d of June, 1369, the title of King of France, and
ordered a levy of all his subjects between sixteen and sixty, laic or
ecclesiastical, for the defence of England, threatened by a French fleet
which was cruising in the Channel.  He sent re-enforcements to the Prince
of Wales, whose brother, the Duke of Lancaster, landed with an army at
Calais; and he offered to all the adventurers with whom Europe was
teeming possession of all the fiefs they could conquer in France.
Charles V. on his side vigorously pushed forward his preparations; he had
begun them before he showed his teeth, for as early as the 19th of July,
1368, he had sent into Spain ambassadors with orders to conclude an
alliance with Henry of Transtamare against the King of England and his
son, whom he called “the Duke of Aquitaine.”  On the 12th of April, 1369,
he signed the treaty which, by a contract of marriage between his
brother, Philip the Bold, Duke of Burgundy, and the Princess Marguerite
of Flanders, transferred the latter rich province to the House of France.
Lastly he summoned to Paris Du Guesclin, who since the recovery of his
freedom had been fighting at one time in Spain, and at another in the
south of France, and announced to him his intention of making him
constable.  “Dear sir and noble king,” said the honest and modest Breton,
“I do pray you to have me excused; I am a poor knight and petty bachelor.
The office of constable is so grand and noble that he who would well
discharge it should have had long previous practice and command, and
rather over the great than the small.  Here are my lords your brothers,
your nephews, and your cousins, who will have charge of men-at-arms in
the armies, and the rides afield, and how durst I lay commands on them?
In sooth, sir, jealousies be so strong that I cannot well but be afeard
of them.  I do affectionately pray you to dispense with me, and to confer
it upon another who will more willingly take it than I, and will know
better how to fill it.”  “Sir Bertrand, Sir Bertrand,” answered the king,
“do not excuse yourself after this fashion; I have nor brother, nor
cousin, nor nephew, nor count, nor baron in my kingdom, who would not
obey you; and if any should do otherwise, he would anger me so that he
would hear of it.  Take, therefore, the office with a good heart, I do
beseech you.”  Sir Bertrand saw well, says Froissart, “that his excuses
were of no avail, and finally he assented to the king’s opinion; but it
was not without a struggle, and to his great disgust.  .  .  .  In order
to give him further encouragement and advancement the king did set him
close to him at table, showed him all the signs he could of affection,
and gave him, together with the office, many handsome gifts and great
estates for binelf and his heirs.”  Charles V. might fearlessly lavish
his gifts on the loyal warrior, for Du Guesclin felt nothing more binding
upon him than to lavish them, in his turn, for the king’s service.  He
gave numerous and sumptuous dinners to the barons, knights, and soldiers
of every degree whom he was to command.

              “At Bertrand’s plate gazed every eye,
               So massive, chased so gloriously,”

says the poet-chronicler Cuvelier; but Du Guesclin pledged it more than
once, and sold a great portion of it, in order to pay “without fail the
knights and honorable fighting-men of whom he was the leader.”

The war thus renewed was hotly prosecuted on both sides.  A sentiment of
nationality became, from day to day, more keen and more general in
France.  At the commencement of hostilities, it burst forth particularly
in the North; the burghers of Abbeville opened their gates to the Count
of St. Poi, and in a single week St. Valery, Crotoy, and all the places
in the countship of Ponthieu followed this example.  The movement made
progress before long in the South.  Montauban and Milhau hoisted on their
walls the royal standard; the Archbishop of Toulouse “went riding through
the whole of Quercy, preaching and demonstrating the good cause of the
King of France; and he converted, without striking a blow, Cahors and
more than sixty towns, castles, or fortresses.”  Charles V. neglected no
means of encouraging and keeping up the public impulse.  It has been
remarked that, as early as the 9th of May, 1369, he had convoked the
states-general, declaring to them in person that “if they considered that
he had done anything he ought not, they should say so, and he would amend
it, for there was still time for reparation if he had done too much or
not enough.”  He called a new meeting on the 7th of December, 1369, after
the explosion of hostilities, and obtained from them the most extensive
subsidies they had ever granted.  They were as stanch to the king in
principle as in purse, and their interpretations of the treaty of
Bretigny went far beyond the grounds which Charles had put forward to
justify war.  It was not only on the upper classes and on political minds
that the king endeavored to act; he paid attention also to popular
impressions; he set on foot in Paris a series of processions, in which he
took part in person, and the queen also, “barefoot and unsandaled, to
pray God to graciously give heed to the doings and affairs of the
kingdom.”

But at the same time that he was thus making his appeal, throughout
France and by every means, to the feeling of nationality, Charles
remained faithful to the rule of conduct which had been inculcated in him
by the experience of his youth; he recommended, nay, he commanded, all
his military captains to avoid any general engagement with the English.
It was not without great difficulty that he wrung obedience from the
feudal nobility, who, more numerous very often than the English, looked
upon such a prohibition as an insult, and sometimes withdrew to their
castles rather than submit to it; and even the king’s brother, Philip the
Bold, openly in Burgundy testified his displeasure at it.  Du Guesclin,
having more intelligence and firmness, even before becoming constable,
and at the moment of quitting the Duke of Anjou at Toulouse, had advised
him not to accept battle, to well fortify all the places that had been
recovered, and to let the English scatter and waste themselves in a host
of small expeditions and distant skirmishes constantly renewed.  When
once he was constable, Du Guesclin put determinedly in practice the
king’s maxim, calmly confident in his own fame for valor whenever he had
to refuse to yield to the impatience of his comrades.

This detached and indecisive war lasted eight years, with a medley of
more or less serious incidents, which, however, did not change its
character.  In 1370, the Prince of Wales laid siege to Limoges, which had
opened its gates to the Duke of Berry.  He was already so ill that he
could not mount his horse, and had himself carried in a litter from post
to post, to follow up and direct the operations of the siege.  In spite
of a month’s resistance the prince took the place, and gave it up as a
prey to a mob of reckless plunderers, whose excesses were such that
Froissart himself, a spectator generally so indifferent, and leaning
rather to the English, was deeply shocked.  “There,” said he, “was a
great pity, for men, women, and children threw themselves on their knees
before the prince, and cried, ‘Mercy, gentle sir!’ but he was so inflamed
with passion that he gave no heed, and none, male or female, was listened
to, but all were put to the sword.  There is no heart so hard but, if
present then at Limoges and not forgetful of God, would have wept
bitterly, for more than three thousand persons, men, women, and children,
were there beheaded on that day.  May God receive their souls, for verily
they were martyrs!”  The massacre of Limoges caused, throughout France, a
feeling of horror and indignant anger towards the English name.  In 1373
an English army landed at Calais, under the command of the Duke of
Lancaster, and overran nearly the whole of France, being incessantly
harassed, however, without ever being attacked in force, and without
mastering a single fortress.  “Let them be,” was the saying in the king’s
circle; “when a storm bursts out in a country, it leaves off afterwards
and disperses of itself; and so it will be with these English.”  The
sufferings and reverses of the English armies on this expedition were
such, that, of thirty thousand horses which the English had landed at
Calais, “they could not muster more than six thousand at Bordeaux, and
had lost full a third of their men and more.  There were seen noble
knights, who had great possessions in their own country, toiling along
a-foot, without armor, and begging their bread from door to door without
getting any.”  In vain did Edward III. treat with the Duke of Brittany
and the King of Navarre in order to have their support in this war.  The
Duke of Brittany, John IV., after having openly defied the King of
France, his suzerain, was obliged to fly to England, and the King of
Navarre entered upon negotiations alternately with Edward III. and
Charles V., being always ready to betray either, according to what suited
his interests at the moment.  Tired of so many ineffectual efforts,
Edward III. was twice obliged, between 1375 and 1377, to conclude with
Charles V. a truce, just to give the two peoples, as well as the two
kings, breathing-time; but the truces were as vain as the petty combats
for the purpose of putting an end to this great struggle.

The great actors in this historical drama did not know how near were the
days when they would be called away from this arena, still so crowded
with their exploits or their reverses.  A few weeks after the massacre of
Limoges the Prince of Wales lost, at Bordeaux, his eldest son, six years
old, whom he loved with all the tenderness of a veteran warrior, so much
the more affected by gentle impressions as they were a rarity to him; and
he was himself so ill that “his doctors advised him to return to England,
his own land, saying that he would probably get better health there.”
 Accordingly he left France, which he would never see again, and, on
returning to England, he, after a few months’ rest in the country, took
an active part in Parliament in the home-policy of his country, and
supported the opposition against the government of his father, who since
the death of the queen, Philippa of Hainault, had been treating England
to the spectacle of a scandalous old age closing a life of glory.
Parliamentary contests soon exhausted the remaining strength of the Black
Prince, and he died on the 8th of June, 1376, in possession of a
popularity that never shifted, and was deserved by such qualities as
showed a nature great indeed and generous, though often sullied by the
fits of passion of a character harsh even to ferocity.  “The good fortune
of England,” says his contemporary Walsingham, “seemed bound up with his
person, for it flourished when he was well, fell off when he was ill, and
vanished at his death.  As long as he was on the spot the English feared
neither the foe’s invasion nor the meeting on the battle-field; but with
him died all their hopes.”  A year after him, on the 21st of June, 1377,
died his father, Edward III., a king who had been able, glorious, and
fortunate for nearly half a century, but had fallen, towards the end of
his life, into contempt with his people and into forgetfulness on the
continent of Europe, where nothing was heard about him beyond whispers of
an indolent old man’s indulgent weaknesses to please a covetous mistress.

Whilst England thus lost her two great chiefs, France still kept hers.
For three years longer Charles V. and Du Guesclin remained at the head of
her government and her armies.  The truce between the two kingdoms was
still in force when the Prince of Wales died, and Charles, ever careful
to practise knightly courtesy, had a solemn funeral service performed for
him in the Sainte-Chapelle; but the following year, at the death of
Edward III., the truce had expired.  The Prince of Wales’s young son,
Richard II., succeeded his grandfather, and Charles, on the accession of
a king who was a minor, was anxious to reap all the advantage be could
hope from that fact.  The war was pushed forward vigorously, and a French
fleet cruised on the coast of England, ravaged the Isle of Wight, and
burned Yarmouth, Dartmouth, Plymouth, Winchelsea, and Lewes.  What
Charles passionately desired was the recovery of Calais; he would have
made considerable sacrifices to obtain it, and in the seclusion of his
closet he displayed an intelligent activity in his efforts, by war or
diplomacy, to attain this end.  “He had,” says Froissart, “couriers going
a-horseback night and day, who, from one day to the next, brought him
news from eighty or a hundred leagues’ distance, by help of relays posted
from town to town.”  This labor of the king had no success; on the whole
the war prosecuted by Charles V. between Edward III.’s death and his own
had no result of importance; the attempt, by law and arms, which he made
in 1378, to make Brittany his own and reunite it to the crown, completely
failed, thanks to the passion with which the Bretons, nobles, burgesses,
and peasants, were attached to their country’s independence.  Charles V.
actually ran a risk of embroiling himself with the hero of his reign; he
had ordered Du Guesclin to reduce to submission the countship of Rennes,
his native land, and he showed some temper because the constable not only
did not succeed, but advised him to make peace with the Duke of Brittany
and his party.  Du Guesclin, grievously hurt, sent to the king his sword
of constable, adding that he was about to withdraw to the court of
Castile, to Henry of Transtamare, who would show more appreciation of his
services.  All Charles V.’s wisdom did not preserve him from one of those
deeds of haughty levity which the handling of sovereign power sometimes
causes even the wisest kings to commit, but reflection made him promptly
acknowledge and retrieve his fault.  He charged the Dukes of Anjou and
Bourbon to go and, for his sake, conjure Du Guesclin to remain his
constable; and, though some chroniclers declare that Du Guesclin refused,
his will, dated the 9th of July, 1380, leads to a contrary belief, for in
it he assumes the title of constable of France, and this will preceded
the hero’s death only by four days.  Having fallen sick before
Chateauneuf-Randon, a place he was besieging in the Gevaudan, Du Guesclin
expired on the 13th of July, 1380, at sixty-six years of age, and his
last words were an exhortation to the veteran captains around him “never
to forget that, in whatsoever country they might be making war,
churchmen, women, children, and the poor people were not their enemies.”
 According to certain contemporary chronicles, or, one might almost say,
legends, Chateauneuf-Randon was to be given up the day after Du Guesclin
died.  The marshal De Sancerre, who commanded the king’s army, summoned
the governor to surrender the place to him; but the governor replied that
he had given his word to Du Guesclin, and would surrender to no other.
He was told of the constable’s death: “Very well,” he rejoined, “I will
carry the keys of the town to his tomb.”  To this the marshal agreed; the
governor marched out of the place at the head of his garrison, passed
through the besieging army, went and knelt down before Du Guesclin’s
corpse, and actually laid the keys of Chateauneuf-Randon on his bier.

[Illustration: Putting the Keys on Du Guesclin’s Bier----407]

This dramatic story is not sufficiently supported by authentic documents
to be admitted as an historical fact; but there is to be found in an old
chronicle concerning Du Guesclin [published for the first time at the end
of the fifteenth century, and in a new edition by M. Francisque Michel in
1830] a story which, in spite of many discrepancies, confirms the
principal fact of the keys of Chateauneuf-Randon being brought by the
garrison to the bier.  “At the decease of Sir Bertrand,” says the
chronicler, “a great cry arose throughout the host of the French.  The
English refused to give up the castle.  The marshal, Louis de Sancerre,
had the hostages brought to the ditches, for to have their heads struck
off.  But forthwith the people in the castle lowered their bridge, and
the captain came and offered the keys to the marshal, who refused them,
and said to him, ‘Friends, you have your agreements with Sir Bertrand,
and ye shall fulfil them to him.’  ‘God the Lord!’ said the captain, ‘you
know well that Sir Bertrand, who was so much worth, is dead: how, then,
should we surrender to him this castle?  Verily, lord marshal, you do
demand our dishonor when you would have us and our castle surrendered to
a dead knight.’  ‘Needs no parley hereupon,’ said the marshal, ‘but do it
at once, for, if you put forth more words, short will be the life of your
hostages.’  Well did the English see that it could not be otherwise; so
they went forth all of them from the castle, their captain in front of
them, and came to the marshal, who led them to the hostel where lay Sir
Bertrand, and made them give up the keys and place them on his bier,
sobbing the while: ‘Let all know that there was there nor knight, nor
squire, French or English, who showed not great mourning.’”

The body of Du Guesclin was carried to Paris to be interred at St. Denis,
hard by the tomb which Charles V. had ordered to be made for himself; and
nine years afterwards, in 1389, Charles V.’s successor, his son Charles
VI., caused to be celebrated in the Breton warrior’s honor a fresh
funeral, at which the princes and grandees of the kingdom, and the young
king himself, were present in state.  The Bishop of Auxerre delivered the
funeral oration over the constable; and a poet of the time, giving an
account of the ceremony, says,

                    “The tears of princes fell,
                    What time the bishop said,
                    ‘Sir Bertrand loved ye well;
                    Weep, warriors, for the dead!
                    The knell of sorrow tolls
                    For deeds that were so bright:
                    God save all Christian souls,
                    And his--the gallant knight: ‘

The life, character, and name of Bertrand du Guesclin were and remained
one of the most popular, patriotic, and legitimate boasts of the middle
ages, then at their decline.

Two months after the constable’s death, on the 16th of September, 1380,
Charles V. died at the castle of Beaute-sur-Marne, near Vincennes, at
forty-three years of age, quite young still after so stormy and
hard-working a life.  His contemporaries were convinced, and he was
himself convinced, that he had been poisoned by his perfidious enemy,
King Charles of Navarre.  His uncle, Charles IV., Emperor of Germany,
had sent him an able doctor, who “set him in good case and in manly
strength,” says Froissart, by effecting a permanent issue in his arm.
“When this little sore,” said he to him, “shall cease to discharge and
shall dry up, you will die without help for it, and you will have at the
most fifteen days’ leisure to take counsel and thought for the soul.”
 When the issue began to dry up, Charles knew that death was at hand; and
“like a wise and valiant man as he was,” says Froissart, “he set in order
all his affairs, and sent for his three brothers, in whom he had most
confidence, the Duke of Berry, the Duke of Burgundy, and the Duke of
Bourbon, and he left in the lurch his second brother, the Duke of Anjou,
because he considered him too covetous.  ‘My dear brothers,’ said the
king to them, ‘I feel and know full well that I have not long to live.
I do commend and give in charge to you my son Charles.  Behave to him as
good uncles should behave to their nephew.  Crown him as soon as possible
after my death, and counsel him loyally in all his affairs.  The lad is
young, and of a volatile spirit; he will need to be guided and governed
by good doctrine; teach him or have him taught all the kingly points and
states he will have to maintain, and marry him in such lofty station that
the kingdom may be the better for it.  Thank God, the affairs of our
kingdom are in good case.  The Duke of Brittany [John IV., called the
Valiant] is a crafty and a slippery man, and he hath ever been more
English than French; for which reason keep the nobles of Brittany and the
good towns affectionate, and you will thus thwart his intentions.  I am
fond of the Bretons, for they have ever served me loyally, and helped to
keep and defend my kingdom against my enemies.  Make the lord Clisson
constable, for, all considered, I see none more competent for it than he.
As to those aids and taxes of the kingdom of France, wherewith the poorer
folks are so burdened and aggrieved, deal with them according to your
conscience, and take them off as soon as ever you can, for they are
things which, although I have upheld them, do grieve me and weigh upon my
heart; but the great wars and great matters which we have had on all
sides caused me to countenance them.”

Of all the dying speeches and confessions of kings to their family and
their councillors, that which has just been put forward is the most
practical, precise, and simple.  Charles V., taking upon his shoulders at
nineteen years of age, first as king’s lieutenant and as dauphin, and
afterwards as regent, the government of France, employed all his soul and
his life in repairing the disasters arising from the wars of his
predecessors and preventing any repetition.  No sovereign was ever more
resolutely pacific; he carried prudence even into the very practice of
war, as was proved by his forbidding his generals to venture any general
engagement with the English, so great a lesson and so deep an impression
had he derived from the defeats of Crecy and Poitiers, and the causes
which led to them.  But without being a warrior, and without running any
hazardous risks, he made himself respected and feared by his enemies.
“Never was there king,” said Edward III., “who handled arms less, and
never was there king who gave me so much to do.”  When the condition of
the kingdom was at the best, and more favorable circumstances led Charles
to believe that the day had come for setting France free from the cruel
conditions which had been imposed upon her by the treaty of Bretigny, he
entered without hesitation upon that war of patriotic reparation; and,
after the death of his two powerful enemies, Edward III. and the Black
Prince, he was still prosecuting it, not without chance of success, when
he himself died of the malady with which he had for a long while been
afflicted.  At his death he left in the royal treasury a surplus of
seventeen million francs, a large sum for those days.  Nor the labors of
government, nor the expenses of war, nor far-sighted economy had
prevented him from showing a serious interest in learned works and
studies, and from giving effectual protection to the men who devoted
themselves thereto.  The University of Paris, notwithstanding the
embarrassments it sometimes caused him, was always the object of his
good-will.  “He was a great lover of wisdom,” says Christine de Pisan,
“and when certain folks murmured for that he honored clerks so highly, he
answered, ‘So long as wisdom is honored in this realm, it will continue
in prosperity; but when wisdom is thrust aside, it will go down.’”  He
collected nine hundred and fifty volumes (the first foundation of the
loyal Library), which were deposited in a tower of the Louvre, called the
library tower, and of which he, in 1373, had an inventory drawn up by his
personal attendant, Gilles de Presle.  His taste for literature and
science was not confined to collecting manuscripts.  He had a French
translation made, for the sake of spreading a knowledge thereof, of the
Bible in the first place, and then of several works of Aristotle, of
Livy, of Valerius Maximus, of Vegetius, and of St. Augustine.  He was
fond of industry and the arts as well as of literature.  Henry de Vic, a
German clock-maker, constructed for him the first public clock ever seen
in France, and it was placed in what was called the Clock Tower in the
Palace of Justice; and the king even had a clock-maker by appointment,
named Peter de St. Beathe.  Several of the Paris monuments, churches, or
buildings for public use were undertaken or completed under his care.  He
began the building of the Bastille, that fortress which was then so
necessary for the safety of Paris, where it was to be, four centuries
later, the object of the wrath and earliest excesses on the part of the
populace.  Charles the Wise, from whatever point of view he may be
regarded, is, after Louis the Fat, Philip Augustus, St. Louis, and Philip
the Handsome, the fifth of those kings who powerfully contributed to the
settlement of France in Europe, and of the kingship in France.  He was
not the greatest nor the best, but, perhaps, the most honestly able.  And
at the same time he was a signal example of the shallowness and
insufficiency of human abilities.  Charles V., on his death-bed,
considered that “the affairs of his kingdom were in good case;” he had
not even a suspicion of that chaos of war, anarchy, reverses and ruin
into which they were about to fall, in the reign of his son, Charles VI.

END OF VOLUME II.





*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "A Popular History of France from the Earliest Times, Volume 2" ***

Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.