Suger: The Life of Louis VI 'the Fat'

JUST PUBLISHED

The kingdom of France when Louis VI came to the throne in 1108 was a patchwork of feudal principalities over which the authority of the French Capetian monarchy was weak. Beyond the heartlands of Capetian power around Paris, kings of France had little power and the rulers of the great principalities such as Aquitaine paid little heed to the authority of the French state. Under Louis VI, this gradually began to change and, although it took a further two centuries to complete the process, the feudal supremacy of the French monarchy began to be asserted and the lands over which it had feudal hegemony began to expand. Much of what we know about Louis' reign comes from his life written by his friend and advisor Suger Abbot of St-Denis. Suger was a talented individual who straddled the often perilous divide between Church and State with considerable skill. He was a diplomat, administrator in both ecclesiastical and political spheres and staunch defender of his monastery. He witnessed many of the important events of Louis' reign and knew many of the people he wrote about. His Life of Louis VI is a partial biography, like most medieval biographies, that aims through recounting Louis' life to demonstrate what the nature of 'good' kingship should be--to defend the weak, to dispense justice, to defend both Church and State from those who sought control over them and to defend France against attack from within and without. His is an epic tale of good versus evil, justice versus injustice and right against wrong.

This volume provides a translation of Suger's work with detailed annotation that identify the key participants and explain the significance of the key events. The introduction provides a brief biography of Suger and examines what his intentions were in writing his book. Two appendices look at the French defeat at the Battle of the Two Kings at Brémule in 1119 and the murder of Charles of Flanders in 1127 through the eyes of other medieval writers. There is also a detailed bibliography.

A democratic deficit

The idea that there is a democratic deficit at the heart of the European Union is nothing new.  It has been a recurrent theme of those critical of the EU for several decades.  There is also a growing realisation that there is a democratic deficit at the heart of the British system of government as well.  Yes we elect MPs every five years but once they are elected they appear to forget those who elected them until it comes to the next electoral cycle.  What people find increasingly irksome is the patronising attitude of politicians who appear to take the view that you elected us and if you don’t like what we’re doing you can vote us out at the next election!  Now this might have been a (barely) acceptable position before the 1960s but people are more politically aware and confrontational today.  They have views and expect politicians to respond to their concerns which they are often unwilling or unable to do.  The result of all this is that political decisions are frequently made by a small cadre of career politicians or, in the case of the EU, unelected officials both of whom have their own agenda that they pursue irrespective of what people say.

Herein lies the problem of the democratic deficit and it’s a problem facing all ‘democracies’.  Democracy is increasing losing its core principles: ‘of the people, by the people and for the people’ in favour of a technocratic view of democracy in which frequently unaccountable ‘experts’ propound solutions that are then implemented by elected politicians.  This is not to suggest that those solutions are wrong or that they do not benefit the people but that misses the point.  The essence of a democratic system is that it is accountable to the people and ‘technocracy’ is, by its nature, largely unaccountable.  Take the vexed question of the proposed referendum on Britain’s continued membership of the EU.  It is clear, whatever your views, that the British people have been crying out for the right to vote for or against the Union for the past decade (if not longer) but it has not happened despite the promises of successive governments.  The reasons for this are relatively simple: politicians of all parties generally say that this isn't the right time largely because they think they’ll lose.