Chapter 8

How Miles entered the castle of Montlhery

By these and other means the young prince grew in virtue. He sought to provide wisely for the royal administration and the state and, as opportunity allowed suppress the unruly and occupy or destroy by any means castles that menaced him Guy Trusseau was the son of Miles de Montlhery[1], a turbulent baron who often disturbed the kingdom. When Guy returned home from crusade, he was broken by the exhaustion of a long journey, by the pain of his various troubles, and by the memory of his extraordinary deed at Antioch, when he had, through fear of Kerboga, escaped by climbing down the wall, leaving the army of God besieged inside the city[2]. So he completely lost his health. Fearing disinheritance, by the will and persuasion of King Philip and his son Louis, who desperately wanted his castle he married his one and only daughter[3] to the son of King Philip by his second wife the countess of Anjou[4]. In order to cement his brother’s love more firmly, the elder brother Lord Louis, at his father’s request[5], confirmed to Philip the castle of Mantes[6] at his marriage.

When he received the castle of Montlhéry[7] on this occasion, the inhabitants rejoiced as much as if scales had been removed from their eyes or they had broken the chains that had held them captive. King Philip testified as much to his son Louis when, in my hearing, he recalled how seriously he had been wearied and troubled by it. ‘My son Louis,’ he said, ‘Beware of that tower which has exhausted me into premature old age; the treachery and bad faith of its castellans deprived me altogether of peace and quiet.’

Their disloyalty made the faithful faithless, the faithless totally treacherous. It attracted traitors from near and far and in the whole kingdom no evil occurred without their involvement or consent. Montlhéry stood halfway on the road between Corbeil on the Seine and Chateaufort[8]. It blocked the route to Paris and this caused such chaos and confusion between Paris and Orleans that men could not travel between one place and the other unless under strong guard[9], without the consent of those wicked men. But the marriage of which we have spoken broke the barrier and opened an agreeable route in each direction.

In addition, when Guy, count of Rochefort[10], a man of experience and an outstanding knight, who was Guy Trousseau’s uncle, returned from his Jerusalem journey full of fame and fortune, he freely adhered to King Philip, whose old friend he was, and whose seneschal[11] he had once been. Both the king and his son Louis invested Guy with the seneschalship for the benefit of the state, so that they might from then on possess the castle of Montlhery peacefully, and in order to obtain from his county (that is Rochefort, Chateaufort and the other nearby castles) that bordered on their lands, a peace and service to which they were unaccustomed. The mutual friendship[12] reached the point that, by his father’s persuasion, the son Louis agreed to wed Guy’s daughter[13], not yet of marriageable age. But his affianced did not become his wife; for before the consummation of the marriage some years later, the union was annulled on ground of consanguinity. Thus the friendship lasted for three years. Both father and son had unlimited confidence in Guy. In return, he and his son Hugh de Crecy put all their strength into the defence and honour of the realm.

But because ‘a vase retains for a long time the smell of anything that has one been poured into it,’[14] the men of Montlhery, faithful to their treacherous tradition, intrigued with the Garlande brothers, who had incurred the enmity of the king and his son. They arranged that Miles, viscount of Troyes[15] and younger brother of Guy Trusseau, should come with his mother the viscountess and a great band of soldiers; and he was received at the castle in defiance of their vow. In tears he reminded them of the benefits his father had often conferred on them. He praised their generosity and natural industry, admired their wonderful loyalty, thanked them for having recalled him, and at their knees humbly begged them to finish well a work so well begun. Swayed by seeing him prostrated by grief, they rushed to arms, ran to the tower, and hurled against its garrison swords, lances, torches, stakes and stones. They breached the outer wall of the tower in several places and mortally wounded many of the defenders. Within the tower were the wife of Guy and his daughter affianced to the Lord Louis, When seneschal Guy heard of it, as he was a magnanimous man, he hastened forth and with as many knights as he could gather, boldly approached the castle and sent ahead his fastest messengers to summon his followers from all around. Those who were besieging the tower saw him from the hill. As they had not yet captured it, and were afraid of the sudden advent of Lord Louis, they retired and began to debate whether they should stand fast or flee. But Guy, who was valiant and diplomatic, persuaded the Garlandes brothers to come out and swore that they should have the peace and grace of the king and Lord Louis. Thus he made them and their accomplices abandon their enterprise; with their defection, Miles also defected and fled away swiftly, totally frustrated, in tears and weeping.

When the Lord Louis heard this, he hastened to the castle, and on hearing the true account, rejoiced that nothing had been lost, but grieved that he could not find the rebels to hang them. As for the rest, since Guy had sworn peace with them, the Lord Louis preserved it; but in order to prevent any similar occurrence in the future, he demolished all the fortifications except the tower.[16]

---

[1] Miles I de Montlhery was born about 1050 in France. He married Lithuaise de Troyes d’Eu about 1069. Guy Trusseau was their son. Both father and son went on the First Crusade in 1096

[2] He escaped with two companions on the night of 10^th-11^th June 1098 from the siege of Antioch by Kerboga, emir of Mosul: see description in Gesta Francorum 23.

[3] The marriage with Elisabeth de Montlhéry, daughter of Guy I, Seigneur de Mantes eand de Montlhéry did not take place until 1104. This must have followed reconciliation between Louis and his stepmother but Suger does not mention this as he avoided mentioning the problems between them. Orderic Vitalis 4: 195-98 and 288 is more forthcoming.

[4] After the first reference to Bertrade in chapter 1, Suger avoids mentioning her by name and persistently refers to her as ‘superducta Andegavensis comitissa’ (in chapters 13 and 18 as well). The Latin word ‘superducta’ denoted a ‘wife who had been taken while her first husband still lived’ and which can be translated as ‘irregular union’.

[5] Tensions between Philip I and Louis appear to have been resolved by 1104 and their reconciliation included provision of Louis’ castle at Mantes for the young Philip, the eldest of Philip’s sons by Bertrada.

[6] Mantes is on the Seine thirty-five miles north-west of Paris on the southern border of the French Vexin. It is crucially located between the castles of Meulan and La Roche-Guyon.

[7] The castle of Montlhery was built by Theobald, forester for King Robert ‘the Pious’ and maternal grandfather of Miles ‘the Great’.

[8] Montlhery is abouth fifteen miles south of Paris on the road to Orleans. Corbeil is some ten miles south-east of Montlhery while Chateaufort is about the same distance to the north-west.

[9] This is a graphic illustration of the weakness of the French monarchy in this period.

[10] Guy I de Montlhery Count of Rochefort, castellan of Chateaufort and lord of Crecy was born in c.1049 in Montlhéry, Île-de-France, France and died in 1108. He married Adelaide de Crecy about 1080 in France. He was the brother of Miles I de Montlhery.

[11] Guy de Rochefort was seneschal from 1091 until he left for the crusades at the beginning of 1096. The seneschalate was then held by Gilbert called Pain de Garlande (died 1154) and then, very probably by Anselm de Garlande. Having recovered his office in 1104, Guy held it for two further years before his son Hugh de Crecy replaced him.

[12] The creation of an alliance by the projected nuptials of Louis and Guy’s daughter Lucienne de Rochfort indicated how far Guy had advanced in royal favour. Suger points out that she was not yet of marriageable age and in 1107 the Council of Troyes dissolved the betrothal on the grounds of consanguinity but there may have been other reasons. Ibid, La Chronique de Saint-Pierre-le-Vif de Sens, pp. 146-7 stated that Lucienne was not worthy of the royal dignity. Suger stated that Louis had agreed to the marriage at the request of his father but by 1107 the pattern of Louis’ alliances had changed.

[13] The growing rift between the de Rochefort family and the Crown can also be attributed to the intrigues of the Garlande brothers who were restored to royal favour on the accession of Louis VI.

[14] Horace, Epistles I, 2, v, 69-70

[15] Miles II, castellan of Bray-sur-Seine and viscount of Troyes, brother of Guy Trousseau was the nephew of Guy de Rocheford.

[16] These events probably took place in the course of 1105: ibid, Luchaire, Louis VI le Gros, Annales de son vie et de son règne, n° 34.

Chapters 6-7

The castle of Meung

No less famous was the armed assistance he gave to the church of Orleans when Leon, a nobleman from the castle of Meung-sur-Loire[1], liegeman of the liegeman of the bishop of Orleans, tried to seize from the church the greater part of that castle and the lordship of another. Louis restrained him by force, besieged him and his large band of followers in that castle, and when the castle fell, forced Leon to take refuge in a church close by his home, which he surrounded with ramparts. To subdue the strong by the stronger, Louis beat down on him with an intolerable pressure of sword and fire. Leon was not the only man to pay heavily for the excommunication under which he had laboured so long; for when he and about sixty others jumped down from the tower of the burning church, they were skewered on the points of lances and by arrows shot at them; so breathing their last breaths they took their wretched souls miserably down to hell.

The castle of Montaigu

It so happened that the well-fortified castle which is called Montaigu[2] in the district of Laon fell by a marriage alliance into the possession of Thomas de Marle[3], the vilest of men[4], a plague both to God and to men. His unspeakable madness, like that of a cruel wolf, was increased by his confidence in possessing an impregnable castle. All his neighbours feared and loathed him. The man thought to be his father, Enguerrand de Bove[5], a venerable and honourable man, tried harder than anyone else to eject him from the castle because of his brutal tyranny. Enguerrand and Ebles de Roucy[6] agreed that with all the men they could gather, they would besiege the castle with Thomas inside, surround him with a wattled stockade, and force him to surrender through fear of slow starvation. Then they would, if possible, throw down the castle and imprison him for ever. When Thomas saw that, though the stakes were already in place, the gaps between them had yet to be closed, he quietly slipped out one night and hastening to Prince Louis, he corrupted his entourage with presents and promises, and rapidly obtained the military aid he sought.[7]

The prince was both by age and by temperament pliable; so having collected about seven hundred men, he hastened to that part of the country. When he approached the castle of Montaigu, the men who were besieging it sent messengers to him begging him, as their designated lord, not to shame them by making them lift the siege, and not to lose the service of men like themselves for the sake of such an evil man. They declared with truth that if Thomas remained at liberty, he would do more harm to Louis than he had done to them. But when neither flattery nor threats moved him, they retired because they were afraid to attack their future lord. However, they intended, as soon as Louis departed, to start the war again and resume the siege. So they unwillingly left him to do his will. Louis therefore with great strength cut down and broke the stockade freed Montaigu and frustrated their intentions by generously supplying it with arms and men. Then the barons, who had withdrawn out of love and fear, were angry that he had done nothing at all for them, and threatened with oaths that they would no longer show him deference. And when they saw him leave, they struck camp, drew up battle lines and pursued him with the intention of fighting him.

There was an obstacle to their meeting. Between the two armies there lay a flood which could only be crossed with much delay. So for two days both sets of trumpets blew, and ‘spears menaced spears’[8], until suddenly there came to the French a certain jongleur, a chivalrous knight, from the other side, who announced that the others, as soon as they had found a means of access, would indisputably join battle and avenge with their spears and swords the injuries borne for their liberty. But he had left them so that he might fight for and with his natural lord. The rumour spread through the camp and the soldiers danced with joy. They put on magnificent helmets and breastplates and this increased their eagerness for battle and they hastened to attempt the crossing if they could find a suitable place, reckoning that attack was more befitting than defence.

When the most noble men Enguerrand de Boves, Ebles de Roucy, count Andrew of Ramerupt[9], Hugh le Blanc of La Ferte, Robert de Cappy and the other wise and discreet men saw this they admired the boldness of their designated lord. After discussions, they decided to make their homage to him. Approaching in peace, they embraced his youth and gave their hands in friendship and entered his service. Not long afterwards, and the frustration of the impious may be attributed to the divine will, Thomas de Marle lost both the castle and his marriage by annulment on grounds on consanguinity.[10]

---

[1] Meung-sur-Loire is downstream about eight miles south-west of Orleans and about eighty miles south of Paris. The expedition probably occurred in 1103: ibid, Luchaire, Louis VI le Gros, Annales de son vie et de son règne, n° 25.

[2] Montaigu is about ten miles south-east of Laon and about 110 miles north-east of Paris.

[3] Thomas de Coucy Sire de Coucy and Marle was born about 1073 in Coucy, Picardie, France and died in 1131. He was one of the most powerful lords in the north of the Capetian lands. On the death of his father, he took the name of Marle, land left him by his mother Ada de Roucy, first wife of Enguerrand I de Coucy.

[4] Thomas de Marle is the most wicked character in Suger’s work. Guibert de Nogent is equally damning describing him as ‘the most evil man of all we know in this generation’ and Orderic Vitalis saw him as ‘a rebel bandit who terrorised a whole province’. All these writers wrote from an ecclesiastical position and a case for a more positive assessment is made by Chaurand, Jacques, Thomas de Marle, Sire de Courcy, Marle-sur-Serre, 1963.

[5] Enguerrand I lord of Coucy and count of Amiens was born in 1042 in Coucy, Picardie, France and died in 1116. He married Ada de Marle de Roucy about 1072 and had obtained the land of Coucy in 1086 in his capacity as grandson of Aubry de Coucy. Guibert de Nogent in De vita sua III, c.11 employed the same terms as Suger having reservations about Thomas’ paternity and legitimacy. These are explained by the behaviour of his first wife, Ada, whom he divorced for adultery. Enguerrand hated Thomas and wanted to disinherit it.

[6] Ebles de Roucy was the maternal great-uncle of Thomas de Marle.

[7] Louis’ intervention on behalf of Thomas de Marle needs some explanation and there is no need to dismiss the explanation provided by Suger as a clumsy whitewash. Louis was surrounded by an entourage of young knights whose influence could be damaging and the relationships and alliance that were to characterise the greater part of his reign took time to develop. Ibid, Luchaire, Louis VI le Gros, Annales de son vie et de son règne, n°° 25 and 26 suggests that the expedition to Montaigu took place in the second half of 1103.

[8] Lucan, De bello civili I, 7

[9] Andrew count of Ramerupt and Arcis-sur-Aube was the brother of Ebles de Roucy. Robert de Cappy was a brother of Enguerrand de Boves and died between 1106 and 1109. This makes clear the importance of family in building up alliances.

[10] He was married to Ermengarde, daughter of Roger de Montaigu and this gave him control over the castle. Thomas lost of castle when the marriage was annulled because of consanguinity.

Chapter 5

Concerning Ebles, Count of Roucy

The noble church of Reims and the churches dependent on it found themselves a prey to the tyrannical, valiant and turbulent baron Ebles[1] of Roucy[2] and his son Guichard, who robbed it of its goods. Ebles was a man of great military prowess. Indeed he became so bold that one day he set out for Spain[3] with an army of a size fit only for a king. His feats of arms only made him more outrageous and rapacious in pillage, rape and all over evils. 

Many pitiful complaints had been laid against this powerful and wicked man. At least a hundred complaints had been made to King Philip and before his son two or three. So Louis, exercised by the charges assembled a relatively small army of about seven hundred knights from the most noble and valiant of French lords.[4] They hastened to Reims, where he fought vigorously for about two months, punishing the evils inflicted in the past on the churches, and ravaging, burning and pillaging the lands of the tyrant and his associates. It was well done; for the pillagers were pillaged, and the torturers exposed to equal or worse tortures than they had inflicted on others[5].

Such was the dedication of the prince and his army that throughout the whole time they were there they scarcely rested, except on Saturdays and Sundays[6]. They ceaselessly fought with lances or swords, to avenge by harrying the injuries the count had done. He fought not only against Ebles but also against all the barons of that area who, because of their family ties with the great men of Lotharingia, made up a formidable army.

Meanwhile there were many peace negotiations; and since the prince’s presence was demanded elsewhere by other preoccupations and dangerous affairs, he held a council with his men and then both besought and demanded peace for the churches from that tyrant. Then taking hostages, he forced Ebles to confirm the peace with oaths. When he had met him and sent him away humbled, he left the negotiations over Neufchatel to another time. [7]

---

[1] Count Ebles II de Roucy was born around 1050 in France and died in 1104. He fought for the cause of Gregory VII in Italy and married Sibylle, daughter of Robert Guiscard about 1081 in France. He was the son and successor of Hilduin III of Ramerupt who became count of Roucy because of his marriage to Adela, daughter of Ebles I. The complex family background of Ebles de Roucy is discussed by Guenée, B., ‘Les Généalogies entre l’histoire at la politique: La fierté d’être capetien, en France, au moyen age’, Annales economies, societes civilisations, vol. xxxiii, (1978), pp. 450-477 especially 453.

[2] Roucy is on the River Aisne about twelve miles north-west of Reims and a hundred miles north-east of Paris.

[3] Ebles’ sister Felicia (1069-1086) was married to Sancho V (born 1067, died 1094), king of Aragon (1069-1094) and king of Navarre (1076-1094). In 1073, Ebles sought to establish a state with the support of Pope Gregory VII like those in Normandy and Southern Italy by taking land from the Moors but his plans came to nothing. See Defourneaux, Marcelin, Les Français en Espagne au XI^e at XII^e siècles, Paris, 1948.

[4] These ‘French lords’ came from the Capetian domain in the Ile-de-France.

[5] This occurred in the summer of 1102.

[6] The church, through the Truce of God tried to prevent fighting on Saturdays and Sundays though this was often ignored. The Battle of Hastings, for example, was fought on a Saturday. Louis’ conduct is particularly commendable in Suger’s eyes.

[7] Neufchatel sur-Aisne is upstream from Roucy, about twelve miles north of Reims. It can be implied in this and the following chapters that Louis did not do especially well in these encounters and it can be argued that he was coming off worse.

Chapter 4: How when he was besieging another castle belonging to the same Matthew, at Chambly a sudden storm forced his army to flee; how without Louis' valiant resistance his army would have been all but wiped out; and how Matthew humbly gave him satisfaction

In the same way[1], he led his army against another of the count’s castles called Chambly, pitched camp and ordered the siege engines to be brought up. But his hopes were totally dashed. The weather, which had been good, changed to wet and windy, then a violent storm broke out, with drenching rain, and the whole land was disturbed at night by the chorus of thunderclaps that scattered the army and frightened the horses so much that some people thought they should scarcely survive.

In the face of this unspeakable terror, at dawn part of the army prepared to take flight. While Louis was still sleeping in his pavilion, they craftily set fire to the tents. Because this was the signal for the retreat, the army rashly and in confusion hastened to depart, frightened by the unexpected retreat but not waiting to discuss it. The Lord Louis, confused by the impulsive rush and the great noise enquired what was going on, mounted his horse and rushed after the army, but because it had already dispersed far and wide he failed to bring it back. What could that young hero do than rush to arms with the few men he had managed to collect together, and make a wall to shield those who had fled ahead of him, and attack and be attacked time and again? Those who otherwise would have perished were able to flee quietly and securely; but because many of them fled in small groups far from him, they were captured by the enemy. Among these the most eminent were Hugh of Clermont himself and Guy of Senlis[2] and Herluin of Paris[3], as well as many knights of lesser birth and foot-soldiers.

Deeply wounded by this blow, for he had thus far been inexperienced in disaster when he returned to Paris he felt a totally unfamiliar anger arise in his soul. And as is usual among young men, at least those of them who aspire to valour, as anger moved him he fuelled it. Burning to avenge his injury at once, he gathered with wisdom and caution an army three times the size of the original one, and repeatedly declared with frequent sighs that he would rather face death than bear the shame. When his friends told Count Matthew, because he was a man of good breeding and courtesy, he regretted the shame he had accidentally inflicted on his lord and by repeated approaches sought to open the road to peace as quickly as possible.

With much civility and flattery he tried to pacify the young man, excusing himself, reasonably enough, on the ground that he has not inflicted this injury by design but by accident and showed himself willing to make all due satisfaction. Through many appeals, through the counsel of his household, and the rather belated insistence of his father, the young man’s anger was cooled. He pardoned the repentant noble, excused the injury, restored his losses as far as possible with the count’s cooperation, set free the captives, made peace with Hugh of Clermont, and thanks to the firm peace thus made was able to restore to him the part of the castle that was his.

---

[1] The attack on Chambly took place immediately after the attack on Luzarches in 1102: ibid, Luchaire, Louis VI le Gros, Annales de son vie et de son règne, n° 19. Orderic Vitalis 4:287 does not mention the storm but attributes the flight of Louis’ force to a trick. Chambly is about three miles north-west of Beaumont and twenty-eight miles north of Paris.

[2] Guy II de Senlis, sometimes called Guy de la Tour was held in great regard by Louis and frequently accompanied him. He was the father of Guy III who became ‘butler’ of the king in 1108: see Depoin, Jean, (ed.), Cartulaire de Saint-Martin de Pontoise, five vols. Pontoise: Société Historique du Vexin, 1895-1909, vol. 4, pp. 282-283.

[3] Herluin of Paris was a member of a family that can be traced back to the tenth century. He was the nephew of Ansoud and Miles of Paris who, in a diploma of 1047 are placed among the ‘optimates palatii Regis’. Herluin acted as the prince’s tutor, a title that continued to be used after Louis became king in 1108 suggesting a close relationship with the monarch.

Chapter 3

How Count Matthew of Beaumont was forced to restore the castle of Luzarches to Hugh of Clermont when the Lord Louis had besieged that castle with powerful forces

Meanwhile, Count Matthew of Beaumont[1], inspired by long bitterness moved against his father-in-law Hugh of Clermont[2], a noble man but pliant and rather too trusting. He completely occupied the castle of Luzarches[3], half of which was his as a result of his marriage agreement, and planned to defend the tower with arms and armed men. What could Hugh do? Hastening to the defender of the realm[4], he prostrated himself at his feet in tears and begged him that he should help an old man, giving aid to one so seriously troubled. ‘I would rather,’ he said, ‘My gracious lord, that you should have all my land, since I hold it of you, than that my unworthy son-in-law should have it. If he takes it from me, I shall wish to die.’ Deeply moved by his sorrowful plight, Louis put out his hand in friendship, promised him help and sent him home in joyful hope. ‘And his hope was not misplaced.’[5]

At once messengers left the court to meet the count and order him, in the name of the king to return in the ordinary way the land he had surprisingly despoiled; the legal case would be discussed on a fixed day at the royal court. When Matthew refused to obey, the defender of the realm hastened to vengeance. Gathering together a large army, he set out and approached the castle. He fought both with sword and fire, took the castle with a great fight, put a garrison into the tower and returned it defended to Hugh, just as he had begged.

---

[1] Matthew I (c.1075-1152) was count of Beaumont-sur-Oise, son of Yves III de Beaumont-sur-Oise (1040-after 1083) and Adélaïde de Gournay (1055-1099). He married Beatrice or Emma de Clermont, one of the eight children of Hugh de Clermont before 1101. He was brother-in-law of Hugh de Grentmesnil who had married Adeliza de Clermont.

[2] Hugh de Clermont (c.1030-1102) was father-in-law of Matthew de Beaumont. Clermont is about twenty-one miles north of Beaumont.

[3] Luzarches is about six miles south-east of Beaumont and nineteen miles north of Paris. The events in this chapter occurred in 1102: ibid, Luchaire, Louis VI le Gros, Annales de son vie et de son règne, n° 19.

[4] This is the first occasion that Suger uses this phrase and it seems that Louis was already associated with the throne of his father Philip.

[5] St Paul Epistle to the Romans, v, 3

Chapter 2

 

How he restrained Bouchard de Montmorency, a noble man and all his followers from attacking St. Denis

The famous young man Louis grew up to be cheerful, agreeable and kind, to the point that some people thought him simple.[1] As a distinguished and courageous defender of his father’s kingdom, he provided for the needs of churches and a thing that went right against recent custom worked for the peace of monks, labourers and the poor.[2]

Then, disputes arose over certain customs between Adam[3], the venerable abbot of St. Denis and Bouchard, the noble lord of Montmorency.[4] The argument reached such intensity of ill feeling that, throwing off homage[5] the two one-time allies fought it out with sword and fire. When this reached the ears of the Lord Louis, moved by righteous anger, without delay he forced Bouchard to appear before his father at the castle of Poissy[6] to submit to judgement. When Bouchard lost his case, he would not accept the judgement. He was not held in captivity, that is not the French custom but after his departure he quickly found out what unpleasantness and misfortune the disobedience of subjects earns from the royal majesty. The famous youth brought up an army against him and his confederates for Bouchard had been joined by the valiant and belligerent Matthew, count of Beaumont and Dreux de Mouchy-le-Châtel.[7] Louis ravaged Bouchard’s lands. He demolished the fortified places, destroyed the outer defences, though not the keep of the castle and gave everything over the fire, famine and the sword. Inside the castle, they tried to put up effective resistance. So with the French and Flemish solders brought by his uncle Robert, Louis besieged it. By these and other actions, he subjected the humiliated Bouchard to his will and pleasure and having obtained satisfaction he put an end to the quarrel that had caused the trouble.[8]

Then he attacked Dreux de Mouchy to avenge this and other uncalled-for attacks especially those on the church of Beauvais. Louis met him, surrounded by a great force of archers and crossbowmen only a short distance from his castle, so that his flight should be shorter if he was beaten. Louis rushed against him, prevented him from returning to the castle by force of arms, and then dashed into the midst of the enemy and through the gate. Great champion and distinguished swordsman that he was, in the castle he was frequently attacked and frequently attacked others. However, he would neither withdraw nor permit himself to be driven back until he had captured and completely reduced to cinders the whole castle up to the turret. Such was the passion of the prince that he took no pains to get away from the fire even when it became dangerous to him and his army and made him very hoarse. And thus, having humbled his enemy to the arm of God in whose name he fought, he conquered him as if he were a sick man and subdued him to his will.[9]

---

[1] Suger used the adjective ‘simplex’ (simple) in reference to Louis. Ibid, Mirot, L., (ed.), La Chronique de Morigny (1095-1152), p. 11 called him ‘homo simplicis naturae’ (a man of simple disposition); Ivo of Chartres used a similar phrase in one of his letters and Walter Map said that both Louis and his son Louis were men of ‘simpleness of speech’. Suger used the same word about Hugh de Clermont (chapter 3) and Odo de Corbeil (chapter 15). I suppose that today we would say that ‘Louis was ‘up-front’.

[2] The next eleven chapters of Suger’s text deal with Louis’ deeds while he was still ‘king-designate’ in the years before the death of his father in 1108.

[3] Montmorency is a few miles north of St-Denis and about seven miles north of Paris. It is of some significance that Louis’ first expedition outside the Vexin was undertaken against an enemy of Suger’s predecessor as abbot. It probably occurred in 1101: ibid, Luchaire, Louis VI le Gros, Annales de son vie et de son règne, n° 16. Adam was abbot from 1099 to 1122.

[4] Count Bouchard (Burchard) IV of Montmorency was born in 1077 and died on 9^th January 1132. He married Agnes de Beaumont. He was lord of Marly, Feuillade, Epinay, Saint-Brice and Hérouville

[5] The lords of Montmorency were vassals of the abbey of St-Denis.

[6] Poissy is eighteen miles west of Paris.

[7] Dreux [Drogo] III de Mouchy was born about 1080 and died in 1153. He married Edith de Warenne about 1109. Mouchy-le-Châtel is about fifteen miles north of Beaumont in the French Vexin and forty miles north of Paris. The campaign against Dreux is examined in ibid, Luchaire, Louis VI le Gros, Annales de son vie et de son règne, n° 18.

[8] Orderic Vitalis contradicts Suger at this point arguing that Louis was obliged to retire after a fruitless assault on the castle. The siege is recalled in a charter of Louis VI, of which the substance was passed in to a diploma of Philip Augustus of 1183-1184.

[9] It is almost certain that the campaign against Montmorency took place in 1101 because Robert of Flanders did not return from Jerusalem until the end of 1100.

Chapter 1: concluded

It was commonly said that this proud and impetuous king sought the French throne, because the famous prince was his father’s only son by his most noble wife, the sister[1] of Robert count of Flanders. The king also had two sons, Philip[2] and Florus, by his second wife Bertrada, countess of Anjou.[3] But they were not regarded as successors, had some misfortune brought about the death of the only heir. But because it is neither right nor natural[4] that the French should be subject to the English, but rather the English to the French, events played against this abhorrent hope. This foolish idea tormented King William and his men for three years or more but he lost heart when he understood that he could not win even though the English and the French were bound to him by ties of homage.[5] He sailed back to England[6], where he gave himself up to lust and the desires of his heart. One day, when he was hunting in the New Forest, he was suddenly hit by a misaimed arrow and died.[7]

It was thought that he had been struck by divine revenge because he had been an intolerable oppressor of the poor, a cruel depredator of churches and, on the deaths of bishops or prelates, an irreverent waster and keeper of their goods.[8] Some accused the noblest man Walter Tirel[9] of having shot the arrow. But I have often heard this Tirel, unconstrained by either hope or fear, swear and assert on oath that, on that day he neither entered the part of the wood where the king was, nor saw him at all in the forest.[10] So it is clear that when such a great folly and such a great person suddenly disappears into ashes, it must be divine power that brings it about for he who so deeply troubled others should be much more greatly tried, and he who coveted everything should be deprived of all. For God, who ‘unbelts the swordbelts of kings’[11] subjects kingdoms and the law of kingdoms to himself. His younger brother[12] succeeded William with great haste, since the elder, Robert was on the great expedition to the Holy Land. Henry was a most prudent man, whose worthy and exemplary strength of body and mind offer most pleasing material for a writer. But this is not my purpose. I shall only touch on such matters incidentally, just as I shall say something briefly of the kingdom of Lotharingia because I have set out to write a history of the deeds of the Franks, not of the English. 

---

[1] In 1070-1071, Philip intervened in the war of succession in Flanders, an action closely linked to his hostility of Normandy. He initially backed the widow and son of Baldwin VI, who were defeated at the battle of Cassel and had to accept the victorious Robert the Frisian as count. However, he married Robert’s step-daughter Bertha securing his alliance against Normandy. Bertha was the daughter of Count Florence of Holland and Gertrude of Saxony. After Florence’s death, Gertrude married Count Robert I ‘the Frisian’ of Flanders (1071-1093), the father of Count Robert II ‘the Jerusalamite’ (1093-1111). Bertha was Robert II’s uterine sister.

[2] Philip, Count of Mantes was born about 1093 in France and died after 1123 in Loire-Atlantique, Pays de la Loire. Fleury was born about 1095 in France and died after 1118. He was married to the heiress of Nangis in Champagne. Suger does not mention their daughter Cecile who married Tancred of Antioch.

[3] In 1092, after he repudiated Bertha, Philip I eloped with Bertrada of Montfort, wife of Fulk le Rechin IV, count of Anjou. Though almost all the French bishops supported his proposed marriage to her, an influential group of ecclesiastics especially Ivo of Chartres thought the marriage was incestuous and opposed it. Despite this, the marriage took place. Philip was excommunicated by Pope Urban II at the council of Clermont in 1095 but neither this nor the initial actions of his successor Pope Paschal II had much effect. Many lay contemporaries had few problems with Philip’s action that were seen as a sensible move to produce more heirs and so safeguard the succession. Reconciliation occurred between Philip and the Church after 1100 and at the council of Beaugency in 1104 he agreed to repudiate Bertrada. Despite this, he continued to live with her openly until his death in 1108. The problems arising from Philip’s conduct are discussed in Duby, Georges, Medieval Marriage: Two Models from Twelfth-Century France, Baltimore, 1978, pp. 29-45 and The Knight, the Lady and the Priest, Harmondsworth, 1983, pp. 3-21.

[4] Suger is here expressing more the views of the 1140s than of the 1090s. He observed that it was contrary of natural law for the French to be subject to the English and vice versa and that inevitably William’s ambition was thwarted. Ibid, Barlow, Frank, William Rufus, p. 378 commented, ‘William would not have cared for that denial of his French nationality.’

[5] Suger is writing with the advantage of hindsight. William had proved a very effective military leader in 1098-1099 in Maine and the Vexin and it would have been an optimist who, in 1100 would have seen war with William at an end.

[6] William returned to England from Normandy in September 1099. As ibid, Barlow, Frank, William Rufus, p. 408 says ‘[He] had not returned to England…to die, but to rest and plan new schemes, new conquests.’

[7] William died on Thursday 2^nd August 1100. Ibid, Barlow, Frank, William Rufus, pp. 419-432 considers the evidence for and against conspiracy but hunting accidents were not uncommon and an accident is the most likely, if mundane explanation. Hollister, C. Warren, ‘The Strange Death of William Rufus’, Speculum, vol. lxviii, (1973), pp. 637-53, reprinted in his Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions in the Anglo-Norman World, London, 1986, pp. 59-76 examines the cases for witchcraft and conspiracy before plumping for an accident. Mason, Emma, ‘William Rufus and the Historians’, Medieval History, vol. i, (1991), pp. 6-22 has suggested, though with little support that Tirel was acting as a ‘double agent’ for Philip I and his associate Louis though the actual murder could have been done by a companion of Tirel.

[8] Suger here reflected contemporary attitudes and was expressing a personal viewpoint. However, William’s reputation has always been higher than the strictly historical record suggests. It is the collection of his sayings that brings William out most distinctly, words that were recorded by ecclesiastical chroniclers often against their better judgement. They show a blunt, rough commander but shrewd and often generous monarch, always capable of emotion and always a gentleman. William might have liked to die a hero’s death amid the deadly hail of battle. To be deprived of this was the most terrible punishment that God could inflict. William was struck down when defenceless, impenitent, unshriven and irredeemable. The Church was not to be cheated.

[9] Walter Tirel was castellan of Poix and Pontoise where he retired after William’s death but without loosing any of his lands. He witnessed several of Louis’ charters: ibid, Luchaire, Louis VI le Gros, Annales de son vie et de son règne, n^o 9, 42 and 168. He died in 1123 on the way to the Holy Land.

[10] Like Suger, John of Salisbury in his revision of Eadmer’s Life of St Anselm in the 1160s was uncertain about the identification of Tirel as William’s killer.

[11] Book of Job xii, 18

[12] William was buried on Friday 3^rd August in the Old Minster, Winchester. Henry acted quickly securing the royal treasure at Winchester and gained sufficient support from the barons who happened to be present. He then moved quickly to London where he was crowned king at Westminster on Sunday 5^th August. On the problems of the succession see Green, Judith, Henry I, (Cambridge University Press), 2006, pp. 42-59 and Garnett, George, Conquered England: Kingship, Succession and Tenure 1066-1166, (Oxford University Press), 2007, especially pp. 115-119.

Chapter 1

How valiant he was in youth, and with what energy he repelled the king of the English, William Rufus, when he attacked Louis’ inherited kingdom

The glorious and famous king of the French Louis was the son of the magnificent king Philip.[1] In the first flower of his youth, barely then twelve or thirteen years old[2], he was elegant and handsome, admirable for his development of moral character and for the growth of a well-made body that had the potential for a swift and honourable expansion of his kingdom in the future and this encouraged great confidence that he would defend the churches and the poor. This noble youth, in accordance with the ancient custom of Charlemagne and other great kings testified by imperial charters, tied himself to the saintly martyrs and their servants at St.-Denis as if from a naturally sweet disposition. His long-standing friendship with their church was formed in his youth and lasted throughout his whole life, displaying great liberality and reverence. So much so that, at the end of his life, he placed his hope in them second only to God, and gave himself up to them, body and soul, with devotion and deliberation, so that, had it been possible, he would have become a monk there.[3]

In his formative years, growing courage matured his spirit with youthful vigour, making him bored with hunting and the boyish games that others of his age used to enjoy and forget the pursuit of arms. And when he was troubled by the attacks of many great men of the kingdom and of the outstanding and magnanimous king of the English William[4], son of the even more magnanimous king William the conqueror of the English, his stout heart soared at the chance to prove himself, his courage smiled at the test, he banished apathy, opened the gates to prudence, put an end to leisure and increased his concern. William king of the English was skilled in military arts, greedy for praise and eager for fame.[5] After his elder brother Robert[6] was disinherited, he was fortunate to succeed his father William. Then, after Robert’s departure for Jerusalem[7], he obtained the duchy of Normandy. There he put so much pressure on the Norman frontiers of the French kingdom[8] that whenever he could he forced the renowned young prince to fight.

While they fought, similarities and differences between them came to light. They were alike in that neither would yield. They were dissimilar in that one was a mature man, the other a youth. William was rich, wasteful with the treasures of England, a brilliant recruiter and paymaster of soldiers. Louis lacked money, sparing in using the treasures of his inherited kingdom, only getting an army together by hard work, yet prepared boldly to oppose.[9] You might have seen this young man dashing across the frontiers into Berry, then into the Auvergne, now into Burgundy, with a handful of men, and returning just as quickly to the Vexin[10], if he judged it necessary to confront with his three or five hundred men King William with his thousand.[11] The vicissitudes of war are uncertain and sometimes he yielded, sometimes he put his enemy to flight.[12]

In these encounters[13] many captives were taken on both sides. The famous youth and his men captured among many others, the count Simon[14], the noble baron William de l’Aigle[15], an equally illustrious figure in England and in Normandy, Pain of Gisors, for whose benefit the castle of Gisors was fortified for the first time; and on the other side, the king of England captured the bold and noble count Matthew of Beaumont[16], the illustrious and renowned baron Simon de Montfort[17], and Lord Pain of Montjay.[18] But while concerns about hiring soldiers[19] ensured the swift release of those from England, the rigours of a very long captivity weakened the French. They could not escape their chains by any means until they made homage to the English king, joined his service and promised on oath to attack and disturb their own king and his kingdom.[20]

---

[1] Fliche, A., La Règne de Philippe I, roi de France 1060-1108, Paris 1912 is the standard text while Gobry, Yvan, Histoire des Rois de France: Philippe I^er, père de Louis VI Le Gros, Paris, 2003, 2007 is the most recent study.

[2] Historians disagree about when Louis was born and there is a case for either 1077-1078 or 1081-1082: Calmette, Joseph, ‘L’âge de Louis VI’, Orientalia periodica, vol. xiii, (1947), pp. 36-39. Luchaire, Achille, Louis VI le Gros: Annales de son vie et de son règne, Paris, 1890, p. 289 gave excellent reasons in favour of 1081 and ibid, Fliche, A., La Règne de Philippe I, roi de France 1060-1108, p. 39 agreed. Suger’s account of the life of Louis begins in 1093-1094.

[3] Louis VI’s birth is the first occasion where a story about the birth of a Capetian heir has survived. Bertha of Flanders had long been barren when the king, both personally and through others, begged St Arnulf, about of Saint-Médard to intercede with God ‘that He be willing to give him a son as successor for the safeguard of the kingdom and the defence of the Holy Church’. Initially the abbot refused but later agreed telling the queen to care for the poor. Some time later, he told a monk to go to the queen: ‘And you will announce to her the wished-for joy, for she is bearing in her womb a son, whom at the holy font she shall name Louis and who after his father’s death will hold the kingdom of the French.’ The saint spoke from revelation: not until five days after she received the message did the queen feel the child move in her. The tale is found in a saint’s vita that was finished in 1114: Hariulf ‘Vita S, Arnulfi episcopi Suessionensis’, Patrologia Latina, 1399: columns 1405-1406. Before 1114, Louis VI was believed by some not only to have been born heir to the throne but that his birth was accompanied by some miraculous elements. The religious significance of the legend reinforces the support shown before 1088 by the monks of St. Riquet in Ponthieu for the legend of St Valéry’s appearance to Hugh Capet and had changed it so that it was now St Riquet who had promised the throne to Hugh and seven generations of his descendents. The tale spread widely in north-east France and Normandy perhaps because of rivalry between the monks of St Valéry and those of St Riquet on behalf of their respective saints. The legend is based on the premise that the Capetians became rulers of France because God recognised their merits and is antithetical to the formula that based their legitimacy on Carolingian descent: Lewis, Andrew W., Royal Succession in Capetian France, Cambridge, Mass., 1981, pp. 49-50.

[4] William II, generally know as ‘Rufus’ reigned from September 1087 until August 1100. Barlow, Frank, William Rufus, revised edition, (Yale University Press), 2000 is the most accessible study of his life. Suger’s comments about William Rufus were far more positive than most contemporary writers in part the result of his having given land to St-Denis and by emphasising William’s merits he could explain the young Louis’ lack of success against him.

[5] Suger’s attitude to William Rufus is set in its historiographical context by Callaghan, Thomas, ‘The Making of a Monster: Historical Images of William Rufus’, Journal of Medieval History, vol. vii, (1981), pp. 175-185 especially p. 180 and Mason, Emma, ‘William Rufus and the Historians’, Medieval History, vol. I, (1991), pp. 6-22.

[6] Robert Curthose was William the Conqueror’s eldest son and inherited the duchy of Normandy and county of Maine on his father’s death in 1087: David, C.W., Robert Curthose, Duke of Normandy, Cambridge, Mass., 1920 remains useful but Aird, William M., Robert ‘Curthose’, Duke of Normandy, (Boydall Press), 2008 places a more positive evaluation of his achievements than the majority of medieval sources arguing that this negative image has adversely influenced modern interpretations of his career.

[7] Robert Curthose went on the First Crusade in 1096 and pledged his duchy to William Rufus for a loan of 10,000 marks of silver he needed for the enterprise. When Rufus took possession of the duchy in September 1096, the Conqueror’s inheritance was effectively reconstructed even if he was never duke en titre.

[8] In this sense, Suger use of the term ‘realm’ (‘regnum’) creates problems of definition. In this instance, Suger is referring to the royal principality of largely the Ile-de-France. On the ambiguity of the term and its possible meanings, see Wood, Charles T,. ‘Regnum Francie: A Problem of Capetian Administrative Usage’, Traditio, vol. xxiii, (1967), pp. 117-147.

[9] The idea that England was far richer than France came from the words that Walter Map attributed to Louis VI, words he claimed he heard the king say: ‘The king of England, who lacks nothing, possesses men, horses, gold and soil…We, in France have only got bread, wine and a good mood’: De nugis curialium, in Monumenta Germaniae, Scriptores, vol. xxvii, p. 73.

[10] There is a useful map of the French Vexin in ibid, Barlow, Frank, William Rufus, p. 377. It lies either side of the River Seine from Rouen down towards Paris. There was an alleged grant of the Vexin to duke Robert I of Normandy in 1033 and ducal influence over the area remained strong until 1077 when the last Valois count, Simon of Crépy abdicated in order to become a monk. Philip I then enfeoffed his younger brother, Hugh the Great with Vermandois and Crépy but kept the French Vexin under his own protection because of its strategic importance. The area proved to be one of persistent conflict between successive English and French kings; it was in making a raid on Mantes in the Vexin that William I was fatally wounded in 1087.

[11] In 1092, Louis was invested with the Vexin and the towns of Mantes and Pontoise, Philip I’s acquisitions from the succession to Simon de Crépy: Ibid, Fliche, A., La Règne de Philippe I, roi de France 1060-1108, p. 79. It is his spirited defence of his apanage that is described by Abbot Suger.

[12] Suger’s account of the Vexin wars is generalised and he gives Louis a far more dominating role than Orderic Vitalis. However, it has been suggested by ibid, Luchaire, Achille, Louis VI le Gros: Annales de son vie et de son règne, pp. xv-xxiii that Suger described only the war of 1097-1098 and omitted that of 1098-1099 because Louis had quarrelled with his father and was no longer in command. However, two of the French losses mentioned, Simon de Montfort and Matthew de Beaumont-sur-Oise are more likely to have occurred in the second rather than the first part of the campaign. Louis was knighted by Guy I, count of Ponthieu on 24^th May 1098 against the wishes of Philip and the Betrada of Montfort faction and Louis took refuge in Flanders to escape his father’s anger. Suger had every reason to blur the story of the war.

[13] The Vexin wars of 1097-1098 and 1098-1099 are only examined in any detail by Orderic Vitalis, vol. v, 212 ff. They are completely omitted by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and so from all the English histories that relied on the Chronicle. Orderic’s interest in the war may, in part have been motivated by the fact that his abbey of St Evroult had a special interest in the Vexin in which it had two dependent priories: one at Maule south of Meulan and the other north of Parnes, near Chaumont. Suger’s account is, by contrast, brief and lacking in detail.

[14] Simon de St Liz had married the daughter of Earl Waltheof and became count of Huntingdon and Northampton.

[15] William, de l’Aigle was the son of Richer I, lord of Laigle and had several castles in England. He was married to Julienne (born c.1070), a daughter of the Geoffrey II court of Perche (c.1033-1100) in 1091. He should not be confused with William de L’Aigle, his paternal uncle, lord of the manor of Exmes, who was killed in February 1092.

[16] Beaumont-sur-Oise is in Seine-et-Oise and in the canton de L'Isle-Adam. Matthew was the son of count Ivo III, known as ‘the Clerk’ who probably died in 1081. One of his sisters, Agnes was married to Bouchard IV de Montmorency. On the subject of the succession to Ivo ‘the Clerk’, see Depoin, J., ‘Les comtes de Beaumont-sur-Oise et le prieuré de Conflans Sainte-Honorine’, in Les Mémoires de la Société historique ... de Pontoise et du Vexin, vol. xxxiii, (1915), pp. 31-33.

[17] Suger mentions the capture by the English of Simon de Montfort. In his edition, Waquet identifies him with Simon II the Younger but Marjorie Chibnall in her edition of Orderic Vitalis makes him Simon I the Elder. There is some confusion here and it is possible that Suger’s Simon de Montfort is a mistake for Amaury II, his half-brother. Simon II ‘the Young’ was the second son of the third marriage of Simon I. He was succeeded in 1092 by his son Richard but he died without heirs before 1101. See Rhein, A, .La seigneurie de Montfort-en-Iveline, Versailles, 1910, pp. 36-50.

[18] The correct name for Pain was Aubri. He was in the entourage of Philip I and Louis VI from 1090 to 1122: ibid, Luchaire, Louis VI le Gros, Annales de son vie et de son règne, n° 2 and 319. Montjay-la-Tour is about fifteen miles north-east of Paris.

[19] Both sides hired mercenaries for these campaigns and Orderic Vitalis shows that only two of the major leaders in William’s army had significant English interests.

[20] In the winter of 1097-1098, William did little more than reconnoitre and lay the foundations of a castle at Gisor though Orderic Vitalis mentioned skirmishing in this area. In February 1098, William abandoned the Vexin war to deal with problems in Maine, leading to its conquest and war in the Vexin was not restarted until September. In the spring of 1099, William made a truce with the French and returned to England

Prologue

To the most reverend Josselin lord bishop of Soissons[1], Suger by the patience of God abbot of the blessed St. Denis[2] the Areopagite[3], servant of God as best he can be, hoping to be united with the bishop of bishops.[4]

We should submit ourselves and our works for the consideration and judgement of those by whom, on the day of judgement the sentence of love or hate will be pronounced according to deserts, when ‘the noble man shall sit in the gates with the senators of this earth.’[5] Therefore, best of men, even had you not occupied the episcopal throne, to which I am wholly devoted as you are yourself. I could say no more of you than that you asked of me. That is why I am sending for your approval and wisdom the deeds of the most serene Louis, King of the French. Thus, because he showed himself the most generous of lords in promoting us and also when we had been promoted, both I in writing and you in correcting may equally praise the man whom we have equally loved and whose death we equally mourn. For friendship, even when it is born of benefits received, puts no barriers in the way of love, since He who ordered us to love our enemies did not prevent us loving our friends. So in payment of a double debt of gratitude and love, unequal but not irreconcilable, let us build him ‘a monument more lasting than bronze.’[6] So with my pen, I describe his devotion to the worship of God by the church and his passion for the good of the kingdom, which ought not fade from men’s memory with the passage of time; nor should the zealous prayers of the interceding church cease from generation to generation, because of the great benefits it received from him.

May your highness occupy happily your episcopal throne among the senators of the sky.

---

[1] Josselin de Quierzy (or Vierzy) (-1152), surnamed ‘the Red’ was archdeacon of Bourges and then bishop of Soissons. He was elected bishop of Soissons in 1126 and died on 24^th October 1152. He was a friend of Suger and owed his advancement to Louis VI. The letters of St Bernard suggest that Josselin and Sugar cooperated in affairs of state and in 1129-30 Josselin was one of the bishops who supported the claims of St-Denis over the house of Argeneuil.

[2] St Denis was bishop of Paris and martyr. Nothing is known of his birth or his early life, other than he came from Italy. His feast is kept on 9^th October. He is usually represented with his head in his hands because according to the legend after his execution the corpse rose again and carried the head for some distance. While still very young, he was distinguished for his virtuous life, knowledge of sacred things and firm faith and Pope Fabian (236-250) sent him with some other missionary bishops to Gaul. The Church of Gaul had suffered terribly under the persecution of the Emperor Decius and the bishops were to try to restore it to its former flourishing condition. Denis with his inseparable companions, the priest Rusticus and the deacon Eleutherius, arrived near the present city of Paris and settled on the island in the Seine. The earliest document that gives an account of his labours and of his martyrdom is Passio SS. Dionsyii, Rustici et Eleutherii. It dates from the end of the sixth or the beginning of the seventh century and wrongly attributed to the poet Venantius Fortunatus. It is interwoven with much legend, from which, however, the following facts can be gleaned. On the island in the Seine Denis built a church and provided for a regular solemnisation of the Divine service. His fearless preaching led to countless conversions. This aroused the envy, anger and hatred of the heathen priests. They incited the populace against the strangers and persuaded the governor Fescenninus Sisinnius to put a stop to the new teaching by force. Denis with his two companions were seized and as they maintained their faith were beheaded (about 275) after many tortures. Later accounts give a detailed description of their sufferings. They were scourged, imprisoned, racked, thrown to wild beasts, burnt at the stake, and finally beheaded. Gregory of Tours stated ‘Beatus Dionysius Parisiorum episcopus diversis pro Christi nomine adfectus poenis praesentem vitam gladio immente finivit’ (Historia Francorum I: 30). The bodies of the three holy martyrs were buried through the efforts of a pious matron named Catulla and a small shrine was erected over their graves. This was later on replaced by a basilica. From the reign of King Dagobert I (622-638), the church and the Benedictine monastery attached to it were more and more beautifully decorated. The veneration of St. Denis became by degrees a national devotion, rulers and princes vying with one another to promote it

[3] The abbey of St-Denis owed a great deal of its status to a curious process by which three different people had come to be seen as one person. In Acts 17: 34, St Paul numbered among one of his converts in Athens one St Dionysius (French Denis) the ‘Areopagite’, later bishop of Athens. In the third century, a second Dionysius, who seems to have been bishop of Paris was martyred. Finally, in the early sixth century, an eastern author of texts on themes like the unknowability of God and the hierarchy of angels added the name Dionysius the Areopagite to his work. The identification of St. Denis of Paris with St. Dionysius the Areopagite and with the Pseudo-Dionysius, the composer of the Areopagitic writings persisted throughout the Middle Ages. The combining of these three persons in one occurred as early as the eighth or perhaps the seventh century, but it was only through the Areopagitica written in 836 by Hilduin, Abbot of Saint-Denis, at the request of Louis the Pious, that this serious error took deep root: see Levillain, L., ‘Etudes sur l’abbaye de Saint-Denis a l’epoque merovingienne’, in Bibliotheque a l’Ecole des Chartes, vol. lxxxii, (1902), pp. 31-36. When Suger thought of the patron saint of his abbey, he viewed a particularly impressive figure: an individual who had direct contact with St Paul and the author of important theological works and who had been martyred for the faith. St-Denis had benefited from royal patronage since the Merovingian period and various Merovingian, Carolingian and Capetian monarchs were buried there. By the twelfth century many people felt that the blessed Dionysius was in some ways patron saint of France and that the abbey had special ties with the French monarchy. It is not surprising that when Peter Abelard denied the claims of the monks that their patron was the Areopagite in the 1120s that he was regarded as ‘a traitor to the whole country’. For the linkage between St-Denis and the French monarchy, see: Crosby, S.M., The Royal Abbey of St Denis: From Its Beginnings to the Death of Suger 475-1151, New Haven, 1987 and Spiegel, Gabrielle M,. ‘The Cult of Saint Denis and Capetian Kingship’, Journal of Medieval History, vol. i, (1975), pp. 43-70, reprinted in her ibid, The Past as Text: The Theory and Practice of Medieval Historiography, pp. 138-162. Beaune, Colette, Naissance de la nation France, Paris, 1985, pp. 83-90 examines the cult of the blessed Dionysius before Suger.

[4] ‘Bishop of bishops’ refers to Christ: see Thesaurus Linguae Latinae 5/2 678, 72-75 for applications of the term ‘episcopus episcoporum’ to Christ among the Church Fathers.

[5] Proverbs XXXI, 23.

[6] Horace, Odes III, 30, v 1.

The translation

The Vita Ludovici, like the vast majority of texts written before the age of the printing press, survives in a fairly large number of manuscripts, all of which differ from one another in a variety of ways, but most of which were copied during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, when the text was most popular. This translation uses Manuscripts A-H. I have used a translation made by Jean Dunbabin as the basis for this work though I have checked the Latin texts of Molinier and Waquet, three French translations and the one translation published in English making alterations to improve both their accuracy and readability. The annotations are grounded in Henri Waquet’s edition and translation though I have substantially extended them.

I decided not to ‘re’ construct and translate ‘the’ text as it hypothetically left the pen of its author, but to make available ‘a’ text of Suger’s history that was actually read, or which (at least) was actually present in someone’s library collection. This translation is my own attempt at a ‘critical edition’, that is yet another composite version of the various manuscripts. However, the version presented here is the result of my becoming increasingly persuaded that ‘editions’ of medieval texts can only be, at best, misleading.

I was first introduced to the debate over the value of so-called ‘critical editions’ approximately fifteen years ago, when I read an article by Leonard Boyle. Boyle argued that despite the enormous difficulty inherent in any attempt to ‘re-create’ the ‘original’ version of a pre printing-era text as it left the pen of its author, if the editor were careful and painstaking enough, taking into account every possible clue offered by the various manuscript witnesses, he could succeed. At the time I was persuaded by his arguments and it was under the influence of his call for scrupulous transcriptions that I began my own attempt to establish ‘the’ translation of Suger’s narrative. However, Boyle’s arguments soon came to appear, to my mind, completely beside the point. It now seems irrelevant whether we can or cannot re-construct accurately the version of a text produced by a given author at a particular moment. If we succeed, we will still only offer to our readers a text that probably no one ever saw; if, as is more likely, we fail, we offer to our readers a text that no one ever saw, a figment of our own imaginations. Some of the more radical participants in recent literary-critical debates have attacked the very idea of an author for pre-printing-era texts.[1] I do not deny the importance of the person of Abbot Suger, but I do insist that we shift our focus, when dealing with pre-1450 texts, away from the ‘modern’ construct of the edition and towards the pre-‘modern’ concrete reality of the manuscript.[2]

Unfortunately, my courage has sometimes failed me. I made concessions and compromises and have, in a number of ways, sacrificed ‘authenticity’ for ‘readability’. The chapter divisions, sentence divisions and intra-sentence punctuation of the translation are largely those of Manuscript A. Paragraph structure can play a large role in determining meaning, in determining how a given text is read. It is important to keep in mind the artificiality of the breaks in the translation. Also, neither Arabic numerals in general nor the convention of citing texts by numerical indicators, both of which are standard features of ‘modern’ scholarship have any relevance to medieval France around the year 1140. Finally, twelfth-century Latin scribes rarely capitalised anything. Therefore, the vast majority of capitalised words which do not begin new sentences (most significantly words referring to the God of the Christians) are concessions to ‘modern’ conventions. The result is a modified version of the manuscripts of the Vita Ludovici representing a compromise of the ‘text’ and the need for its ‘translation’.

---

[1] For instance, Masters, Bernadette A., Esthétique et manuscripture. Le 'Moulin à paroles' au moyen âge, Heidelberg, 1992; note, however, that Masters does not merely attack the idea of an author so much as she proposes a completely new way to conceptualise the pre-’modern’ author as a collective person.

[2] A recent example of this approach is Gehrke, Pamela, Saints and Scribes: Medieval Hagiography in its Manuscript Context, Berkeley, 1994.

Bibliography: 2

The growing importance of the history of art 1950-2000

The period since 1950 has seen a major and often important increase in studies on the history of art. Of particular significance is the work of E. Panofsky especially his Abbot Suger on the Abbey Church of Saint-Denis and its Art Treasures, 2^nd ed., Princeton, 1976 containing an excellent bibliography and the papers from the symposium on Suger held in New York in 1981 and published as P.L. Gerson (ed.), Abbot Suger and Saint-Denis: a Symposium, New York, 1986. Unlike the previous two sections, the material below is alphabetical.

Baldwin, J., The Government of Philip Augustus, Berkeley, 1986, has some useful things to say about Louis VI and Suger.

Barroux, R., ‘L’ abbé Suger et la vassalité du Vexin en 1124’, Le Moyen Age, vol. lxiv, (1958), pp. 1-26.

Bautier, R. H., ‘Paris au temps d’Abélard’, Abélard en son temps, Paris, 1981, pp. 21-77; the papers from an important international colloque.

Beaune, C., Naissance de la nation France, Paris, 1985, published in English as The Birth of an Ideology: Myths and Symbols of Nation in Late-Medieval France, University of California, 1991.

Bedos Rezak, B., ‘Suger and the symbolism of royal power: the seal of Louis VII’, P.L. Gerson (ed.), Abbot Suger and Saint-Denis: a Symposium, New York, 1986, pp. 95-103.

Benson, R. L. and Constable, G., (eds.), Renaissance and Renewal in the Twelfth Century, Oxford, 1982.

Benton, J. F. ‘Suger’s life and personality’, P.L. Gerson (ed.), Abbot Suger and Saint-Denis: a Symposium, New York, 1986, pp. 3-15.

Bony, J., French Gothic Architecture, California University Press, 1983.

Bourderon R. and Peretti, P. de, Histoire de Saint-Denis, Toulouse, 1988.

Bournazel, E., ‘Suger and the Capetians’, P.L. Gerson (ed.), Abbot Suger and Saint-Denis: a Symposium, New York, 1986, pp. 55-72.

Bournazel, E., Le Gouvernement capétien au XII^e siecle, 1108-1180: Structures sociales et mutations institutionelles, Paris, 1975.

Bournazel, E., Louis VI Le Gros, Fayard, 2007, now the leading biography.

Bur, M., ‘A note on Suger’s understanding of political power’, P.L. Gerson (ed.), Abbot Suger and Saint-Denis: a Symposium, New York, 1986, pp. 73-75.

Bur, M., Suger Abbé de Saint-Denis Régent de France, Paris, 1991.

Caviness, M. H., ‘Suger’s glass at Saint-Denis: The state of research’, P.L. Gerson (ed.), Abbot Suger and Saint-Denis: a Symposium, New York, 1986, pp. 257-272.

Clark, N. W., ‘Suger’s church at Saint-Denis: The state of research’, P.L. Gerson (ed.), Abbot Suger and Saint-Denis: a Symposium, New York, 1986, pp. 105-130.

Constable, G., ‘Suger’s monastic administration’, P.L. Gerson (ed.), Abbot Suger and Saint-Denis: a Symposium, New York, 1986, pp. 17-32.

Crosby, S., The Royal Abbey of Saint-Denis from Its Beginning to the Death of Suger, 475-1151, Yale Publications in the History of Art, two vol.s, 1987.

Crosby, S., Hayward, J., Little, C., and Wixom, W. D., The Royal Abbey of Saint-Denis in the Time of Abbot Suger, New York, 1981, a catalogue for an exhibition at The Metropolitan Museum.

Dufour, J., Recueil des Actes de Louis VI, rois de France (1108-1137), four vols. Paris, 1992-1994 a definitive study of the acts of Louis VI complementing and yet superceding A. Luchaire Louis VI le Gros. Annales de sa vie et son règne, Paris, 1890. The acts are in vols. 1 and 2, the introduction is vol. 3 and an index is in vol. 4.

Formige, J., L’Abbaye royale de Saint-Denis. Recherches nouvelles, Paris, 1960.

Gerson, P.L., ‘Suger as iconographer: The central portal of the west façade of the abbey church of Saint-Denis’, L. Gerson (ed.), Abbot Suger and Saint-Denis: a Symposium, New York, 1986, pp. 183-198.

Gobry, Ivan, Louis VI, père de Louis VII, Pygmalion, 2003, 2007, a straightforward narrative.

Grant, Linda, ‘Suger and the Anglo-Norman world’, Anglo-Norman Studies, vol. 19, (1997), pp. 51-68.

Grant, Linda, Abbot Suger of St-Denis: Church and State in Early Twelfth-Century France, London, 1998, the most readily available study in English.

Grodecki, L., ‘Abélard et Suger’, Le Moyen Age retrouvé de l’an Mil a l’an 1200, Paris, 1986, pp. 217-222.

Grodecki, L., ‘Les vitreux de Saint-Denis, étude sur le vitrail au XII^e siècle’, Corpus vitrearum Medii Aevi, Paris, 1976, pp. 93-103.

Grosse Rolf, Saint-Denis zwischen Adel und König. Die Zeit vor Suger (1053- 1122), Sigmaringen, Thorbecke, 2002.

Hanning, R. W., ‘Suger’s literary style and vision’, L. Gerson (ed.), Abbot Suger and Saint-Denis: a Symposium, New York, 1986, pp. 145-150.

Lemarignier, J. F., Le gouvernement royal aux premier temps capetiens 987-1108, Paris, 1965

Leroy, Y., ‘La chronique de Morigny et le scare de Louis VII’, Revue historique de droit français et étranger, vol. 4, (1987), pp. 527-544.

Leroy, Y., Le Tresor de Saint-Denis, Paris, 1991, catalogue for an exhibition at the Louvre.

Lewis, A. W., ‘Suger’s views of kingship’, L. Gerson (ed.), Abbot Suger and Saint-Denis: a Symposium, New York, 1986, pp. 49-54.

Lombard-Jourdan, A., ‘Les foires de l’abbaye de Saint-Denis’, Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Chartres, vol. cxlv, (1987), pp. 273-338.

Maines, C., ‘Good works, social ties and the hope for salvation’, L. Gerson (ed.), Abbot Suger and Saint-Denis: a Symposium, New York, 1986, pp. 77-94.

Nebbia Dalla Garda, A., La Bibliothèque de l’abbaye de Saint-Denis en France du IX^e au XVIII^e siecle, Paris, 1985.

Pacaut, M., Louis VII et son royaume, Paris, 1964.

Prou, M., Recueil des Actes de Philippe I, roi de Frances (1059-1108), Paris, 1908 covers the acts of Louis VI’s father.

Quesnay-Adams, J du, ‘The influence of Lucan on the political attitude of Suger of Saint-Denis’, Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Western Society for French History, vol. xii, (1984), pp. 1-11.

Quesnay-Adams, J du, ‘The Regnum Francie of Suger of Saint-Denis: An Expansive Ile-de-France’, Historical Reflexions, vol. xix, (1993), pp. 167-188.

Rasmussen, N. K., ‘The liturgy of Saint-Denis: a preliminary study’, L. Gerson (ed.), Abbot Suger and Saint-Denis: a Symposium, New York, 1986, pp. 41-47.

Rockwell, A., Glass, Stones and Crown: The Abbé Suger and the Building of Saint-Denis, New York, 1968.

Rorem Paul, Pseudo-Dionysius, The Complete Works, Paulist Press 1987.

Rorem Paul, Pseudo-Dionysius: A Commentary on the Texts and an Introduction to their Influence, Oxford University Press. 1993.

Rudolph, C., Artistic Change at Saint-Denis: Abbot Suger’s Program and the Early Twelfth Century Controversy over Art, Princeton, 1990.

Spiegel, G., ‘History as enlightenment: Suger and the mos anagogicus’, L. Gerson (ed.), Abbot Suger and Saint-Denis: a Symposium, New York, 1986, pp. 151-158.

Thomas-Derevoge, Philippe, L’Aigle de l’Abbe Suger, Rocher, 2008.

Verdier, P., ‘Some new readings of Suger’s writings’, L. Gerson (ed.), Abbot Suger and Saint-Denis: a Symposium, New York, 1986, pp. 159-162.

Waldmann, T., ‘Abbot Suger and the nuns of Argengteuil’, Traditio, vol. xli, (1985), pp. 239-272.

Wyss, M et al, Atlas historique de Saint-Denis. Des origins au XVIII^e siecle, Paris, 1996.

Zinn, G. A., ‘Suger, theology and the pseudo-dionysian tradition’, L. Gerson (ed.), Abbot Suger and Saint-Denis: a Symposium, New York, 1986, pp. 33-40.

Bibliography

The bibliography adopts a chronological approach largely because this allows the historiography of studies of Suger to be identified, an approach used by Bur, Michel, Suger Abbé de Saint-Denis Régent de France, Paris, 1991, pp. 325-338.

Establishing the chronology 1600-1900

This period is dominated by the narrative account of Suger, his role as abbot of St-Denis and as the royal administrator. It also saw the creation of the first modern editions of the Vita Ludovici. With the exception of the work of M. Félibien, O. Cartellieri and A. Luchaire, most are now only of historiographical interest.

Doublet, Histoire de l’abbaye de S.Denys, Paris 1625.

Baudier, Histoire de l’administration de Suger, Paris, 1645.

Félibien, M.,. Histoire de l’abbaye royale de S. Denys, Paris, 1706.

Gervaise, D., Histoire de Suger, three vols. Paris, 1721.

Garat, Eloge de Suger, prix de l’Académie français, Paris, 1779.

Séchelles, Hérault de, Eloge de Suger, Paris, 1779

Jumel, Eloge de Suger, Paris, 1779.

De Chasteler, Eloge historique de Suger, Paris, 1779.

De Langeac, Lespinasse, Suger, moine de Saint-Denis, Paris 1779.

Des Mesmons, Eloge de Suger, Amsterdam, (Paris), 1780.

De Laussat, Discours sur l’abbé Suger et son vie, Geneva, (Paris), 1780.

Demalle, Eloge de Suger, Amsterdam and Paris, 1780.

Deslyons, Eloge historique de Suger, London, 1780.

L’abbé d’Espagnac, Reflexions sur l’abbé Suger at son siècle, London, 1780.[1]

L’abbé de St. Martin, Response aux reflections sur l’abbé Suger et son siècle, Paris 1780.[2]

Nettement, Alfred., Histoire de Suger, Paris, 1842, Suger et son temps. Nouvelle édition, revue, corrigée et considérablement augmentée, 2^nd ed., Paris, (A. Varigault à Lagny pour) Lecoffre, 1867.

De Saint-Méry, Suger ou la France au douzième siècle, Limoges, 1851.

Combes, F., L’abbé Suger, histoire de son monastère et sa régence, Paris, 1853.

Huguenin, M., Etude sur abbé Suger, thesis, Paris, 1855.

Huguenin, M., Suger at la monarchie française au douzième siècle, Paris 1857.

Darras, Abbé, Saint-Denis l’aréopagite premier évèque de Paris, Paris, 1863

Lecoy de la Marche, A., (ed.), Oeuvres completes de Suger, recueilles, annotées er publiées d’après les manuscrits, Paris 1867, introduction of Suger’s writings, pp. i-xx.

Chevellier, U., Revue critique d’Histoire et de Littérature, vol. xxxii, (1868), pp. 82-86 provides a more detailed bibliography of material on Suger published before 1865.

Viollet, Paul, ‘Une grand chronique latine de Saint-Denis: observations pour server à l’histoire des oeuvres de Suger’, Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Chartres, vol. xxxiv, (1873), pp. 241-254.

Menault, E., Suger, agriculteur, abbé de Saint-Denis, coloniseur, fondateur de villes neuves, minister, regent de France, père de la Patrie, Paris, 1884.

Molinier, Auguste, (ed.), Vie de Louis le Gros par Suger, suivi par l’histoire du roi Louis VII, Collection de texts pour server a l’etude at a l’enseignement de l’Histoire, Paris 1887, useful introduction, pp. v-ix, xiii-xxxx.

Luchaire, A., Louis VI le Gros. Annales de sa vie et son règne, Paris, 1890, remains an essential study of the sources for Louis’ reign but now needs to be read in relation to J. Dufour Recueil des Acts de Louis VI, rois de France (1108-1137), four vols. Paris, 1992-1994.

Thompson, J. W., The Development of the French Monarchy under Louis VI le Gros 1108-1137, Chicago, 1895.

Lecoy de la Marche, A., ‘Suger’, La France chrétienne dans l’Histoire, Paris, 1896, pp. 148-158.

Cartellieri, O., Abt Suger von Saint-Denis, Historische Studien, vol. xi, Berlin, 1898: this volume remains essential for the catalogue of Suger’s actas.

Extending the scope 1900-1950

The first half of the twentieth century saw the publication of early studies on the history of art, the continued publication of valuable source material and modern studies of the abbey of St-Denis. The period ends with the publication of a biography of Suger by M. Aubert.

Male, E., ‘Le part de Suger dans la création de l’iconographie du Moyen Age’, Revue de l’art ancient et moderne, vol. xxxv, (1914-1915), pp. 91-102, 161-168, 253-262 and 339-349.

Levillain, L., ‘Essai sur les origins du Lendit’, Revue historique, vol. clvii, (1927), pp. 241-276.

Male, E., L’Art religieux du XII^e siecle en France, Paris, 1922, 3^rd ed., 1928.

Olivier-Martin F., Etudes sur les régences, vol. I: Les régences et les majorités sous les Capétiens directs et les premiers Valois (1060-1375), Paris, 1931.

Lebel, G., Histoire administrative, économique et financière de Saint-Denis, Paris, 1934.

Lebel, G., Catalogue des actes de Saint-Denis relatifs a la province ecclésiastique de Sens de 1151 a 1346, Paris, 1935.

Meredith-Jones, C., (ed.), Historia Karoli Magni et Rothlandi ou Chronique du Pseudo-Turpin, Paris, 1936, reissued, 1972.

Gandillac, M. De, Oeuvres completes du Pseudo-Denys, Paris, 1943, translation of the essential works.

Briere G. and Vitry, P., L’Abbaye de Saint-Denis, Petites monographies des grands edifices de la France, Paris, 1948

Aubert, M., Figures monastiques: Suger, Saint-Wandrille, 1950.

---

[1] Les Réflexions sur Sugar et son Siècle were written by M.R.M. d’Amarzit de Saruget, Abbé d’Espagnac and published in 1780, in which he ‘entrait en campagne contre les rois, le clergé, les monastères et autres institutions qu’il était à la mode de dénigrer.’ It was an answer to Dominique Garat’s prizewinning essay L’Éloge de l'Abbé Suger (1779, Académie Française). Espagnac was a literary orientated man who tried to get as close to Voltaire as he could and in fact is labelled ‘un de ses bons disciples’. Dominique Garat was a French statesman and Suger's political descendant.

[2] The Abbé Louis Pierre de Saint-Martin was born in Paris, 1733, became ‘avocat au Parlement, et devint conseiller clerc au Chatelet de Paris, en 1783’. He was an adherant of the principles of the French revolution and had a distinguished legal career during and after the revolution. He died in Liège in 1819.

Editions and translations

The following editions of the text of the Vita Ludovici have been produced.

Pithou, P., Historia Francorum scriptores, vol. xi, Frankfort, 1596, pp. 95-135 based on the complete Manuscript B; a weak edition largel because of the inadequacies of the manuscript used.

Duchesne, A., Historiae Francorum Scriptores coaetanei, vol. iv, Paris, 1641, pp. 281-327: based on Mansucripts B and E; an infinitely superior edition to Pithou.

Bouquet, D., Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, vol. xii, 1781, pp. 10-63: based on Manuscripts A, D, E, G and Duchesne.

Migne, J. P., Patrologia Latina, vol. clxxxvi, Paris 1854, columns 1253-1340: after Bouquet.

Lecoy de la Marche, A., (ed.), Oeuvres completes de Suger, recueilles, annotées er publiées d’après les manuscrits, Paris 1867, pp. 1-149: based on Manuscripts A, B, C, D, E, and G; superior to the earlier editions but it lacks footnotes.

Molinier, Auguste, (ed.), Vie de Louis le Gros par Suger, suivi par l’histoire du roi Louis VII, Collection de texts pour server a l’etude at a l’enseignement de l’Histoire, Paris 1887, pp. 1-146: based on Mansucripts A-G.

Waquet, Henri, (ed.), Vie de Louis VI le Gros, Les classiques de l’histoire de France au Moyen Age, Paris, 1929, reprinted, Les Belles Lettres, Paris, 1964: based on Manuscripts A-H.

The following translations of the Vita Ludovici have been produced.

Primat, Grandes Chroniques de France, 1274, edited P. Paris, vol. iii, 1837, pp. 207-355 and J. Viard (ed.), Les Grandes Chroniques de France, Société de l’histoire de France, vol. v, Paris, 1928, pp. 80-283. This translation followed Manuscript E, somewhat inaccurately.

Guizot, F., Vie de Louis VI le Gros, Collection des Ménoires relatifs a l’Histoire de France, vol. viii, Paris 1825, pp. 4-159, reprinted in Suger: L’Abbé, le roi et les barons, Source de l’Histoire de France, Paris, 2002, pp. 6-180. Guizot’s translation followed Bouquet’s edition.

Waquet, Henri, (ed.), Vie de Louis VI le Gros, Les classiques de l’histoire de France au Moyen Age, Paris, 1929, reprinted Les Belles Lettres, Paris, 1964.

Cusimano, Richard and Moorhead, John, (eds.), Suger: The Deeds of Louis the Fat, Washington, 1992.

Bur, Michel, (ed.), Suger: La Geste de Louis VI, Acteurs de l’Histoire, Paris, 1994.

The Manuscripts: 2

Manuscript G

Bibliothèque Nationale, 6265, paper, 106 folios

Manuscript G belonged to Claude Fauchet and contains the Vita Ludovici, the Historia Ludovici VII, extracts from Hugh de Fleury and part of William of Jumieges Gesta Normannorum. The manuscript was copied in 1515 from a book from the monastery of Saint-Magloire de Paris and derived from Manuscript E or a similar manuscript. The scribe of Manuscript G often corrected errors in the original.

Manuscript H

Bibliothèque du Vatican, regina Christina, 461

This is the most recent manuscript copied in 1567 transcribed from a manuscript in St-Denis similar to Manuscript A. However, the copyist, Sanson Hayet Gulielmus modified and spelling and vocabulary of the original in ways that were not always advantageous. It was not available to Molinier.

Manuscript I-L

There are four further manuscripts that contain copies of the Vita Ludovici, unknown to Waquet.

Manuscript I: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg. Lat. 550.

This is a copy of the Continuations of Aimoin, written about 1202-5[1] and housed in the library of St-Denis. Here it later served as the basis for the initial section of Manuscript E, itself largely a copy of the Continuations of Aimoin.[2] The Vatican manuscript contains the whole of Suger’s original work and, unlike Manuscript J continued with the Historia Regis Francorum Ludovici Septimi, a compound history of Louis VII comprising the fragment composed by Suger before 1151, together with a continuation written by a monk of Saint-Germain-de-Prés that carried the narrative to the birth of Philip Augustus in 1165. However, it omits some of the interpelations relevant to Saint-Germain-de-Prés found in MS 12711 but adds two texts absent from it: Einhard’s Vita Karoli and the Pseudo-Turpin Chronicle.

Manuscript J: Bibliothèque Nationale, 12711.

This is a copy of the Continuations of Aimoin but it only contains a few chapters of Suger’s Vita Ludovici.

Manuscript K: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, Reg. Lat.624

Manuscript L: Chantilly, Musée Condé, MS 869[3]

Manuscripts K and L consist of two versions of the early vernacular prose history called Chronique des rois de France, written between 1217-1218 and the early 1230s[4] probably in or near Paris.[5] Both manuscripts include the first translation of the Vita Ludovici into French.

The existence of the Old French Chronique des Rois de France at the Musée Condé in Chantilly was first reported by Ronald Walpole in 1978.[6] He noticed that the version of the Pseudo-Turpin contained in Chantilly MS 869, a manuscript dating from the fifteenth century strongly resembled one published by Claude Buridant from a thirteenth century Histoire des rois de France, preserved in the Vatican Manuscript 624. Elie Berger[7] had noted similarities between MS 624 and the Grand chroniques de France in 1879 but it was a century later when Pierre Botineau was equally struck by the similarities between MS 624 and the Chantilly manuscript.[8] He also established that when Primat translated the Vita Ludovici in the first part of the Grandes chroniques in the 1260s or early 1270s he used this vernacular text as a source. Shortly after Buridant published his edition of the Pseudo-Turpin found in the Histoire.[9] Botinaeu and Buridant believed that Vatican 624 contained a unique version of the vernacular Pseudo-Turpin but Walpole was able to demonstrate that the text of Chantilly 869 provided a second exemplar (what he called Pseudo-Turpin I) and that MS 869 might be a second copy of the whole Chronique.[10] His hypothesis has been confirmed by examining the text as a whole and it is clear that MS 869, though dating from the fifteenth century is a considerably more complete version of the Chroniques des rois de France than Vatican 624.

Gillette Labory has shown that Chantilly 869 is not a copy of Vatican 624, though the two versions are closely related.[11] The Vatican 624 manuscript dates from the end of the thirteenth or beginning of the fourteenth century. The language of the scribe, according to both Buridant and Walpole suggests a Burgundian copyist, possibly from the western part of that county.[12] The text of Chantilly 869 is a later copy, dating from the last quarter of the fifteenth century and written in Francien, the language of the Ile de France. Unlike Vatican 624, Chantilly 869 is richly decorated with twelve large and 102 smaller miniatures but the manuscript is incomplete at the end, owing to mutilation. Labory has shown that the Anonymous’ use of the Continuations of Aimoin cannot be perfectly matched to the readings found in either Bibliothèque Nationale, 12711 (Manuscript J) or Vatican 550 (Manuscript I). While the Continuations is certainly his major source, it cannot be shown that the Anonymous directly translated either of these manuscripts and this is reinforced by his consistent supplementing of the Latin sources in his compilation with additional material.

After the death of Philip I, the Anonymous of Chantilly/Vatican translated the Vita Ludovici Grossi of Suger introducing it with a long preamble:

Of this King Louis, about whom we have now begun to write, we have already spoken in the preceding history of the king, even though this was only in brief, concerning how he was crowned king after the death of King Philip his father in the city of Orleans. But, the Abbot Suger of Saint-Denis who was raised his cleric and who greatly loved him wrote up his deeds and his life where he shows very clearly what loved he possessed for him. This life and deeds of the noble King Louis the Fat we have begun to relate in French just as Abbot Suger recounted it in Latin, to the extent that we have been able. But it vexes us sorely to do this task. For no one should attempt to undertake such a thing unless he is perfect in writing, for no one can know how difficult a thing it is to translate from Latin into French unless he has done it himself and attempted it. However much it grieves us, we have to do it because we are constrained to do so and would not dare to contradict or refuse. But I heartily pray those who read this book that they do not blame or reproach me for having undertaken this thing, for they should know that I do it as if forced, as someone who is inadequate to perform such a task. We have said this to excuse ourselves, but let us continue the history as the valiant Abbot Suger relates it…

The Anonymous was not the only writer to complain of the intricacies of Suger’s Latin and when Primat made extensive use of the Anonymous’ own translation, he too was confronted by the problem of Suger’s language and grammar. There is some difference between the French translations of the Vita Ludovici: in Chantilly 869 it is complete while Vatican 624 lacks a section corresponding to about thirty folios in Chantilly.

---

[1] Marc du Pouget ‘Recherches sur les chroniques latines de Saint-Denis: Commentaire et edition critique de la Descriptio clavi et corone domini’, thesis, Ecole des Chartres, 1977, p. 16.

[2] Aimoin was a monk of Fleury who wrote a Historia Francorum at the beginning of the eleventh century during the abbacy of Abbot Abbon, to whom he dedicated the work. Aimoin’s text stopped in 634 and only later was it completed by a number of continuations. Lemarignier, J. F., ‘Autour de la royauté française de IXe au XIIIe siècle. Appendice: la Continuation d’Aimoin at le manuscript Latin 12711 de la Bibliothèque Nationale, Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Chartres, vol. cxiii, (1955), pp. 25-36 has shown that between 1015 and 1025 a copy of Aimoin was taken to Saint-Germain-des-Prés where it was continually interpolated over the next century and a half. The initial continuation carried the narration to 1031, the second to 1165. Around 1175, Suger’s lives of Louis VI and Louis VII were added.

[3] On both the Vatican and Chantilly manuscripts, see Walpole, Ronald N., ‘Prolegomenes a une edition di Turpin français dit le Turpin I’, Revue d’Histoire des Text, vol. x, (1980), pp. 199-230 and vol. xi, (1981), pp. 325-70 and Labory, Gillette, ‘Essai d’une histoire nationale au XIIIe siecle: La Chronique de l’Anonyme de Chantilly-Vatican’, Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Chartres, vol. cxlviii, (1990), pp. 201-54.

[4] The anonymous author of the Chronique des rois de France began his translation in the reign of Philip Augustus. He recalled Philip Augustus’ conquest of Normandy (1204-1205) and his description of the king as a ‘good son’ and defender of the church suggests that it was written after 1213 when Philip Augustus was reconciled with Queen Ingebourg, whose repudiation and exile from court had resulted in the realm being placed under a papal interdict. Gillette Labory argues that the Anonymous’ prayer for the king’s recovery (he had fallen ill in 1217) close to the beginning of the work suggests a date between 1213 and 1217 for the start of the work and that he ended writing in the early 1230s since he is aware of the election of Jean de Brienne as emperor in Constantinople in 1229-1231 but does not mention his death in 1237.

[5] Discussion of these two manuscripts is grounded in Spiegel, Gabrielle M., Romancing the Past: The Rise of Vernacular Prose Historiography in Thirteenth-Century France, California, 1993 especially pp. 269-323.

[6] Walpole, Ronald N., ‘La traduction du Pseudo-Turpin du Manuscrit Vatican Regina 624: à propos d’un livre récent’, Romania, vol. lcxix, (1978), pp. 484-514.

[7] On the Vatican manuscript see, Berger, Elie, ‘Notices sur divers manuscripts de la Bibliothèque Vatican’, Bibliothèque des Ecoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, vol. vi, (1879), p. 10 and Walpole, Ronald N., ‘La Traduction du Pseudo-Turpin du Manuscrit Bibliothèque Vatican 624: A Propos d’un livre recent’, Romania, vol. xcix, (1978), pp. 484-514.

[8] Botineau, Pierre, ‘L’Histoire de France en français de Charlemagne a Philippe-Auguste: La Compilation du Ms. 624 du Fonds de la Reine a la Bibliothèque Vatican’, Romania, vol. xc, (1969), pp. 79-99.

[9] Buridant, Claude, (ed.), La traduction du Pseudo-Turpin du Manuscrit Vatican Regina 624, Geneva, 1976.

[10] Ibid, Walpole, Ronald N., ‘La traduction du Pseudo-Turpin du Manuscrit Vatican Regina 624: à propos d’un livre récent’, pp. 484-514.

[11] Labory, Gillette, ‘Essai d’une histoire nationale au XIIIe siecle: La Chronique de l’Anonyme de Chantilly-Vatican’, Bibliothèque de l’Ecole des Chartres, vol. cxlviii, (1990), pp. 201-54.

[12] Walpole, Ronald N., ‘Prolegomenes a une edition du Turpin français dit le Turpin I’, Revue d’Histoire des Text, vol. x, (1980), pp. 199-230 and vol. xi, (1981), pp. 325-370, p. 203-206.