Chapter 16

Of the interview between King Louis and Henry, king of the English at Neaufles

At that time[1] Henry, king of the English, happened to arrive in Normandy. He was a very courageous man, excellent in peace and war, whose great reputation had spread almost throughout the world. That marvellous if rustic prophet, the visionary and reporter of England’s eternal destinies, Merlin, loudly vaunted Henry’s excellence with elegance and truth.[2] In the course of his praise, he suddenly burst forth, as prophets do[3]: ‘There shall come forth a lion of justice, at whose roar French towers and island dragons shall tremble. In his days, gold will be extracted from the lily and the nettle and silver shall trickle from the hooves of those who bellow. The acknowledged one shall be clothed with various cloaks and the outer habit shall signify his inner character. The feet of dogs shall be shortened, the wild animals shall have peace and humanity will suffer in torment. The means of exchange will be split; half will be round[4]. The rapacity of the kite shall perish and the teeth of wolves grow blunt. Lion cubs shall be transformed into fish of the sea and an eagle will build her nest on Snowdon’.[5]

All the sayings of this great and ancient prophet apply so exactly to the king's courage both of his person and of his administration of the realm, that not one word seems out of place. What is said at the end about the lion cubs clearly relates to his son and daughter, who were shipwrecked[6] and devoured by the fish of the sea. Their physical transformation proves the truth of the prophecy.

So King Henry, succeeding by good fortune his brother William, organised the kingdom of England, on the advice of skilled and trustworthy men, in accordance with the law of ancient kings and in order to attract popularity he confirmed by oath the ancient customs of the realm.[7] Then he sailed into harbour in the duchy of Normandy and, relying on the help of the French king[8] he settled the land, revised the laws, imposed peace by force and threatened to tear out the eyes of thieves or to hang them. These and like threats, rapidly put into effect, made a deep impression, for ‘anyone can be rich in promises’[9] but ‘the land fell silent in his presence’.[10] The Normans, fierce descendants of the Danes and devoid of desire for peace, reluctantly kept the peace, so proving the correctness of the rustic prophet’s words: ‘The rapacity of the kite shall perish and the teeth of wolves grow blunt.’ Neither nobles nor common people dared presumptuously to pillage or steal. As for what Merlin said, ‘At the roar of the lion of justice the French towers and the island dragons shall tremble.’ This was fulfilled because Henry ordered almost all the towers and fortified places of Normandy, which is a part of France, to be pulled down, or he put his own men into them and paid for them himself or, if they were already ruined, he subjected them to his will. ‘The island dragons trembled’ since none of the English barons even dared to murmur during the whole of his reign. 

‘In his days gold shall be extracted from the lily’, that is, from the religious in good odour; ‘and from the nettle’, from stinging secular people. He extracted it so that all should serve him because he profited them all. For it is safer that one man should take something from all men when he defends all of them, than that all should perish because one man has nothing. ‘Silver shall trickle from the hooves of those who bellow’ because security in the countryside means full granaries, and full granaries mean plenty of silver in full coffers.

On this occasion, he managed to wrest the castle of Gisors from Pagan of Gisors[11] as much by flattery as by threats. This very well-fortified castle is advantageously situated on the frontier between France and Normandy, on a river rich in fish called the Epte. By an old agreement and a geometrical measurement made with measuring ropes[12], it marked out the lands of the French from those of the Danes. The castle offered the Normans an easy point of access for their raids on France, but kept the French out.[13] Had he had the chance of acquiring it, the king of France, no less than the king of England, would have tried to obtain it through the law of the land, because of its site and the protection it afforded. So Henry’s annexation of this castle fomented a sudden hatred between the two kings. The king of France asked Henry either to give up the castle or to destroy it but his request failed. And so, accusing him of having broken the treaty, he fixed a day and place for negotiations on the matter.[14]

Meanwhile, as usually happens in such affairs, the hatreds of the kings were fanned by the malicious words of their rivals, rather than damped down while it was still possible. In order to present themselves at the talks looking confident and intimidating, they increased their military muscle. Louis collected together the greater number of the French barons: Count Robert of Flanders with about four thousand men, the Palatine Count Theobald, the count of Nevers[15], the duke of Burgundy[16] and a great many others, along with many archbishops and bishops. Then he marched through the land of the count of Meulan[17], ravaging and burning it because the count supported the king of England. By such benefits he paved the way favourably for the future talks.

When each side had collected a huge army, they came to the place commonly called Les-Planches-de-Neaufles, by the ill-omened castle where the ancient tradition of the inhabitants holds that negotiations there never or hardly ever succeed. Then the armies settled down on either bank of a river[18] that prevented passage. But after reflection, a chosen group of the noblest and wisest French crossed it by a shaky bridge so aged that it seemed likely to pitch them suddenly into the river and approached the English king.

Then the skilled orator among them who had been charged with the negotiations, without greeting the king, spoke in the name of his companions: ‘When through the generous bounty of the king of France you received the duchy of Normandy as your own fief[19], held by his generous right hand, among and before other conditions, you promised on oath in relation to Gisors and Bray[20] that, by whatever means one or other of you obtained these places, neither should keep them. Rather within forty days of their acquisition the possessor should, in compliance with the treaty totally destroy these castles to their foundations. Because you have not done this, the king orders that you should do so forthwith; or, if you refuse, make due legal amends. For it is shameful for a king to break the law, since both king and law derive their authority from the same source.[21] If your men have either forgotten the promise or pretended to forget because they did not want to declare it, we are ready to prove its truth by the clear testimony of two or three barons, according to the law of duel.’

After this speech they returned to the French king; but they did not arrive in his presence before some Normans who had followed them entered, shamelessly denying anything that could compromise their stand and asking that the case should be heard in due judicial order. Their one aim was to hold up the negotiations by some kind of delay, so as to prevent the truth from being revealed to so many great men of the realm. So even nobler men were sent back with the first envoys, who boldly offered to reveal the truth through that peerless champion Robert of Jerusalem, count of Flanders, to refute all verbal exaggeration by the law of duel, and demonstrate by force of arms on which side justice lay.[22]

The Normans neither accepted nor refused the proposition plainly. Then the magnanimous king Louis, as great of heart as of body, swiftly sent messengers to Henry requiring him to choose between destroying the castle and fighting in person against the king of France on account of his breach of faith. ‘Come’, he said, ‘let the pain of this encounter be his to whom also the glory of truth and victory belongs.’ As to the place for the duel, he decided most suitably; ‘Their host should retire from the bank of the river to allow us to cross, so that the safer place may give each greater security; or, if he would prefer, let each take the noblest men of the other army as hostages to guarantee the single combat, provided that I am permitted to cross after my army has retired. Otherwise it is not possible to go across the river.’ But some people cried out in a ridiculous jest that the king ought to fight on the shaky bridge which would instantly break; and King Louis, as light-hearted as he was bold, wanted this. 

But the English king said, ‘The matter is too unimportant for me to lose a famous and most useful castle on details like this.’ And parrying this and other suggestions, he said ‘When I see my lord the king where I can defend myself, I shall not avoid him’; for he did not want to fight in a hostile place.

Angered by this preposterous reply, the French ‘as if the luck of place gives rise to wars’[23] rushed to arms, as did the Normans. And while each army hurried towards the river, only the impossibility of crossing prevented the great disaster of an immense massacre. Therefore they spent the day in negotiations and that night the Normans went back to Gisors, our army to Chaumont[24]. But ‘as soon as the first rays of dawn chased the stars from the sky’[25] the French, remembering the previous day’s injuries, their martial ardour at morning high pitch, set off on their fastest horses and near Gisors rushed into battle, deploying wonderful fierceness and marvellous courage. They pushed the tired Normans through the gate, and strove to demonstrate the great superiority of those long used to war over those softened by long peace.[26]

These and similar incidents were the beginnings of a war that lasted for almost two years[27], and which harmed the king of England more because, at great expense he surrounded all the frontiers of Normandy as far as the duchy extended with great garrisons for the defence of the land.[28] The king of France relied on ancient fortifications and natural defences and the valiant assistance, given freely, of the Flemish and the men of Ponthieu, the Vexin and other frontier regions. Thus he ceaselessly attacked Normandy, pillaging and burning it. When William, the English king’s son, performed homage[29] to King Louis, by a particular act of grace Louis added that castle to his fief and restored him to his former favour on that occasion.  But before this happened, this particular conflict led to much loss of life, which was punished with reprisals.

---

[1] Henry’s visit to Normandy may have been connected with the accession of Louis the previous year. Ibid, Luchaire, Louis VI le Gros, Annales de son vie et de son règne, n° 72 dated Henry’s arrival in Normandy as February or early March 1109.

[2] The prophecies attributed to the poet and seer Merlin were known through the fourth book of Historia Britannum of Geoffrey of Monmouth recently written while Suger was writing his life of Louis VI. Orderic Vitalis 4: 490 reproduces the passage which he applied to Henry I but Geoffrey of Monmouth is generally regarded as its author. The original version was written not long before Henry’s death in 1135.

[3] Geoffrey of Monmouth, Historia Regum Britanniae, vii, 3 

[4] Suger is here alluding to the half-penny that had recently become an important coin in circulation.

[5] It is highly probable that Suger’s ‘montem Aravium’ is Snowdon. In Welsh it is called ‘Mynydd Eryri’ of the mountain of the eagles. The correct Latin form would be ‘mons Ararium’.

[6] The wreck of the White Ship on 25^th November 1120 robbed Henry of his only legitimate heir William Adelin married to Matilda of Anjou, Richard and Mathilda, countess of Mortagne

[7] This is a reference to Henry I’s coronation oath: the text can be found in Douglas, D.C. and Greenaway, G.W., (eds.), English Historical Documents, vol. ii, 2^nd ed., London 1981, pp. 432-434. For the administrative reforms introduced in England by Henry I, see Green, Judith, The Government of England under Henry I, (Cambridge University Press), 1986.

[8] With the agreement of Prince Louis, but not of King Philip who recognised unlike his son that this would cause future problems. The conquest of Normandy was the result of the battle of Tinchebrai fought between Henry and his brother Robert Curthose on 28^th September 1106.

[9] Ovid, De Arte Amandi, I, 444

[10] Maccabees I, chapter i, 3

[11] At the age of around fifty, in 1123, Pagan with the agreement of King Louis made a futile attempt to retake his castle. Henry I stripped him of all his goods and Pagan took holy orders at the abbey of Saint-Martin de Pontoise.

[12] This is an allusion to the ropes that usually served to mark the boundaries between pieces of land. The river Epte had formed the border between the French and Norman Vexin since the tenth century. It flows into the Seine midway between Paris and Rouen. Gisors is located on the Norman side in a small bulge in of the river towards the east, about forty miles north-west of Paris.

[13] The dates of this war between Henry I and Louis VI are unclear. Suger argues that it lasted two years from 1109 to 1111 and ended when Louis gave the castle of Gisors to William Adelin. Henry of Huntingdon says the war began soon after Philip’s death in 1108 when Henry I tried to embarrass the new king by making him surrender part of the French Vexin: Henry of Huntingdon The History of the English People 1000-1154, edited by Diana Greenway, (Oxford University Press), 2002, p. 53. Only Suger mentions the conference at Neaufles-Saint-Martin which he dated to 1109. Ibid, La Chronique de Saint-Pierre-le-Vif de Sens, pp. 148-149 supports the view that the war between England and France was especially over the castle at Gisors and Henry’s failure to do homage for Normandy. In fact, the conference did result in a truce and for the next two years Henry I and Louis VI contented themselves with attending to their own affairs: in 1110-1111 Henry feared rebellion in England and banished a number of his English and Norman vassals and made an unsuccessful effort to arrest William Clito; and Louis was concerned with dealing with rebellious vassals of his own. War only resumed in 1111 and ended with the peace of Gisors in 1113.

[14] For relations between Henry and Louis, see Hollister, C. Warren ‘War and Diplomacy in the Anglo-Norman World: The Reign of Henry I’, in Brown, R. Allen, (ed.), Anglo-Norman Studies VI: Proceedings of the Battle Conference, 1983, Suffolk, 1983, pp. 72-78, reprinted in Hollister, C. Warren, Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions in the Anglo-Norman World, London, 1986, pp. 273-290.

[15] William II, count of Nevers and Auxerre from 1100 to 1148.

[16] Hugh II, duke of Burgundy ‘the Peaceful’ was born in c.1085 and died in 1143. He succeeded his father Eudes I ‘the Red’ in March 1102. He married Matilda or Maud of Turenne or Mayenne.

[17] Robert I, count of Meulan, son of Robert ‘the Beard’ castellan of Beaumont-le-Roger, had inherited the county of Meulan from his maternal uncle Hugh III in 1092. He died on 5^th June 1118. He was a veteran of the Norman Conquest of England and had fought at Hastings in 1066. He had twin sons. Robert succeeded to his English properties and the earldom of Leicester. Waleran inherited Meulan and the Norman and French estates: see Crouch, D., The Beaumont Twins, (Cambridge University Press), 1986, 2008. Henry of Huntingdon in his Historia Anglorum v 7-8 said of Robert of Meulan that ‘At his will French and English kings would at one time be peacefully allied and at another violently embattled’, in ibid, Henry of Huntingdon The History of the English People 1000-1154, p. 118.

[18] The River Epte runs a kilometre south of Les-Planches-de-Neaufles.

[19] Louis clearly regarded Normandy as a fief but homage was not done for it until 1120.

[20] Bray-et-Lu is seventeen kilometres downstream from Les-Planches-de-Neaufles and on the left bank of the River Epte.

[21] This is an important statement respecting the theory of imperial power which represented human government as an emanation from the divine. It reinforces what Suger wrote about Louis’ coronation in chapter 14: ‘After a mass of thanksgiving, the archbishop took off his sword of secular chivalry and replaced it with the church’s sword for the punishment of evil-doers, crowned him most willingly with the royal diadem, and with great devotion bestowed on him the sceptre and rod as a sign that he must defend the church and the poor…’

[22] On trial by battle see Bartlett, Robert, Trial by Fire and Water: The Medieval judicial ordeal, (Oxford University Press), 1986, pp. 103-126.

[23] Lucan, De bello civili, IV, 661-2.

[24] Chaumont-en-Vexin is about five miles east of Gisors.

[25] Suger is here imitating Vergil Aenied, v, 42.

[26] The most notable part of Louis’ offensive was the siege of Meulan. He successfully took the castle and laid waste to the surrounding area. Ibid, Luchaire, Louis VI le Gros, Annales de son vie et de son règne, n° 103 placed these events at the end of 1110 or beginning of 1111.

[27] Suger is misleading here. Following the interview with Louis, Henry spent the next two years in England: see Hollister, C. Warren, ‘Normandy, France and the Anglo-Norman Regnum’, Speculum, vol. 11, (1976) pp. 202-242, reprinted in ibid, Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions in the Anglo-Norman World, pp. 17-57. A truce was concluded in May 1113 but peace was not finally made until 1120.

[28] Suger is certainly exaggerating here. Henry had done well in the war and had won over Anjou by betrothing his son William Adelin to the daughter of the Angevin count. The peace terms of 1113 were also highly favourable and Louis is not reported to have raised the vexed question of Henry’s homage. Indeed, Louis conceded to Henry the right to receive homage from the count of Anjou (for Maine) and the count of Brittany. However, Henry’s position in Normandy was far from secure. William Clito had a persuasive legal claim to the duchy and remained free. As a viable pretender to Normandy and England, Clito was an obvious focus for French, Flemish, Angevin and domestic opposition to Henry I. The 1113 truce avoided any mention of the feudal bond between Louis and Henry and did not commit Louis to future support of Henry’s rule or William Adelin’s succession. Louis was therefore free to give his support to Clito whenever he chose. Re-establishing the feudal relationship with France therefore became a means for Henry to limit the actions of Clito for Louis would be morally bound to support him against all opposition or at the very least not give active support to Clito. It took four years of war for Henry to achieve this objective.

[29] This too is rather misleading. The events in this chapter began in 1109 and Suger describes the war that developed immediately out of the incident at Planches-de-Neaufles as having lasted for nearly two years whereas in fact it occurred between 1111 and 1113. He then locates William’s homage immediately after. However, in 1115, Henry I invested his son William with the duchy of Normandy and it seems likely that Louis VI only ceded Gisors to the young prince in return for an act of homage and a money payment between 30^th May and 29^th September 1120: Achille Luchaire, Louis VI le Gros, Annales de son vie et de son règne, Paris, 1890, n° 298. William’s homage is mentioned by William of Malmesbury but not by Orderic Vitalis and constituted a major breakthrough for Louis VI as William I, William II and Henry I had all apparently not rendered homage for the duchy. Henry I consciously did not use the ducal title at all and simply ruled as ‘rex Anglorum’, a practice followed with one exception by his own chancery. Even in 1120, Henry managed to win the full benefit of Louis’ lordship while escaping the responsibility and embarrassment of personal vassalage and homage done by the heir to the English throne. This was a precedent that was followed by king Stephen’s son Eustace to Louis VI in 1137 and to Louis VII in 1140.

Chapter 15

Of the Capture of La Ferte-Baudoin and the freeing of the Count of Corbeil and Anselm of Garlande

Louis, now king of France by the grace of God, could not forget the lessons he had learned in youth of defending churches, protecting the poor and needy and working for the peace and defence of the realm.

Guy the Red[1], mentioned above, and his son Hugh de Crécy[2], an intelligent young man of valour but made for rape and arson who was quick to disturb the whole kingdom, both persisted in detracting from the king’s dignity on account of the bitterness[3] they felt at the shameful loss of the castle of Gournay. Therefore Hugh chose not even to spare his brother Odo, Count of Corbeil[4], because he would give him no help against the king; so he ambushed him, exploiting his simplicity. One day, Count Odo decided to hunt peacefully on his own property, when the foolish man discovered what kind of realities and hopes a blood relationship can give rise to, once corrupted by envy. For he was captured by his brother Hugh, shackled and chained in the castle of La Ferté-Baudoin[5], and not allowed to escape, even if he had been able to unless he would make war on the king.

In the face on this singular madness, large numbers of the inhabitants of Corbeil (for that castellany was rich in knights of ancient families) fled to the refuge offered to all by the crown. Kneeling at the king’s feet, with tears and sobs they told him of the count’s capture and its cause and begged and prayed Louis to set him free by force. When Louis’ promise of help gave them hope of his release, their anger cooled and their sorrow was eased. They turned to the question of the means and forces they had to recover their lord. La Ferté-Baudoin belonged to Hugh, not through hereditary right but because of his marriage with the Countess Adelaide, whom he had then repudiated while keeping the castle.[6] Some men of La Ferté therefore entered into negotiations[7] with those of Corbeil and swore to let them into the castle, though they took precautions.

Persuaded by the men of Corbeil, the king hastened there with a handful of household troops to avoid arousing too much attention. It was late and the men in the castle were still chatting around their fires, when those who had been sent on ahead, the seneschal Anselm of Garlande[8], a very brave knight and about forty armed men, were received at the gate which had been agreed, and made vigorous efforts to capture it. But the garrison, surprised by the neighing of the horses and the inopportune noise of the knights rushed to oppose them. Because the entrance was narrow by the enemy’s gates, those who had entered could neither go forward nor back at will. This allowed the defenders, encouraged by their position, to cut down very easily those in front of the gates. The attackers, oppressed by darkening shadows and by their unfortunate position, could no longer sustain their attack and retreated to the outer gate. But the very courageous Anselm, sacrificing himself in retreat, could not beat the enemy to the gate. He was captured and imprisoned in the tower of the castle, not as its conqueror but as a captive along with the Count of Corbeil. Their misery was equal, though their fears were different; for one feared death, the other only disinheritance; so it might aptly have been said of them: ’Carthage and Marius consoled each other on their destinies.’[9]

When the shouts of the fugitives reached the ears of the hastening king, angry that he had been delayed and diverted by the difficulties of the dark night, he sprang on to a very fast horse and rushed to help his men by boldly attacking the gate. But he found the gate locked, and repulsed by a hail of arrows, spears and stones, he withdrew. The grief-stricken brothers and relatives of the captured seneschal fell at his feet, crying: ‘Have pity glorious and courageous king, for if that wicked and abandoned man Hugh de Crécy, sated with human blood, can lay his hands on our brother either by coming here or by having him taken to him, he will throw himself at his throat without the least thought for the penalty that would await him if he consigned him to sudden death. For he is more ferocious than the most ferocious of men.’[10]

Moved by their fear, the king at once surrounded the castle, blocked the roads which led to the gates, built four or five barriers around it and deployed both the kingdom’s and his own resources for the capture of the captives and the castle. Hugh was at first been delighted by the capture of Anselm, but was now terrified of the prospect of losing him and the castle. Anxiously he planned to leave the castle by any means; both on horseback and on foot he disguised himself, now as a jongleur, now as a prostitute. 

One day as he was giving his whole attention to this, he was spotted from the castle and jumped upon. Unable to fight off the murderous attack, he sought safety in flight. Suddenly William[11], brother of the captured seneschal, a knight of outstanding valour, among others in pursuit but ahead of them by the speed of his horse and his own determination, rushed at him and tried to cut off his retreat. Hugh recognised him by his great speed and brandished his lance often in his direction, but not daring to delay on account of his pursuers, he set off in flight. He was of matchless skill. Had it been possible for him to have fought in single combat, he would have displayed his great daring either in winning the trophy for the duel or in facing death. Unable to avoid all the villages in his path or the inevitable attacks of the approaching enemies except by a trick, he passed himself off as William of Garlande; he cried out that he was being pursued by Hugh and invited others, in the name of the king, to bar his pursuer’s path. By these and other tricks, thanks to quickness of tongue and courage of heart, he was successful in flight and so one man laughed at many.

Neither this nor any other reason drew the king away from the siege he had begun. He tightened the blockade and harassed the garrison. He continued attacking until he forced them to surrender to his power, after a secret assault was led by his knights and assisted by the treachery of some of the garrison. In the commotion, the knights fled into the keep. They were concerned only to save their lives, not to evade capture. For once shut up there, they could neither protect themselves adequately nor get out by any means. In the end, after some had been slain and others wounded, they gave themselves and the castle up to the king’s will, with the approval of their lord. And so ‘Both dutiful and wicked in one and the same action’[12] he restored his seneschal to himself, a brother to his brother and their count to the people of Corbeil, displaying both prudence and clemency. Of the knights who were in the castle, some he disinherited, seizing their goods and some he condemned to lengthy imprisonment. By this harsh punishment, he intended to deter others. By this great victory, won through God’s aid against the hopes of his enemies, he increased the revenues of the crown.[13]

---

[1] Guy, count de Rochefort, called the Red because of the colour of its hair was the brother of Miles: see a genealogical table of the families of Montlhéry and Rochefort in ibid, Fliche, A., Le reign of Philippe I^er, p. 321, n^o 2.

[2] Crécy-en-Brie is about thirty miles east of Paris on the Grand Morin.

[3] Suger puns on Guy de Rochefort’s nickname ‘the Red’ (rubeus) and his being ‘reddened with shame’ (erubescentia) when he lost the castle at Gournay.

[4] Odo, count of Corbeil (died c.1112) was the son of Adélaïde de Crécy and Bouchard II of Corbeil. Suger later tells of the death of Bouchard in the 1080s in a battle with Stephen, count of Blois in chapter 20. This creates a problem as Odo and Hugh had the same mother, Adélaïde de Crécy. Most writers accept that Adélaïde married Guy of Rochefort after Bouchard’s death that must have occurred in 1082-1083 as Hugh de Crécy was already around twenty-five by 1107.

[5] La Ferté-Baudoin is the modern La Ferté-Alais about forty miles south of Paris on the river Essone.

[6] Suger is confused between Hugh, son of Adelaide de Crécy and Guy of Rochefort, her husband, father of Hugh.

[7] Manuscript F uses the term ‘opprimebat’ at this point. All the other manuscripts use ‘opimabat’. The first suggests that there was an unwritten alliance between the burgesses of Corbeil and those of la Ferté-Baudoin, an example of the nascent hostility between lords and burgesses. The others do not suggest this was the case.

[8] Anselm de Garlande, count of Rochfort (1069?-1118) became seneschal a little before Louis became king perhaps because of the quarrel between king Philip and Louis and Guy de Rochfort in the summer of 1108 after the events at Gournay. He married [unknown] de Montlhery and their daughter Agnes de Garlande died in 1143. She was married to Amaury III de Montfort in 1120.

[9] Lucan, De bello civili, II, 91-92

[10] They were brothers-in-law; Anselm de Garlande was married a sister of Hugh de Crécy

[11] William de Garlande was seneschal between 1118 and 1120, after the death of Anselm.

[12] Ovid, Metamorphoses III, 5

[13] The siege of La Ferte-Baudoin occurred in the last months of 1108 probably in December. Ibid, La Chronique de Saint-Pierre-le-Vif de Sens, pp. 146-147 states that the siege took place ‘per nives, per grandines, in tempestates hiemales’: ‘in snow and storms, at the heart of winter’.

Resolving the MP expenses debacle!

Most people, perhaps apart from those MPs who seem to be in denial, agree that the present system of expenses for MPs is unacceptable.  The rules governing allowances appear capable of being interpreted by MPs and by those who approved payment of allowances in ways that for most of the general public beggar belief!  ‘I was only following the rules’ like the far more serious Nuremberg defence of ‘only obeying orders’ has no ethical justification at all.  ‘Flipping’ is not only morally repugnant but potentially fraudulent.  So abolish MPs’ allowances and make them live on their salaries.  This should end the public anger evident since we actually now know about how the whole system has been abused by some less than honourable members.

We do not want to go back to a system when only the wealthy became MPs and it is essential to a vibrant democracy that we encourage the brightest and most committed people to enter Parliament.  To do this we have to recognise that MPs should be paid a reasonable salary, that they need to live in London during the parliamentary session if their constituency is a distance from London and that they need to travel to and from their constituencies for constituency business each week.  We also need to recognise that there are occasions when their work as MPs involves them in additional expenses. 

To achieve change in the existing corrupt system, the solution is to recognise that the MPs’ salaries should have three components.  The first component is their salary as an MP currently set around £64,000.  Secondly, the question of a living allowance while in London.  If you live in Inner or Outer London, this should not be paid.  Beyond that, there should be an across the board figure to cover only the cost of accommodation or the state provides accommodation itself and no living allowance is paid.  Finally, travel should be based on the cost of second-class rail travel.  If MPs want to travel first-class or use other means of transport then they would have to cover any additional cost themselves.   What we need here is a reverse of the London allowance with travel bands across the country so that MPs further away from London have a higher travel component.  The overall effect of this would be to increase an MP’s overall salary to between £85,000 and £90,000 a year but there would be no second home allowance or expenses for fixtures and fittings and renovations.  Finally, the annual increase in MPs’ total salary should be based on the Retail Price Index, so no need for an annual review.   This may seem difficult to justify in the midst of recession but it is a perfectly transparent system and would be significant cheaper than the existing system of salary plus allowances.  The only additional allowance that I would permit is for additional expenses necessary only for their work as MPs but that this would have to be agreed with the independent auditors in advance and all receipts submitted.  This would impose a fiscal control over expenses that currently does not exist.  In addition, MPs expenses should be published quarterly as in the Scottish Parliament so that we can see what the additional money is being spent on.

One further way of reducing the cost of the House of Commons would be to reduce the number of MPs.  Devolution has made this into a justifiable proposition.  While this is particularly the case with Scotland, there is also a strong case for some reduction in Wales and Northern Ireland.    

Chapter 14

Of his solemn elevation to the throne

Prince Louis, who had in youth earned the friendship of the church by his liberal defence of its rights, had aided the poor and the orphaned, and had subdued tyrants by his might[1], with God’s assistance was elevated to the kingdom by the vows of good men, though had it been possible, he would have been excluded by the machinations of evil and impious men.[2]

After reflection it was decided, principally on the advice of the venerable and very wise bishop of Chartres, Yvo, that there should be an immediate assembly at Orleans to foil the plot of those impious men, and to accelerate his elevation to the throne. So Daimbert, archbishop of Sens, who had been invited, came with his provincials, Galon bishop of Paris, Manasses of Meaux, John of Orleans, Yvo of Chartres, Hugh of Nevers and Humbaud of Auxerre[3]. On the feast of the invention of the holy protomartyr Stephen, the archbishop anointed Louis with the most holy oil of unction[4]. After a mass of thanksgiving, the archbishop took off his sword of secular chivalry and replaced it with the church’s sword for the punishment of evil-doers, crowned him most willingly with the royal diadem, and with great devotion bestowed on him the sceptre and rod as a sign that he must defend the church and the poor, and various other royal insignia, to the delight of the clergy and people. 

Louis had just taken off his festive ornaments after the ceremonies, when suddenly bearers of evil news arrived from the church at Reims, carrying letters of protest and had they but arrived in time would have prevented the royal unction from taking place by papal authority. For they declared that the first fruits of the royal coronations belonged totally by right to the church of Reims, and that St. Remigius had obtained this prerogative, entire and uncontested, from the first king of the Franks, Clovis, when he baptised him. Anyone who dared rashly to violate this would be struck by perpetual anathema[5]. Their archbishop, the venerable and elderly man Ralph the Green, had incurred the king’s acute and dangerous displeasure because he had been elected and enthroned without the royal assent[6]. Therefore they hoped either to make his peace with the king or to put off the coronation. Since they arrived too late, they held their peace at Orleans, though they had much to say when they returned home but what they said achieved nothing.[7]

---

[1] Suger pauses, at this important point in his narrative to reiterate what is by now a familiar theme, a variant of which occurs at the beginning of the next chapter. He is a firm believer in repetition.

[2] Ivo of Chartres drew up, following the practice of the pope and bishops, a written justification for the speed of the coronation away from Reims. He pointed out that there were precedents for coronations in cities other than Reims, that there was a need for haste because of the state of the kingdom and the peace of the church and suggested that a ‘disturbers of the kingdom’ sought to push aside Louis in favour of Philip de Mantes, son of Bertrade de Montfort. Although Suger’s account suggests that the succession was relatively straightforward, Louis did appear to have certain problems. Although he had been linked with his father in kingship, he had not been consecrated and this appears to have encouraged some unrest. Ibid, La Chronique de Saint-Pierre-le-Vif de Sens, pp. 148-149 said that the duke of Normandy, count of Poitiers, the duke of Burgundy and many other counts refused to do homage to the new king in an unverifiable account. Henry I of England refused to do homage for Normandy though this was less a denial of Louis’ right to the French throne than an attempt to remove himself and Normandy from a vassal relationship. The resolution of Louis’ problems appears to have come not from his consecration as king but his energetic military campaigns against those who opposed him.

[3] Daimbert, archbishop of Sens from 1098 to 1122; Galon, bishop of Paris from 1104 to 1116; Manasses, bishop of Meaux from 1103 to 1120; Jean II, bishop of Orleans 1096 to 1135; Yvo, bishop of Chartres from 1091 to 1116; Herveus (Hugh IV did not succeed him until 1110), bishop of Nevers from 1099 to 1110; Humbaud, bishop of Auxerre from 1095 to 1115.

[4] Louis was anointed crowned on Monday 3^rd August 1108, in Orleans on the feast of the discovery of the relics of St Stephen less than a week after his father’s death on 29^th July.

[5] Coronations of Capetian monarchs normally took place in Reims as in the case of Henry I in 1027, Philip I in 1059, Louis’ own sons Philip and Louis in 1129 and 1131 respectively and Philip II in 1179. Reims claimed not only the right to crown kings but the subordination of the abbot of St-Denis as well. It was believed, accurately that the baptism of Clovis occurred at Reims and when Louis’ father Philip had become king, the archbishop of Reims had claimed the right to ‘elect’ and consecrate him: see Lewis, Andrew W., Royal Succession in Capetian France, Cambridge, Mass., 1981, pp. 46, 52-54.

[6] There is a further possible reason for the coronation being held away from Reims. On the death of archbishop Manasses in 1106, Ralph the Green, treasurer or provost of the cathedral of Reims, had been elected by the majority of the cathedral chapter in 1106. However, the king and especially Louis, who had not been consulted, held this election was invalid and supported another candidate, Gervaise de Rethel, elected by some of the canons. However, Gervaise was rejected by the Council of Troyes on 23 May 1107 and ended up leaving the church to succeed his father as count de Rethel. In these circumstances, a coronation there would have been difficult for Louis. Ivo of Chartres and Lambert of Arras interceded for their episcopal colleague and at Christmas 1108 Ralph, contrary to the teachings of church reformers, swore fealty to Louis; he died in 1124.

[7] Reims comes out badly in Suger’s telling of the story though he clearly had his own agenda.

Chapter 13

Of the death of King Philip

While the son grew daily in strength, his father King Philip[1] daily grew feebler. For after he had abducted the Countess of Anjou[2], he could achieve nothing worthy of the royal dignity; consumed by desire for the lady he had seized, he gave himself up entirely to the satisfaction of his passion. So he lost interest in the affairs of state and, relaxing too much, took no care for his body, well-made and handsome though it was. The only thing that maintained the strength of the state was the fear and love felt for his son and successor[3]. When he was almost sixty[4], he ceased to be king, breathing his last at the castle of Melun-sur-Seine[5] in the presence of the Lord Louis.

Several venerable men were present at his funeral: Galon, bishop of Paris[6], the bishops of Senlis and Orleans[7], Adam of blessed memory, abbot of St-Denis, and many other religious persons. They carried his royal body to the church of Notre Dame[8] and spent the whole night in obsequies. The next morning, his son ordered the bier to be covered with a woven pall and suitable funeral ornaments and to be borne on the shoulders of his principal servants. Then with proper filial affection, in tears he accompanied the bier, sometimes on foot, sometimes on horseback, with those barons whom he had with him. He showed great nobility in that, throughout his father’s life he took great care not to offend him, either on account of his own mother’s repudiation or of his marriage with the Countess of Anjou. Unlike other young men in similar circumstances, he chose not to upset his father’s control of the kingdom by being disloyal in any way.[9]

They carried the body in a great procession to the noble monastery of St-Benoit-sur-Loire[10], where King Philip wished to be buried[11]. There are those who say they heard from his own mouth that he deliberately chose not to be buried among his royal ancestors in the church of St. Denis (which was almost by natural law the royal mausoleum), because he had not treated that church as well as they had and because among so many noble kings his own tomb would not have counted for much. So he was laid to rest as fittingly as they could before the altar in that monastery and commending his soul to God with hymns and prayers, they covered the tomb with magnificent jewels.

---

[1] Suger’s portrayal of Philip I is negative in character and this makes the contrast with Louis more effective.

[2] Bertrade, daughter of Simon I de Montford and Agnes d’Evreux had become countess of Anjou in 1088 by her marriage to Fulk Rechin. Philip I abducted her on the night of 15^th May 1092.

[3] Philip I has often been viewed unfavourably by historians, in large part because of Suger’s unfavourable portrait of him. However, Philip I did make significant territorial gains during his reign and he was the first Capetian to ensure that his lands were not bequeathed to all his children as in noble families but retained for the benefit of the eldest son. At the first marriage of his eldest daughter, Constance Philip ceded the village of Attigny as dowry to her husband, who retained it after the marriage was annulled. But her second and Cecile’s first marriages were to foreign princes and required no dowry in land. His eldest son by Bertrade was ceded Mantes in 1104, land already ceded to Louis in 1092 and their younger son Florus was bequeathed nothing that is known. Given that Philip inherited his father’s and grandfather’s acquisitions of Sens, Melun and Dreux to which he added his own of the Gâtinais, the Vexin and Bourges, his provision for his younger children was slight.

[4] Philip I was almost certainly fifty-six years old. He died on 29^th July 1108.

[5] Melun is upstream on the Seine about twenty-eight miles south-east of Paris.

[6] Galon was elected bishop of Paris about July 1104. He favoured church reform and was known to Pope Pascal II, who had sent him as legate to Poland in 1102.

[7] Hubert, bishop of Senlis from 1099 to 1115; Jean II, bishop of Orleans from 1096 to 1135

[8] The Church of Notre Dame, in the L’Ile quarter in Melun can be dated to the late tenth or eleventh century.

[9] It is important not to take this statement at face value for we know that King Philip did quarrel with his son. Philip only associated Louis with the throne around 1100 after considerable hesitation. It should not be forgotten that Suger wrote a panegyric for his royal friend.

[10] The abbey of St-Benoit-sur-Loire at Fleury is upstream on the river Loire about twenty miles east of Orleans. It had strong royal connections as it was there that Helgaud wrote his account of Robert ‘the Pious’ (996-1031). The abbey claimed to possess the relics of its patron.

[11] On 20^th May 1108, Philip had been at the monastery for the translation of the saint’ relics and had offered to the monks a box of gold decorated with previous jewels: ibid, La Chronique de Saint-Pierre-le-Vif de Sens, pp. 150-153. Also after 3^rd August 1108, Louis VI gave St-Benoit-sur-Loire a gift for the soul of his father: Prou, M. and Vidier, A., (eds.), Recueil des chartes de l’ abbaye de St-Benoit-sur-Loire, Paris, 1905, vol. 1, p. 248, n^o ciii.

Chapter 12

Concerning the capture of the castle of Sainte-Severe

While idleness and inactivity depresses men, making the noble ignoble, the glorious inglorious, valour enhanced by bodily exercise inspires them, making the noble nobler, the glorious more glorious. It repays men who have it by providing them with heroic deeds in all parts of the earth, which their valour can feed on with pleasure.

Men came to the Lord Louis to beg him with the utmost entreaties and with offers of great and rewarding service to go to Berry, to the borders of the Limousin, to the castle of Sainte-Sévère[1], a most noble place, famous for its tradition of chivalry and rich in foot soldiers. They urged that its lord Humbaud[2], a most noble man should either be forced to deliver justice or be justly punished for the injuries he had inflicted and to have the castle confiscated according to Salic law.[3]

At their request Louis went there[4], accompanied not by an army but by a troop of his household knights[5]. He was approaching the castle when he was met by the castellan with a large body of knights, for Humbaud was naturally generous, very liberal and far-sighted. Establishing himself behind a stream defended by bars and stakes, for there was no other route Humbaud resisted the French troops. As the two parties faced each other across the stream[6], the Lord Louis was irritated to see one of the enemy, bolder than the others, leave the defences; so he urged on his horse, and with courage greater than that of other men, rode at him, struck him with his lance, and with one blow flattened not only him but also another man behind him. Then, rather unsuitably for a king, he made them take a bath in the river up to their helms. Without delay he capitalised on his success, pushed in the narrow space through which his adversary had come and without hesitation made the enemy recoil by his brave action. The French, marvellously encouraged by the sight broke the barrier, crossed the stream and, pursuing the enemy killed many of them forcing the rest back to the castle.

The news spread, frightening the garrison and the whole neighbourhood, that the Lord Louis and his men, as befitted very powerful knights, would not retire until they had totally destroyed the castle and either hanged or blinded the more important men within. Therefore it was wisely decided that the lord of the castle should submit at once to the royal majesty and give up his castle and land to Louis’ jurisdiction. On his return, the Lord Louis took the castellan as booty, left him at Étampes, and after his swift triumph went back to Paris happy in his success.[7]

---

[1] This is the modern Sainte-Sévère-sur-Indre, about fifty miles south-west of Bourges in south-central France.

[2] Humbaud seems to be bishop Humbaud, elected at Limoges in 1087 by a ‘popular’ faction, and who, in 1095 was deposed by pope Urban II at a council held in Limoges. Finally driven out in 1098, he retired to Sainte-Sévère where he lived a long time: see Chénon, E., Histoire de Sainte-Sévère en Berry, 1888, reissued, Paris, 1997 pp. 27 -28. He was of the Mohun family.

[3] The Salic law was the rule of succession in certain royal and noble families of Europe, forbidding females and those descended in the female line to succeed to the titles or offices in the family. It is called the Salic law on the mistaken supposition that it was part of the Lex Salica; provisions of that code banned female succession to property but were not concerned with titles or offices. However, here it merely has the sense of old law.

[4] Ibid, Luchaire, Louis VI le Gros, Annales de son vie et de son règne, n° 55 argued that the expedition took place in June or July 1108 though ibid, Molinier, Auguste, (ed.), Vie de Louis le Gros par Suger, p. 37, n^o 2 dated the expedition to Bourbonnais a year earlier. .

[5] Louis was supported by some members of his household, presumably unmarried knights keen for battle. Suger refers to household knights on several occasions.

[6] This is probably the River Indre that passes by Sainte- Sévère, but it is rather more than a stream.

[7] Humbaud returned to Sainte-Sévère at least by 1113.

Chapter 11

Concerning the capture of castle of Gournay

 

Count Guy of Rochefort, whose daughter’s marriage with the Lord Louis had been blocked by the intrigue of his rivals on grounds of consanguinity, then ended by divorce in the presence of the pope[1], felt deeply resentful, ‘and fanned this small spark into moving fires.’[2] The Lord Louis’ fondness for him was in no way diminished until suddenly the Garlandes interfered to destroy the friendship, dissolve the alliance and enflame the bitterness. Then an occasion for fighting arose.[3] Hugh of Pomponne, a valiant knight, castellan of Gournay, a castle on the banks of the Marne, seized the horses of some merchants on the royal highway[4] and took them to Gournay[5]. Furious at this outrageous presumption, the Lord Louis collected an army, began an unexpected siege of the castle and very quickly surrounded it to deprive the inmates of a large stock of food.

Around the castle there is an attractive island, rich in meadows, excellent for horses and flocks, wide enough but longer than it is wide, and very useful to the garrison, because it offers those living there a beautiful spectacle of clear and moving water, a sight made more charming by green grass and flowers; besides, the surrounding river provides security. So the Lord Louis prepared a fleet to attack the island. He ordered some of the knights and many of the foot-soldiers to take off their clothes so that they could enter the river faster and, if things went badly, get out faster. Then, with some swimming and other riding rather dangerously across the deep waters, he entered the water and commanded them to occupy the island. But the garrison resisted strongly, threw down stones from the higher bank of the river on to those in the boats on the river, and drove them back with lances and spears. But the attackers recovered their courage and determined to repel those who had repelled them. So they ordered the slingers and the archers to stop fighting hand to hand when it was possible, while the armoured and helmeted men in the fleet went into action with extreme bravery like pirates, threw back the resistance, and as courage will which refuses to submit to dishonour, they occupied the island by force and drove its defenders within the castle.

A tight siege was enforced for some time without bringing about surrender. Impatient of delay, the Lord Louis, consumed one day by energy, summoned the army, and approached that castle which was brilliantly defended by a deep and steep ditch topped by a wall and below by a rushing stream whose depth made it virtually unassailable. The Lord Louis crossed the stream, scaled the earthwork with its barrier, came up to the wall, gave the order for battle while fighting himself, and led an attack on the enemy as violent as it was bitter. On the other side, the defenders, preferring courage to life, pressed swiftly to their cause without sparing their lord. They took up arms, attacked their enemies, and regained the upper part of the stronghold and even the lower by throwing their opponents into the stream. So they brought glory on themselves while Louis’ army, despite its efforts was defeated.

Then siege engines were prepared to destroy the castle. A very tall machine of three storeys was built that dominated the castle towering over the soldiers and preventing the slingers and archers from moving about the stronghold or showing themselves. Under incessant pressure day and night from the machines and unable to man their defences, they sensibly made dugouts for themselves, and sniping with their archers, they put those dominating them from above in peril of death. Attached to the tall machine there was a wooden bridge which could be drawn out quite high and lowered gradually on to the wall to offer an easy entrance to the attackers. But the defenders, familiar with this tactic, erected vertical wooden piles at intervals, so that the assailants would face danger and death when both the bridge and those who crossed it fell together into deep pits full of pointed stakes covered with straw to escape detection.

Meanwhile Count Guy, skilful and valiant man as he was, roused his relations and friends, begged aid of his men and rushed to the assistance of the besieged. He therefore negotiated with Theobald, Count Palatine[6], a most distinguished young man skilled in all the arts of chivalry that on a fixed day he should bring aid to the besieged, now lacking in food, and raise the siege by force of arms. Meanwhile, Guy did what he could by rapine and fire to encourage the besiegers to quit.

On the day appointed for Count Theobald to bring up his reinforcements and end the siege by force, the Lord Louis collected what men he could from close at hand and, mindful of the royal dignity, full of valour, he left his tents defended and set forth joyfully. He sent ahead a scout to tell him where the enemy was and whether it intended to engage in battle. Then he commanded his barons himself, he drew up the lines of knights and foot-soldiers and gave dispositions to the archers and spearmen. So that they should be seen, the trumpets sounded, the pugnacity of the knights and horses was roused and the engagement began. The French, drawing on long experience of war, fell on the men of Brie made soft by long peace, cut them to pieces with their lances and swords, determined on victory, and both knights and foot-soldiers went on attacking them ferociously until they turned tail and fled. As for the count, preferring to escape capture by being first rather than last in flight, he left his army behind him and rushed home[7].

In this engagement some were killed, many wounded and many more captured, and the news of this famous victory spread throughout the land. Having won such a great and timely victory, the Lord Louis returned to his tents, ejected those within the castle who had been buoyed up by false hopes, and keeping the castle for himself, he handed it over to the Garlandes to guard.[8]

---

[1] At the council of Troyes, on 23^rd May 1107, Guy was angered because of the ways in which he felt his family had been treated by the Crown: see ‘Chronique of Clarius’ in Duru, L.M., Bibliothèque historique de l'Yonne, Auxerre, 1850, vol. ii, p. 516 and ibid, La Chronique de Saint-Pierre-le-Vif de Sens, p. 147. Louis VI married Adélaïde de Maurienne, daughter of count Humbert II of Savoy before 3^rd August 1115 possibly in 1114: ibid, Luchaire, Louis VI le Gros, Annales de sa vie et de son règne, n° 192.

[2] Lucan, De bello civili V, 525

[3] This took place after the dissolution of Louis’ betrothal to Lucienne de Rochefort and the death of Philip I the following year, probably in the autumn of 1107.

[4] Hugh’s activities posed a double problem for Louis. First, they were an attack on merchants and a threat to their trade of which Louis was a supporter: see chapters 21, 31 and 33. Secondly, they posed a threat to royal authority as individuals were unable to travel safely on the royal highway.

[5] Hugh de Pomponne was another name for Hugh de Crécy, the son of Guy de Rochefort: ibid, Luchaire, Louis VI le Gros, Annales de son vie et de son règne, n° 51. Guy de Rochefort had founded a priory at Gournay. Gournay and Pomponne are both on the Marne, about ten and fifteen miles east of Paris respectively.

[6] Theobald IV, count of Blois and Chartres succeeded his uncle Hugh as count of Champagne in 1125 under the name Theobald II. The title of Count Palatine was honorific and was held by the counts of Flanders, of Blois-Champagne and of Toulouse. It represented the last vestige of powers exercise at the Merovingian court by the ‘mayors of the palace’: see Viollet, P.M., Histoire des institutions politiques et administratives de la France, 1898, Paris, vol. ii, p. 105. He was Louis’ chief enemy among the aristocracy.

[7] According to Orderic Vitalis, the fight took place near stream at Torcy, between Torcy and Gouverne and the men of Brie were pursued as far as the gates of Lagny. Count Theobald flees just as he abandons his allies in chapter 21. Suger takes considerable delight in suggesting that he was a coward.

[8] The handing over the Gournay to the Garlandes indicates their rise to favour. The siege occurred in 1107 and Guy de Rochefort died the following year.

Chapter 10

Pope Paschal II's visit

The year after Bohemund’s return home, the universal and supreme pope Paschal[1] of venerable memory came to the west with many very wise men, bishops, cardinals and nobles of the Roman province, to consult the King of France, the Lord Louis and the church of France over certain difficulties and new problems relating to investiture[2], with which the emperor Henry[3] troubled him and threatened to trouble him even more. This man, lacking in parental affection or any humanity, most cruelly used his father Henry, disinherited him, held him, so they say, in criminal captivity, and most impiously forced him, by allowing his enemies to inflict blows and injuries on him, into handing over to him the royal regalia, the crown, the sceptre and the lance of St. Maurice and allowed him to keep nothing in the whole kingdom. [4]

It was decided at Rome that, because of the venal treachery of the Romans, it would be safer to discuss this matter and all other questions, not in Rome but in France[5] with the king, the king’s son and the French church. So Paschal came to Cluny[6] and from Cluny to La Charité[7], where, before a great crowd of archbishops, bishops and monks he dedicated and consecrated that famous monastery. There were also present great magnates of the realm, including the noble count of Rochefort, seneschal of the King[8], sent to meet the lord pope as their spiritual father, to do his will throughout the realm. I was present at this consecration and before the Lord Pope I inveighed against Galon[9], bishop of Paris, who was pursuing several disputes against St-Denis. I there obtained satisfaction in accordance both with reason and with canon law.

After celebrating Laetare Jerusalem at St. Martin’s in Tours[10], his mitre on his head in the Roman fashion[11], he came to the venerable home of St. Denis[12], with benevolence and devotion such as would have been appropriate to the true seat of St. Peter. He was gloriously received in the manner suitable to a bishop. There he administered to the Romans, for whom it was an unknown thing, and also to posterity, a truly memorable example. Quite contrary to what had been feared, he did not strive to obtain the monastery’s gold or silver or precious stones. Indeed he did not deign to look at them. Most humbly prostrating himself before the relics of the saints[13], he humbly begged that he might be given for his protection a scrap of St. Denis’ episcopal vestments soaked in blood. ‘Do not be displeased’, he requested, ‘to return a small part of his vestments to us, for we sent that great man to you without a murmur, for the conversion of Gaul.’

There King Philip[14] and the Lord Louis met him with respect and vows, the royal majesty kneeling at his feet for love of God, just as kings are accustomed to bow their crowned heads at the sepulchre of Peter the fisherman. The lord pope stretched out his hand to raise them up and made them sit facing him as the most devoted sons of the apostles. As a shrewd man in his wisdom, he consulted them closely on the state of the church and, flattering them delicately, he prayed them to give assistance to St. Peter and himself, his vicar, to maintain the church, and in accordance with the custom established by their predecessor Charlemagne and other kings of the Franks, to resist boldly tyrants and the enemies of the church, above all the Emperor Henry.[15] They gave him their hands as witness of their friendship, aid and counsel, put their realm at his disposal, and sent with him to Chalons[16] to meet the imperial legates some archbishops and bishops and Adam, abbot of St. Denis, whom I accompanied. 

The lord pope waited there for some time before the legates of the Emperor Henry turned up as had been arranged. They were not humble, but proud and unrepentant. They received hospitality at St. Menge[17], where they left the chancellor Albert[18], with whom the emperor agreed heart and soul. The rest came to the papal court in a great procession with much pomp and display of ornament. They[19] were the archbishop of Trèves, the bishop of Halberstadt, the bishop of Munster, several counts and Duke Welf[20], a corpulent man of amazing girth and height and a loud voice, who had a sword carried before him everywhere. They made such commotion that they seemed to have been sent to frighten, not to reason with us.

Only the Archbishop of Trèves spoke for them. He was a well-bred and agreeable man, rich in eloquence and wisdom, fluent in French. He made a fitting speech, offering the lord pope and his court the greetings and cooperation of the emperor, saving the rights of his kingdom. Then in accordance with his instructions, he said: ‘This is the reason why I was sent by my lord the emperor. In the days of our ancestors and of the holy popes such as Gregory the Great and others, the empire had a recognised right that the following order be observed in every election. Before a public election took place, the name of the favoured candidate should be mentioned to the emperor, and if the person was suitable, he would give his assent before the election; then an assembly was held according to canon law, and by the request of the people, at the choice of the clergy and with the assent of the suzerain, the candidate was proclaimed. After being consecrated freely and without simony, he would go to the emperor for the regalia, to be invested with the ring and staff, and to take the oath of fidelity and homage. There is nothing odd about this. It is exactly the way in which cities or castles or marcher territories or tolls or any other gifts of the imperial dignity are conferred. If the lord pope will accept this, the kingdom and the church will remain together in prosperity and peace to the honour of God.’

To this the lord pope replied, after reflection, through the mouth of the bishop of Plaisance[21]: ‘The church which has been redeemed and set free through the precious blood of Christ ought in no way again to be imprisoned. If the church cannot choose a bishop without consulting the emperor, then it is enslaved by him, and Christ died in vain. Investiture with the staff and ring, since these things belong to the altar, is a usurpation of God’s rights. If hands consecrated to the body and blood of Christ is to be placed between laymen’s hands, bloodied by the use of the sword, in order to create an obligation, then ordination and sacred anointing are degraded.’

When the stiff-necked legates heard this and similar things, with German hot-headedness they ground their teeth, grew agitated, and if they could have dared to do so safely, they would have vomited their insults and wounded others. They cried, ‘This quarrel will not be ended here but in Rome and by the sword.’ But the pope sent several specially chosen and experienced men to the chancellor, to discuss these things with him in an orderly and peaceful way, where they could hear and be heard, and to beg him resolutely to work for the peace of the kingdom. After their departure the pope went to Troyes, where he presided with ceremony over a universal council called long before[22]; then, with great warmth for the French who had helped him so much, but with fear and hatred for the Germans, he returned successfully to the see of St. Peter.

But the emperor, in the second year after the pope’s return home, collected together an enormous army of thirty thousand men.[23] ‘Rejoicing to take only those roads bathed in blood’[24], he set out for Rome. There he very convincingly pretended to peaceful aims, put aside the investiture dispute, made all sorts of fine promises about this and other things and, in order to be allowed to enter the city, which would otherwise have been barred to him, he used flattery and feared not to deceive the supreme pontiff, the whole church, even the King of Kings. When they heard that this malicious problem, so serious and so dangerous for the church of God, had been solved, the Roman nobles rightly or wrongly danced with joy and the clergy rejoiced mightily; and in their enthusiasm each contended as to which should receive him more honourably or magnificently. Then the lord pope, surrounded by a crowd of bishops and cardinals clad in white mantles and on white horses hastened to meet him, followed by the Roman people. They had sent before them messengers to receive from the emperor the oath of peace sworn on the Bible and his renunciation of investitures. This was done at Monte Mario[25], where travellers arriving at Rome see for the first time the church of the blessed apostles. Then the oath was repeated by the hand of the emperor and his magnates at the very gate of Rome, a marvellous sight for all the Romans.

From thence he set forth with greater pomp than if some triumphal arch was smiling on an African victory; with hymns and much triumphant praise he received the diadem from the hand of the lord pope according to the Augustan custom[26]. Then he was taken to the most sacred altar of the apostles, preceded by a procession of clerics chanting hymns, and a terrible clamour of Germans whose shrieks pierced the heavens. Then the lord pope celebrated thanksgiving mass, offered the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and then broke the Eucharist, and the emperor received it and made his communion. He dedicated the marvellous sacrifice to the church, in testimony of an alliance founded on indivisible love and on the preservation of the peace.

The lord pope had scarcely taken off his episcopal regalia after the mass, when with unexpected wickedness Teutonic fury, concocting reasons for a breach broke forth in passion. Drawing their swords and rushing out as if filled with frenzy, they met the Romans, naturally unarmed in such a place. They shouted and swore that they would capture or slay the whole Roman clergy including bishops and cardinals and, the final height of insanity, they did not fear to lay hands on the lord pope himself. The Roman nobles and people, struck with incredulous grief and heartfelt sadness understood the treachery too late. Some rushed to arms, others fled as if bewildered. They could not escape the unexpected attack except by pulling down the beams of the gateway, so making their ruins into their defence. The emperor, at the mercy of his bad conscience and tormented by his evil deed left city as hastily as possible, taking with him as booty, Christians have never heard of such a deed by a Christian, the lord pope and as many cardinals and bishops as he could. He retired to Civitate Castellana[27], a place well defended both by nature and by man. Henry treated the cardinals disgracefully, dishonestly despoiling them and, wicked to relate, he proudly seized from the lord pope himself his cope and his mitre and other papal insignia, not fearing to lay hands on the Lord’s anointed yet injuring him much. Then he heaped insults upon them and would not suffer them to depart until he had forced them to annul the pact and to return him his privilege. He even extorted another underhand privilege from the hand of the pope, that he should thenceforth invest; a privilege which, in my own hearing and in a great council of three hundred or more bishops, the lord pope overturned and annulled under pain of perpetual anathema.[28]

But if anyone asks why the pope behaved so weakly, he should realise that without the pope and his cardinals the church languished, and the tyrant almost subdued it to slavery and treated it as if it were his own property, for there was no-one to resist him. The pope gave certain proof of this. For when he had brought about the release of his brothers, the pillars of the church, had done whatever he could for the defence and repair of the church and had restored some kind of peace to the church, he fled to a solitary refuge where he would have taken up perpetual abode had not the pressure of the universal church and of the Romans forced him to return.[29]

But the Lord Jesus Christ, the redeemer and defender of the church, would not suffer her to be long trampled under foot or the emperor to go unpunished. Those who were not bound or obliged by homage took up the cause of the storm-tossed church. With the help and advice of Louis, the lord designate[30], the French church in a famous council anathematised the tyrannical emperor and struck him with the sword of St. Peter.[31] Then, entering the kingdom of Germany, they raised up the nobles and the larger part of the kingdom against him, deposed his followers like Bouchard the Red, bishop of Münster[32], and did not cease to persecute him and seize his possessions until his deserved death and the end of his tyranny[33]. By divine vengeance, his evil deeds justly brought about the transfer of the empire; for after his death Lothar, duke of Saxony[34], succeeded, a warlike man, unconquered defender of the state. Accompanied by the lord pope Innocent[35], Lothar reduced recalcitrant Italy, ravaging Campania and Apulia as far as the Adriatic, before the eyes of count Roger of Sicily[36], because he had proclaimed himself king; then he returned home in the greatest triumph, to fall victim to death in his moment of victory.[37]

But let other writers describe these and similar things. I shall recall the deeds of the French, for that is my object.[38]

---

[1] Paschal II, a Cluniac monk was pope from 1099 to 1118. An Italian named Ranieri, he was born near Ravenna and was the successor of Urban II. He was a monk and, as a reformer, was made a cardinal by Pope Gregory VII. He was a loyal supporter of Urban II and maintained his position on lay investiture and homage by prelates (though he dropped the latter demand from 1106). His reign began well. Philip I of France was reconciled with the church in 1104, St. Anselm was victor in his struggle in England, and the First Crusade was a great success. Negotiations over investitures with the French and English kings led to agreements in 1106 and 1107 respectively, but proved more difficult with Henry V of Germany. In 1105, Henry IV was deposed by his son Henry V, with whom Paschal was allied. Henry V, however, proved no less strongly anti-investiture. He invaded Italy in 1110; negotiations between emperor and pope failed, and the emperor captured Paschal, who was compelled to surrender the papal position on investitures. Once freed, however, and encouraged by clerical protests, the pope reaffirmed the legislation against lay investiture in 1112 and 1116. The name is also spelled Pascal. He was succeeded by Gelasius II. Servatius, Carlo, Paschalis II, 1099-1118, Stuttgart, 1979 is the standard modern study.

[2] Investiture is a term for any transfer of property or rights from one person to another using symbols and a public ceremony to mark the transfer. In the eleventh century it had become customary for those who controlled appointments to bishoprics and abbeys to make these appointments by conferring on the bishop or abbot the staff which symbolised his office (and in the case of bishops also the ring symbolising his ‘marriage’ to the diocese. This is known as ‘lay investiture’. Lay investiture had been under attack from the 1050s at least; it is first known to have been condemned by Gregory VII and his followers in 1077, and the prohibition came to be a key papal demand, repeated on numerous occasions by subsequent popes. Henry I of England and Phillip I of France renounced the practice in 1106-7; Henry V renounced investiture with ring and staff in 1122 by the Concordat of Worms, but not investiture as such. Wilks, M.J., ‘Ecclesia and regalia: Papal Investiture Policy from the Council of Guastalla to the First Lateran Councilo 1106-1123’, in Cumming, G.J. and Baker, Derek, (eds.), Studies in Church History vol. 8, (Cambridge University Press), 1971, pp. 69-85 is especially useful.

[3] Henry V was emperor from 1106 to 1125. Although Henry came to power at the head of an uprising against his father in 1104-5, he proved no more willing to abandon investitures than his father had been. Negotiations with Paschal II led to the radical solution of 1111 by which the king abandoned investitures and the German prelates were to renounce all rights and lands granted to them by Henry or his predecessors. This proved unworkable, as did Paschal’s concession to Henry under duress of the right of investitures. Henry and successive popes negotiated intermittently over the next decade: agreement was nearly reached at Reims in 1119, and concluded by the concordat of Worms in 1122.

[4] St Maurice is believed to have been a soldier who was martyred in Gaul in the third century.

[5] He arrived in France in January 1107.

[6] He remained at Cluny from 4^th to 8^th February 1107.

[7] The monastery of la Charité-sur-Loire was a Cluniac priory and Paschal was there on 9^th May 1107. It is downstream about fifteen miles north of Nevers and about thirty miles from Bourges.

[8] The king of France and the pope had been reconciled since the 2^nd December 1104: see Monod, B., Essai sur les rapports de Pascal II avec Philippe I^er, Paris 1907, pp. 42-43. The count of Rochefort was sénéchal from 1091 until he went on crusade in 1101. From this date, the sénéchalate was confirmed successively to Gilbert called Païn de Garlande, then probably to Anselm de Garlande: Prou, M., (ed.), Recueil des actes de Philippe I^er, roi de France, Paris, 1908, pp. cxxxix and cxl. Having recovered his office in 1104, Guy de Rochefort exercised it for less than two years; his son Hugh de Crécy, replaced him in 1106.

[9] Trouble between the abbey of St-Denis and the bishops of Paris was of long standing: see ibid, Recueil des actes de Philippe I^er, roi de France, pp. 114-117 and ibid, Fliche, A., La Règne de Philippe I, roi de France 1060-1108, p. 109 for the dispute of 1068. Galon was elected bishop of Paris in July 1104 and died in 1116 and belonged to the reformist party in the Church. He disagreed with the abbot and monks of St-Denis who sought to get the sacraments from other bishops for which they were reprimanded by the pope in 1105(?).

[10] Paschal was at Tours from 24^th March to 3^rd April 1107.

[11] A ‘frigium’ or ‘phrygium’ held the mitre and the tiara. It was a white conical bonnet, circled at its base by a crown of gold and jewels. The tiara of three crowns did not appear until the fourteenth century.

[12] The pope was at Chartres on 19^th April before moving to St Denis by 30^th April 1107.

[13] Paschal’s humility before the relics of St Denis establishes an important theme in Suger’s work though it is more usually a characteristic of Louis VI: see chapters 28 and 34.

[14] Paschal decided to change his proposed journey to Germany and went on to France, where he was received enthusiastically by King Philip, who did penance for his adultery and was reconciled to the Church and by the French people. Henry resented the discussion of a German question on foreign soil, though the question of investitures was one of universal interest. The meeting was probably on either 1^st or 2^nd May 1107 since the pope was in Lagny on 3^rd May.

[15] Guibert de Nogent has a similar view of the relationship between past popes and kings of France and Ivo of Chartres wrote, in a letter to Paschal that the kingdom of the French had always been more submissive to the papacy than any other kingdom. Suger is here enlarging Louis’ royal duties to include the Carolingian role of protecting the pope: see Bur, Michel, ‘Suger’s Understanding of Political Power’, in ibid, Gerson, P.L., (ed.), Abbot Suger and St Denis, pp. 73-75.

[16] Around 10^th May.

[17] St. Menge is St. Memmie, a few miles east of Chalons in central eastern France.

[18] Albert became archbishop of Mainz in 1111 and was a supporter of church reform. He was imprisoned by the emperor for three years. He was restored to his position as chancellor in 1121 and died in 1137.

[19] Bruno de Brettheim, archbishop of Trèves from 1102 to 1124; Reinhard de Blankenbourg, bishop of Halberstadt from 1106 to 1123; Burchard de Holte ‘the Red’, bishop of Münster from 1097 to 1118

[20] Welf V, duke of Bavaria since 1102. Originally a supporter of the papacy and married to Matilda of Tuscany in 1089, he separated from her in 1095 and was reconciled with the emperor the following year. He died in 1119.

[21] Aldo Gabrielli, bishop of Plaisance from 1096 to 1118

[22] After the lengthy description of the meeting at Chalons, Suger passes over the Council of Troyes with almost no comment. Bur, Michel, La Formation du compté de Champagne v.950-v.1150, Nancy, 1977, p. 274 suggests that this was perhaps because the council was held in the lands of Theobald who was hostile to the Capetians. It opened on 23^rd May (Ascension Day) 1107 but its decisions are lost. The pope stayed in Troyes from 21^st to 23^rd May 1107 but left France soon after and was at Valence on 14^th July and Lausanne on 29^th July.

[23] Henry V threatened to deal with the problem of investiture by force, as soon as circumstances permitted his going to Rome to receive the imperial crown. In August 1110, he crossed the Alps with a well-organised army accompanied by a band of imperialistic lawyers. Crushing out opposition on his way through the peninsula, Henry sent an embassy to arrange with the Pope the preliminaries of his coronation. The outcome was embodied in the Concordat of Sutri. Before receiving the imperial crown, Henry was to renounce all claims to investitures, while the pope undertook to compel the prelates and abbots of the empire to restore all the temporal rights and privileges which they held from the crown. When the compact was made public in St. Peter’s on the date assigned for the coronation on 12^th February 1111, there arose a fierce protest led by the prelates who by one stroke of the pen had been degraded from the estate of princes of the empire to beggary. The indignation was the more intense, because the rights of the Roman See had been secured from a similar confiscation. After fruitless wrangling and three days of rioting, Henry carried the pope and his cardinals into captivity. Abandoned as he was by everyone, Paschal, after two months of imprisonment, yielded to the king that right of investiture. Henry’s violence rebounded upon himself. All Christendom united in condemning him. The voices raised to condemn the faint-heartedness of Paschal were drowned by the universal denunciation of Henry. Paschal acknowledged his weakness, but refused to break the promise he had made not to inflict any censure upon Henry for his violence. It was unfortunate for Paschal’s memory that he should be so closely associated with the episode of Sutri.

[24] Lucan, De bello civili, II, 439-440

[25] ‘Mons Gaudii’ or the Mount of Joy is so called bacause of the circumstances Suger related. It is just to the north of the Vatican.

[26] The emperor was crowned and subsequent arrest of the pope can be dated to 13^th February 1111.

[27] Civita Castellana is situated about twenty-five miles north of Rome. The pope was at Trevi with four cardinals. The rest were at Carcolle while Henry V camped not far from Corcolle at Ponte-Lucano.

[28] Paschal excommunicated Henry V at the council that sat in the Lateran Palace between 18^th and 23^rd May 1112. Suger was in Rome in 1112 and while there he gathered his version of the events of February 1111.

[29] Paschal II retired to one of the islands in the Pontine marsh in July 1111 and did not return to Rome until October. He reinstalled in the Lateran Palace by 26^th October.

[30] Louis became king in 1108. The error may have perhaps arisen because at this point in his text Suger had departed from his chronological approach to Louis’ reign. The compiler of Manuscript F substituted the words ‘Regis Francie’ for ‘domini designati Ludovici’.

[31] The Council of Vienne opened on 15^th September 1112 under the chairmanship of archbishop Guy of Burgundy, the future Calixtus II: see Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum... collectio, vol. xxi, pp. 73-76. There was another at Lyons, a provincial council probably called for the same reasons.

[32] This is an error. Bouchard had been deposed by a papal legate in 1105 and, moreover had been reinstated in January 1106. At the time of his death in 1118, he was clearly favoured by Henry V.

[33] Henry V died on 23^rd May 1125 from an illness he had had since childhood. With his death the Salian dynasty that had held imperial power for a century was ended.

[34] Lothar is known also as Lothar of Saxony or Lothar of Supplinburg. Lothar II is also called Lothar III. He was born in 1075 and died in 1137. He was Holy Roman emperor (1133–37) and German king (1125–37). The Emperor Henry V invested him with the duchy of Saxony in 1106, but after 1112 Lothar, in several rebellions successfully championed local independence against the royal authority. When Henry V died in 1125, the electors chose Lothar over Frederick of Hohenstaufen, Henry V’s nephew, to succeed him. This represented an important victory of elective over hereditary kingship. Frederick and his brother Conrad (who later became German king as Conrad III) made war on Lothar, and Conrad was elected (1127) anti-king. However, Lothar and his son-in-law, Henry the Proud of Bavaria, defeated the Hohenstaufen and peace was made in 1135. In Italy, Lothar promised his support to Pope Innocent II, whose election was disputed. In 1132, he entered Italy and was crowned emperor in Rome the following year. After the defeat of the Hohenstaufen, he returned to Italy in 1136 and campaigned successfully against Roger II of Sicily, supporter of the antipope Anacletus II. Lothar died on the journey home. As emperor, Lothar adhered loyally to the Concordat of Worms, and actively supported both political expansion and revival of missionary activity in the East. He forced various heathen princes to pay tribute and established German suzerainty in Denmark, Bohemia, and Poland. At his death his rival, Conrad III, was elected king.

[35] Pope Innocent II was Pope from 1130 to 1143. On 14^th February 1130, the morning following the death of Honorius II, the cardinal-bishops held an election and Gregory was chosen as his successor, taking the name of Innocent II. Three hours later Pietro Pierleone was elected by the other cardinals and took the name of Anacletus II. Both received episcopal consecration 23^rd February; Innocent at Santa Maria Nuova and Anacletus at St. Peter's. Finding the influential family of the Frangipani had deserted his cause, Innocent at first retired into the stronghold belonging to his family in Trastevere, then went to France by way of Pisa and Genoa. There he secured the support of Louis VI and in a synod at Etampes the assembled bishops, influenced by the eloquence of Suger of St-Denis, acknowledged his authority. This was also done by other bishops gathered at Puy-en-Velay through St. Hugh of Grenoble. The pope went to the Abbey of Cluny, and then attended another meeting of bishops in November, 1130 at Clermont.

[36] Roger II of Sicily was born c.1095 and died in 1154. He was count (1101–1130) and the first king (1130–1154) of Sicily, son and successor of Roger I. He conquered Apulia and Salerno in 1127 and sided with the antipope Anacletus II against Pope Innocent II. In 1130, Anacletus crowned Roger king. Innocent rallied the Emperor Lothar II and other allies against Roger but was defeated in 1139. Naples and Capua recognized Roger’s sovereignty. Innocent was obliged to invest him with the lands that became the kingdoms of Naples and Sicily. Roger also conquered the coast of Africa from Tunis to Tripoli. He established a strong central administration and attempted to fuse the disparate ethnic groups in his kingdom. Prosperity returned to Sicily, and Roger’s court at Palermo became a centre of the arts, letters, and sciences.

[37] In the spring of 1137, Emperor Lothar, in answer to the repeated entreaties of the pope, began his march to Rome. The papal and imperial troops met at Bari on 30^th May, 1137, and the pope was again conducted into Rome. He died on 4^th December 1137.

[38] Much of this chapter is largely irrelevant to a book on the life of Louis VI and Suger seems to be aware of this.

Chapter 9

Bohemond, prince of Antioch

Around that time, the distinguished prince of Antioch, Bohemond[1], came to visit France. Because of his valour, the fortifications of Antioch had been given into his special charge after the long hard siege. This famous man, outstanding among the Orientals, performed one exploit of such generosity that it could never have been achieved without divine assistance and which is still talked about among the Saracens .

With his father Robert Guiscard he had crossed the sea to besiege Durazzo[2] and the riches of Thessalonica, the treasures of Constantinople and even the whole of Greece proved inadequate to make them withdraw. Suddenly legates arrived there from Pope Alexander[3], who had crossed the sea after them to summon them, for the love of God and the loyalty owed by vassals, to assist and rescue the Roman church and the pope who were being besieged by the emperor[4] in the tower of Crescentius[5]. They begged them desperately and declared on oath that if they did not come at once, the city, the church and even the pope himself would be shipwrecked.

The prince hesitated before choosing whether to put an end for good to such a great and costly expedition, or to bear the responsibility for the enslavement or total ruin of the pope, the city and the church. When they had anxiously thought about it, they made an excellent decision, to help the pope without renouncing the expedition. Leaving Bohemund at the siege, his father set sail for Apulia, collected men and arms from wherever he could, from Sicily, Apulia, Calabria and Campania, and hastened swiftly and boldly to Rome. And so it happened by the will of God and as a marvellous portent, that while he was at Rome the emperor of Constantinople, hearing of his absence, brought up an army of Greeks to attack Bohemund in Durazzo by land and by sea; so, on exactly the same day as his father Guiscard came to grips with the emperor at Rome[6], he fought valiantly against the Greek emperor[7], and each prince, marvellous to relate, triumphed over his emperor.[8]

Bohemund came to France[9] to seek by any means he could the hand of the Lord Louis’ sister Constance[10], a young lady of excellent breeding, elegant appearance and beautiful face[11]. So great was the reputation for valour of the French kingdom and of the Lord Louis that even the Saracens were terrified by the prospect of that marriage. She was not engaged since she had broken off her agreement to wed Hugh, count of Troyes[12], and wished to avoid another unsuitable match. The prince of Antioch was experienced and rich both in gifts and promises; he fully deserved the marriage, which was celebrated with great pomp by the bishop of Chartres in the presence of the king, the Lord Louis, and many archbishops, bishops and noblemen of the realm[13].

Among those present was the papal legate, Lord Bruno, bishop of Segni[14], who had accompanied Bohemond at the instigation of Pope Paschal to call for and encourage an expedition to the Holy Land.[15] So at Poitiers[16] he held a full and solemn council, at which I was present because I had just finished my studies, where he dealt with various synodal matter and especially with the Jerusalem journey, lest zeal for the project should cool; and both he and Bohemond inspired many people to go there. Strengthened by this sizeable company of knights, Bohemund, the lady Constance and the legate all returned happily and gloriously to their home[17]. Lady Constance bore Lord Bohemund two sons, John and Bohemund. John died in Apulia before he was old enough to be knighted. But Bohemund[18], a graceful young man, made for chivalry, became prince of Antioch. One day when he was attacking the Saracens, heedless of their zeal and bravery, he rashly followed them, fell into the trap they set and was beheaded along with a hundred knights for having displayed too much courage. Thus he lost Antioch, Apulia and his life.

---

[1] Bohemond c.1056–1111, prince of Antioch (1099–1111) was a leader in the First Crusade and the son of Robert Guiscard by his first marriage. He was with his father he fought (1081–85) against the Byzantine emperor Alexius I. When his father’s duchy of Apulia passed to his younger brother Roger, Bohemond made war against him and obtained Taranto as a fief. In 1096, he joined the Crusaders, swore the oath of fealty to Alexius at Constantinople (1097) and in 1098 at the siege of Antioch devised the stratagem by which the city was captured. He subsequently made himself prince of Antioch, in defiance of his oath to Alexius, and over the opposition of Raymond IV of Toulouse, leader of the crusade. He was captured by Muslims in 1100 and was not released until 1103. Returning to Europe, he married the daughter of Philip I of France and secured papal support for a crusade against Alexius. However, he was defeated in 1108 and as a result was forced to reaffirm his vassalage. In 1109, he was defeated by the Muslims at Harran. He did not return to Antioch, and his nephew Tancred acted as his regent. For Bohemond’s career see Cardini, Franco, Lozito, Nunzio and Vetere, Benedetto, (eds.), Boemondo: Storia di un principe Normanno, (Mario Congedo Editore), 2003 and for his activities in France, Yewdale, R.B., Bohemond I, Prince of Antioch, (Princeton University Press), 1924, pp. 106-112 and Flori, Jean, Bohemond d’Antioche: Chevalier d’Aventure, (Payot), 2007, pp. 265-273.

[2] Durazzo was the principal port for those travelling from Italy to Constantinople. The Norman campaign in the Epirus was in 1081 and 1082 and the siege of Durazzo lasted from 17^th June 1081 until its surrender on 21^st February 1082. ‘Greece’ here refers to the Byzantine Empire.

[3] Suger is incorrect here. The pope who appealed to Robert Guiscard for help in the early 1080s was Gregory VII (1073-1085) not Alexander II (1061-1073). Pope Nicholas II’s (1059-1061) relations with the Normans, firmly entrenched in southern Italy, were friendly. By the Treaty of Melfi (August 23^rd 1059) he appointed Robert Guiscard as duke of Apulia, Calabria, and Sicily (with papal suzerainty over these lands) and Richard of Aversa as prince of Capua, in return for allegiance. It was as ‘protector of the Catholic church’, Guiscard returned from Durazzo.

[4] Robinson, I.S., Henry IV of Germany 1056-1106¸ (Cambridge University Press), 1999, pp. 211-236 considers his second Italian expedition 1081-1084. There had been negotiations between the emperor and Robert Guiscard in early 1081 but these were soon overshadowed by a Byzantine approach to Henry. The Alexiad, book iii, p. 160-161 gives the Byzantine perspective: ‘In a letter Alexius urged the emperor to delay no longer and invade Lombardy…thus Robert would be kept busy and Alexius could collect his armies with impunity and drive the Normans from Illyricium.’

[5] Gregory VII was besieged in the Castel San’ Angelo in early 1084. It was called the tower of Crescentius in the chansons de geste after the Crescenti, an important Roman family.

[6] Robert Guiscard forced his way into Rome from the east on 28^th May 1084, four days after he arrived at the city. He rescued Gregory VII from Castel S. Angelo and brought him back to the Lateran palace. Continued Roman resistance led to widespread destruction of the city. This led to considerable resentment among the Romans preventing Gregory from staying in the city and he was obliged to leave in July when Guiscard withdrew to the south and he died at Salerno on 25^th May 1085.

[7] Alexius Comnenus I 1048-1118 was Byzantine emperor from 1081 to 1118. Under the successors of his uncle, Isaac I, the empire had fallen prey to anarchy and foreign invasions. In 1081, Alexius, who had become popular as a general, overthrew Nicephorus III and was proclaimed emperor. The most immediate danger besetting the empire was the Norman invasions (1081-1085) under Robert Guiscard and his son, Bohemond. Alexius obtained Venetian help at the price of valuable commercial privileges. This and a truce with the Seljuk Turks enabled him to defend the Balkan Peninsula until the death of Robert Guiscard, when the Normans temporarily withdrew (1085).

[8] Suger is mistaken. Bohemond had already returned to Italy from Greece in the spring of 1083 largely because there was no money available to continue the campaign against Alexius. His victory over Alexius took place in May 1082 in the course of the siege of Joannina just as his father was leaving for Italy.

[9] A marriage alliance with France would have been an attractive option for Bohemond and the initiative appears to have been entirely his: Orderic Vitalis 4: 213. Never one to refer to Bertrade and her children when not necessary, Suger fails to mention that king Philip also gave Cecilia, his daughter by Bertrade in marriage to Tancred, Bohemond’s nephew.

[10] Constance (1078-1124) was the daughter of Philip I of France.

[11] Bohemond had other reasons for coming to France. When he was held captive by the emir Doniman in 1101 and 1102, he swore he would make a pilgrimage to St-Leonard-de-Noblat. According to Orderic Vitalis 4: 212, he also brought with him a pretender who claimed to be the son of the emperor Romanus IV Diogenes to try and get French support against Alexius Comnenus.

[12] Constance had married Hugh I, count of Troyes and Champagne in 1094 or 1095 when aged sixteen. On the intervention of Ivo of Chartres the marriage was ended by the assembly at Soissons 25^th December 1104 on the grounds of consanguinity. Suger’s comment that Hugh was not worthy of her is rather harsh but may help to explain Hugh’s later hostility to Louis.

[13] After Easter, which in 1106 fell on 25^th March, Bohemond returned to Limousin.

[14] Born in Asti, Italy, in 1049, Bruno became a Benedictine monk while still young and in 1080, Pope Gregory VII appointed him bishop of Segni. He re-entered the monastic life in 1102, becoming the abbot of Monte Cassino five years later without resigning from his episcopal position. Bruno served as librarian to the Holy Roman See and as a cardinal legate. He was canonised in 1183.

[15] Bohemond planned to make a frontal attack on the Byzantine Empire through Albania, as his father, Robert Guiscard, with Bohemond as second-in-command, had done in 1081-5.  His experience convinced him that he might succeed, particularly if he could channel the mounting anti-Byzantine prejudices of the west into support of his venture. These prejudices were born of the friction and misunderstanding engendered by the passage of the hungry and ill-disciplined forces of the First Crusade through the Byzantine empire, and by the disaster of the Crusade of 1101, which Alexius was widely suspected of sabotaging. The wily Norman, therefore, decided to promote a new ‘crusade’, directed not against the Moslems but against the Byzantines. Its real purpose was not to protect the Holy Sepulchre, but to increase his own power. To start a crusade he needed the sanction of pope Paschal II. He saw the pope in 1105. As a result, Paschal appointed bishop Bruno of Segni as legate to preach a new crusade. Although the reports of the Council of Poitiers where the crusade was formally launched in 1106 mention the ‘way to Jerusalem’ rather than Byzantium, it seems likely that Paschal succumbed to the anti-Byzantinism of the day and fell in with Bohemond’s plans. There is no record that the pope denounced Bohemond’s purpose when it became publicly apparent. Indeed, in his relations with the Norman, Paschal does not emerge as a strong character.

[16] The council of Poitiers was held on 26^th May 1106.

[17] ‘Home’ in this context refers to Bohemond’s possessions in southern Italy rather than the crusader territories in the east.

[18] Bohemond II Guiscard, prince of Antioch (1126-1130) was born in 1107 and died in 1130. He married Alice de Rethel (1110-1153) and had a daughter Constance, princess of Antioch (1127-1163). On the death of Tancred in 1112, his relative Roger of the Principate was named regent for the still-young heir and namesake of Bohemond I. Direct rule of Antioch by Jerusalem was achieved in 1119 with the death of Roger at the battle of Ager Sanguinis and the subsequent naming of Baldwin II of Jerusalem as regent in Roger’s stead. Baldwin II’s regency was to last, with the exception of his time in captivity from 1123 to 1124, until the arrival from Apulia of Bohemond II in 1126. The younger Bohemond was to carry on the policies of his father and cousin, dying just four years after his arrival while fighting in Cilicia, and bequeathing to the principality a two-year-old female heiress, Constance. Antioch was then ruled by regency, initially by Baldwin II again. With the king’s death in 1130, Alice, widow of Bohemond II and mother of his daughter Constance, contrived, with the aide of both Tripoli and Edessa (both of which wished to abolish the overlordship of Jerusalem) to take power. King Fulk, husband to Baldwin’s heiress Melesende, was obliged to march north to take control of the situation, claiming the regency for himself. In 1133, the king chose Raymond of Poitiers as groom for Constance, thus ensuring an Antiochene leadership more amenable to the interests of Jerusalem. The marriage between the 36-year-old Raymond and the 10-year-old Constance took place in 1136.