« PreviousContinue »
whole in continuing the policy which, as is shown by his charters and by the statements of his accounts for 1202, 1 he had adopted after the acquisition of the Vexin and the fortresses on the Eure. This policy was a twofold one; on the one hand, he concentrated in his own demesne the castles and territory which occupied positions of peculiar strategic or commercial importance, and at the same time retained definite control over the castles which he gave away; on the other hand, he was careful to observe with a few modifications the customs of Normandy in Church and state and to maintain private rights. In this summary of Philip's work I will confine myself to a brief consideration of this twofold policy.
Philip began his reorganisation of the demesne by ordering elaborate enquiries to be made into the ducal rights and customary revenues, and into the financial and social organisation of those estates which, like Vernon and Paci and Evreux, now ceased to be private property. The important record of accounts for the year 1202 shows that these enquiries must have been made in the south of Normandy after the treaties of 1195 and 1200. As a result the administration of Vernon, which became Philip's headquarters in the Seine valley, and of the district to the west of Vernon, was so satisfactory that the king has been largely able to carry on the war, or at least to maintain the garrisons on this part of his new frontier, out of local funds. Philip formed the county of Evreux, the Norman
2 Vexin, Paci and Vernon into a compact demesne which, from an economic point of view, he seems to have regarded
1. This statement of accounts is printed in Brussel, Nouvel examen de l'usage général des fiefs en France, vol. ii, p. cxxxix. On its value, see Brussel's remarks, vol. i, 436–7.
2. Brussel, 1.c. Inquests in the Cart. Norm., nos. 116, 117, pp. 20-1, nos. 199–201, pp. 30–1, and no 1079, pp. 287–8.
as part of France rather than of Normandy.' After the conquest the rest of Normandy was submitted to similar inquiry and organisation. The viscounties, preposituræ and other units of the farmed revenues were probably grouped in viscounties within the bailiwicks. Private and hereditary rights, such as those of the bishop of Lisieux, were investigated; in some cases their precarious nature was emphasised, 3 others were bought up, 4 others were disputed. The more irksome claims upon revenue, of which Queen Berengaria's dowry in Falaise, Domfront and Bonneville-sur-Touque was the chief, were exchanged for grants of lands or money elsewhere.' Investigation was also made into the condition and equipment of the royal castles. Careful inventories of the armouries and reports upon repairs have survived. And, while he was dealing with these matters, Philip ordered an inquiry into the distribution of the Jews.8
1. Philip's charters illustrates this. In 1205 the burgesses of Breteuil were exempted from dues in Normandy, Poitou, Anjou, Maine, except in the county of Evreux, the Norman Vexin, Paci, Vernon and the land of Hugh of Gournai (Actes, no. 902). Compare above, p. 370. Roger of Meulan was induced to exchange his rights in the viscounty of Evreux for lands in the county.
2. Delisle in Historiens de France, xxiv, part i, p. 97* ; cf. also his early essay upon the bailiffs of the Côtentin (1851) in the Mémoires de la Société des Antiquaires de Normandie, vol. xix.
3. e.g., the letter of Jordan, bishop of Lisieux, October, 1204, in Curt. Norm., no. 92, p. 17: "nos domino Regi Francorum Philippo concedimus ut sufferentia, quam ipse nobis fecit de libertatibus civitatis et banleuge nostre, in nulla re nobis auxilietur contra ipsum per teneaturam," etc.
the rights of Roger of Meulan in Evreux. See note above. 5. e.g., the archibishop's claims to fouage in Andeli; cf. Cart. Norm., no. 132, p. 23, where a settlement is reached.
6. Actes, no. 105; inquiry into the revenue of these places in Cart. Norm., no. 111. Berengaria received Le Mans in exchange. For other references to her, see Actes, nos. 857, 892, 895, 1777.
7. The count of Boulogne received in exchange for Mortemer the castles of Aumâle and Domfront, and the village of Saint-Riquier. At the same time he received Mortain (Actes, nos. 883–5).
8. Cart. Norm., nos. 207, 208, 213, 214, 215; pp. 32–4.
Although the official records of the duchy had been removed by John's orders to London, adequate materials for Philip's investigations remained. The documents inscribed upon his register include, for example, the summary statement of knight service, based upon the inquest of 1172,1 which is also found in the Red Book of the English exchequer. Many of the original deeds and documents, which had lain in the Norman archives and contained important evidence upon Norman customs, found their way into the Trésor des Chartes. Unfortunately the existing records of Philip's inquests are too fragmentary to enable the historian to construct a complete description of Normandy in 1204. They are only sufficient to give some idea of the scope and variety of the king's instructions.
Soon after the conquest Philip announced that he had added to his demesne the lands of several great barons, including the earls of Warenne, Arundel, Leicester and Clare, and of all those knights who were at the time in England.3 A document, which is inscribed upon one of the registers, contains a list of the cities and fortresses which had been incorporated in the demesne. All the cities (that is, the seats of bishoprics) and nearly forty castles are contained in this list. The most important exceptions are Argentan, Drincourt, Radepont, Nonancourt, Domfront, Mortain, Saint-James-de-Beuvron and Pontorson; and inquiry shows that the tenure of the barons who held these was in several cases subject to restriction. Thus Robert of Courtenai, to whom Philip
1. Recueil des historiens de France, xxxiii, 693; Hall in Red Book of the Exchequer, II, pp. ccxxxi-iv.
2. Cart. Norm., p. iii. Cf. the charter for Falaise, 1204, no. 75, p. 283 : "preterea volumus et concedimus ut stabilimentum commune eorum, sicut continetur in rotulo qui coram nobis lectus fuit et in registro nostro transcriptus, inviolabiter observetur."
3. Cart. Norm., no. 113, p. 20; Actes, no. 887.
4. Cart. Norm.., no. 209, p. 32. Gaillon is included, though Cadoc had a life interest in it.
gave Conches and Nonancourt, pledged himself not to sell, give or mortgage them. Radepont was held by Pierre of Moret under special conditions of service.2 Domfront was part of the grant to Renaud, count of Boulogne, in exchange for Mortemer. His presence in the west, and that of his brother in Saint-James-de-Beuvron really acted as a check upon the barons of Brittany.3
It is indeed interesting to notice how judiciously Philip played off one interest against another, or by apparent concessions strengthened his position. He was not afraid to establish powerful vassals on the Breton frontier, if at the same time, he could recover places of more strategic importance on the Norman border or in Touraine. Accordingly he bought the count of Boulogne out of Mortemer and André of Vitré out of Langeais. At the same time, he tried to break down the barrier between Normans and Frenchmen by the settlement of his barons and servants in the duchy, 5 and by encouraging intermarriage between the great barons of Normandy and the Ile de France. For example, the daughter of the chamberlain of Tancarville married the son of Walter the younger, one of the royal chamberlains;6 and the son of Count Robert of Alençon married the daughter of Bartholomew of Roie, one of Philip's closest companions, who in 1208 became grand chamberlain of France.?
While, however, King Philip secured his position in Normandy, he was careful to make the transition from
1. Ibid, no. 97, p. 13; Actes, no. 900.
2. Cart. Norm., no. 184, p. 297. Compare a somewhat similar pro. vision with regard to Montbason in Touraine (Actes, no. 1009).
3. Actes, no. 884, 885, 986. The Mortemer referred to is Mortemer en-Bray, a fief of Earl Warenne before 1204.
4. Ibid, no. 1000.
5. Grants to balistarii, ibid, nos. 817, 955, 1038; to his falconer, no. 956. The Actes and the Cart. Norm. abound in grants of Norman lands.
Actes, no. 917. 7. Cart. Norm., no. 122, p. 22.
Angevin to French rule as easy as possible. As king of France he was in any event overlord of the Normans. His relations with them, especially with the clergy, had commenced long before 1204. In the affairs both of Church and of state he sought to observe the " customs of Normandy.”
Throughout the process of annexation Philip professed to act in accordance with the forms of law. He had, he said, conquered Normandy in pursuance of a judgment duly given to his court, and he called upon the bishops and lay barons to swear fealty to him. With the former he had small difficulty. In reply to an appeal for advice they were told by Innocent III to decide for themselves upon the justice of Philip's action; whereupon they submitted. Their successors emphatically recognised the right of the French kings in Normandy. On his side, Philip, according to William the Breton, recognised the canonical rights of election of the Norman clergy which had been disregarded by King John.3
With the memories of the dispute about Séez fresh in their minds, the clergy doubtless expected Philip to restore this and other privileges. They had a peculiar advantage in their opposition to interference, for at this period the compromise between the law of Church and state was more precisely defined in Normandy than it was in England. The privileges of the clergy had been secured by King Richard's constitution pro clericis et sacerdotibus,5 and by the articles drawn up in 1190 by
1. See the pope's reply to the Norman bishops, March 7th, 1205, Potthast, no. 2434; Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. ccxv, p. 564 : "justitia praeeunte, per sententiam curiae suae Normanniam acquisivit.”
2. Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, iv, 646.
3. Philippid, lib. viii, 241-64 (ed. Delaborde, ii, 219-20). Cf. Actes, no. 1109 : the bishop of Coutances declares that, during a vacancy in the see of Rouen, the chapter have the administration of the temporali. ties and spiritualities of the archbishopric.
4. Above, p. 248.