Page images
PDF
EPUB

repudiate the alliance with the count of Flanders, on the ground that the count owed peculiar duty to the king of France. 1 The advantage which Philip's control over John gave him may be seen if we compare his attempts to break through the allegiance of the Normans in Richard's reign with his success after 1202.

(2) As opportunity arose Philip had tried to counteract the obligations of Richard's liege vassals, but with little result. For example, there was his suggestion (in which of course John concurred) to separate John's continental lands from direct allegiance to Richard in the event of the latter's return from captivity.2 The complicated arrangements which deal in the treaties of this period with the counts of Meulan, and especially with Hugh of Gournai,3 are more pertinent illustrations of his method. Thus, by the treaty of Louviers Hugh of Gournai's homage was to remain to Philip during Hugh's lifetime, unless he should wish to return to his allegiance, although the knights of the fief were allowed to reserve their duty to Richard. But, except in the case of this particularly

1. This clause was a repetition of the clause in the treaty of 1196, but the specific insertion of the count of Flanders strengthened Philip's position; see Cart. Norm., p. 281.

2. See the treaty of January, 1194, between John and Philip, in Cart. Norm., p. 275. "Et si rex Francie faceret pacem cum rege Anglie ipse faceret michi pacem erga regem Anglie, ita quod ego [Johannes] terram, quam haberem pro pace citra mare, tenerem a rege Francie, si posset."

3. Howden, iii, 218; Cart. Norm., pp. 276-7.

4. Cart. Norm., p. 277. This impossible arrangement illustrates the difficulty of describing feudal relations in terms of geography. So long as Hugh of Gournai remained true to Philip, Gournai would be comprehended with the Vexin, in the lands ceded to Philip; and I have included it within the line separating France from Normandy in the map at the end of this volume. Yet, presumably, in case of war between Richard and Philip, those of Hugh's knights who had remained true to Richard, and whose rights were safeguarded by the treaty, could

important fief, such cumbrous arrangements were not found desirable. Philip preferred to secure his rights in the border fiefs and castles which he had seized, by means of a public treaty and, at the same time, to force terms upon their unlucky lords. After his conquest of Vernon and Paci, which was confirmed by Richard in 1195-6, Richard of Vernon received lands in exchange, and for a time became a French vassal, and Robert of Leicester, who was a captive, was forced to cede Paci as a ransom.2 Yet Philip's regard for the earl's duty to King Richard is shown by an arrangement which he made with the earl's nephew, Simon de Montfort. Simon, as a French vassal, went surety for his uncle's promise that, after his release, he would never again use force against the king of France, or plot any evil against him, unless war should again break out between the two kings. 3 After John's condemnation Philip was no longer hindered by the accepted doctrine; he was, on the contrary, able to urge it in his own favour. In Richard's reign he had waged public war, in John's he punished a recalcitrant vassal. Hence he was able to push the theory to its logical conclusion and to insist upon the entire allegiance of John's vassals. Their service was now due to him, and those who refused to join him were rightly deprived, just as their lord had been deprived.

(3) At the same time Philip's attitude to the Normans was untouched by indignation. He had, as I have shown, no love for traitors and did not regard the Normans who

Above, p. 162.

1. Cart. Norm., nos. 33, 34, p. 9. 2. Ibid, nos. 36-40, pp. 9, 10, 278. Howden, iii, 278; iv, 5. Cf. the charter of the count of Evreux after the treaty of 1200, Cart. Norm., no. 53, p. 281.

3. Cart. Norm., no. 41, p. 278.

join Richard's forces, or would not be expected to fight against him. It should be noticed that, although by the treaty of 1200 (Ibid, 281) Philip retained the Norman Vexin as ceded in 1196, Hugh of Gournai and his lands were not included. Hugh was one of John's sureties.

were faithful to John as morally guilty. They were political unfortunates. In the terms offered to the refugees in Rouen, for example, he permitted those who so desired to retire from Normandy either by land or sea.1 Consistent with this attitude was his eagerness to welcome all who would take the oath of fealty to him and do him homage. He made only three or four exceptions, the seneschal, the count of Meulan and Roger of Tosny and his sons. And it is especially interesting to note that he was willing to show favour to some of the barons who had large interests both in England and Normandy. His agreement with the Marshal in 1204, is a striking confirmation of the fact that his general policy of excluding John's followers was nothing more than a drastic application of strictly feudal ideas. At Lisieux in 1204, the Marshal and the earl of Leicester, who had formed part of John's mission to Philip, paid a large fine for a year's delay before deciding whether or not they would do homage to Philip for their Norman lands. The earl of Leicester had died before the time had elapsed, but the Marshal-who, according to his biographer, had John's permission did homage in 1205. His family retained their Norman property during the early reign of Henry III.

Both the Marshal and the earl of Leicester were beyond reproach as men of honour. When the former died, after strenuous service in England on behalf of John and his son, Philip, then growing old after a reign of nearly forty years, spoke of him as the most loyal man of his time. 5

1. Teulet, Layettes, i, 251.

2. Ibid, p. 250. The count of Meulan's position, as a baron in France, Normandy, and England, as the father of a traitor to John, and as a recent deserter from Philip, was peculiarly difficult.

3. Cart. Norm., no. 74, p. 14; Actes, no. 818; Guill. le Maréchal, iii, 177; above, p. 383.

4. Guill. le Maréchal, iii, 178.

5. Ibid, iii, 268.

The earl of Leicester, the hero of the siege of Rouen in 1193, had suffered imprisonment and the loss of the important honour of Paci, in the service of Richard. It is interesting, therefore, to find that these men did not regard their action in 1204 as inconsistent with their duty to John; and it is still more significant that the Marshal, in spite of his devotion to John's interests, braved the king's anger by refusing to fight against his lord Philip, and found support in his refusal. His action was pedantic and unnecessary.2 It pushed the doctrine of feudal loyalty further than Philip could have expected; it was, for instance, quite contrary to the principle of duty to the liege-lord which Philip had tried to impose upon the count of Flanders. Possibly the Marshal was more impressed than his fellows were by the condemnations passed upon John by the French court. Yet, however exceptional his conduct was, there could be no more striking evidence of the fact that a great warrior and statesman of the twelfth century, whose loyalty was

1. For the scene between John and the Marshal, one of the most striking passages in the poem, see Ibid, iii, 180-1. It appears from the charter of 1220 (Cart. Norm., no. 285, p. 43), by which the Marshal's son gave the Norman lands to his brother, that father and son did liege homage to Philip: "et ego facerem pro eo domino regi Francorum hominagium ligium citra mare et quicquid deberem eo modo et in tali puncto in quo predictus Guillelmus pater meus fecit ei hominagium,” etc. 2. The situation was, however, difficult. John was undoubtedly the Marshal's liege lord, but from the last note it would appear that Philip had put him in the apparently impossible position of having two liege lords, one for his lands on each side of the Channel. The later solution of the difficulty is given by Bracton, f. 427b (ed. Rolls Series, vi, 374, 376). In the event of war, those vassals who held land both in England and France were expected to serve in person with the lord whom they generally served, and to provide the service due to the other. In other words the technical existence of two liege lords was ignored. The Marshal's sons were permitted to travel with five knights in Normandy, on condition that they and the knights took an oath that they would do no harm to king or realm. They were also required to surrender any of their fortresses on demand. See Cart. Norm., nos. 1120, 285, 286; pp. 304, 43-4.

undisputed, might pass through the world without the faintest conception of what we call patriotism, or nationality, or treason. The 'rector Angliae' had no country, was French rather than English in mind and habits, and learned his political duties from feudal law books.

It is helpful to remember that the Marshal was also a great landholder in Ireland, where the only standard of duty possible for the Anglo-Norman mind was feudal. The state of Ireland during John's reign reminds one of the kingdom of Jerusalem rather than that of England or Normandy. The settlers had no duties to the king outside Ireland, unless they held lands elsewhere. Ireland was not a part of the Angevin empire in the sense that England was.1 Again, the Marshal was a very important Lord Marcher of Wales, where the feudal jurist could always find scope for his reasoning. When, five years after the loss of Normandy, John's fury was aroused against his old favourite, William of Briouze,2 the Marshal sheltered the fugitive on his estate at Wicklow. The justiciar, John Gray, demanded him as a traitor to the king. But William of Briouze was the Marshal's lord, probably for some land in Wales, and the Marshal replied that, although he was ignorant of the king's anger against his guest, he could not surrender one whom it had been his duty to entertain. He also would be guilty of treason if he were to deliver his lord to the justiciar.3

According to Bracton, the Marshal's double position

1. See John's letter to Ireland, printed below, p. 480.

2. Below, p. 468.

3. Guill. le Maréchal, 11. 14224–6 :

"Li evesques me deit guerre

Chose dont requeste me vienge
Ne qu'a traison apartienge."

On the incident, see Orpen, Ireland under the Normans, ii, 239.

с

« PreviousContinue »