The following essay was written for Professor Gerard Caspary's fall 1991 History 4B introductory survey on medieval European history. My T.A. for this sophomore course was Michelle Fontaine. I barely remember the class. I don't remember writing this paper, and I sure don't know now what the hell it's talking about.

n The Murder of Charles the Good and in The Journey of Louis VII to the East the characteristics of an exemplary or despised monarch were extensively expounded. According to these texts, the ideals of a good ruler of the 11th century Europe entailed values such as piety, humility, diplomacy, and most importantly, the existence of the ruler primarily for the benefit of his subjects. These characteristics differed not too greatly from the western ideals of today. On the other hand, the colourful and tumultuous History of the Franks, written by Gregory of Tours in what is now France during the 6th century, the ideals were markedly different from today's, and they somewhat reflected the early Germanic warrior values and turbulent atmosphere of that period. In fact, rather tellingly, Gregory felt a need to justify his book in its preface by stating that he had wrote his it in reaction to the common perception among his contemporaries that they were living in an age of decline of civilisation. Ultimately, the dichotomy found between these texts from the 6th and 11th century marked the gradual evolution in values and perceptions from a society dominated by ostensibly bloodthirsty “barbarian” warlords to one that is familiar to modern European civilisation.

he History of the Franks was a lively chronicle written by Gregory of Tours, an extremely devoted orthodox Catholic who became the Bishop of that French city in 573 (Thorpe 9). Since he lived in a very turbulent era when various kings fought against each other and when constant warfare and plunder of Church property were all too common, Gregory developed some particular biases. According to the work’s English translator Lewis Thorpe:

Gregory was a zealous churchman: naturally enough, he always saw situations from the viewpoint of the Church; and a king who was regular in his attendance at the offices of the Church or a count who made a strenuous effort to protect church buildings and church property might hope to find his vices more readily condoned in the History (34).

In addition to this factor, there was also the constant power struggle between Church and State to consider. Unlike complete meshing between Church and State commonly found in late medieval, Renaissance, and modern European monarchies, the early Middle Ages were still an era of perpetual conflict between these two powerful orders. Christianity’s hold on the populace was not universal, and it still had to fight and compete against the temporal rulers for the hearts and minds of the people. As a zealous member of the clergy, Gregory was obviously on the side of the Church, and those kings or counts who were on the other side, no matter how generous a ruler or successful a military tactician, were not viewed too favorably by him. As a result, it would not be surprising for the reader of History to find that most of the rulers who were favorable to the Church were good rulers in the eyes of Gregory.

The ruler most admired by Gregory was the Merovingian king Clovis. He was considered a good king because not only did he fought against the heretical Arians (Gregory II.37.151) and was a brave and honest warrior, but he also protected the Church and endow it with generous tributes. Clovis was also admired for his successful military exploits which united large portions of Gaul, notwithstanding his litany of moral vices, which seemed to be tacitly accepted by Gregory. As a matter of fact, Clovis was an extremely violent man who once lamented that he did not have any living relatives left to kill (since he killed them all already) (Gregory II.42.158). Not only did Clovis keep a concubine and was merciless toward his enemies, but his faith was also somewhat superficial and expedient: he converted to Christianity after invoking God to help him win a battle which he subsequently won (Gregory II.30.143). The fact that he respected Church property, St. Martin, and the eponymous church dedicated to him, was due to his judgement that it would be advantageous to do so (not because he was a pious and magnanimous person). When Clovis and his troops went through Tours, he ordered his men not to plunder the town out of respect for St. Martin, its patron saint. When one of his soldiers took hay from a farmer by force, he was later executed by Clovis, who justified his act by saying, "’It is no good expecting to win this fight if we offend St. Martin'" (Gregory II.37.152). Although he was an immoral, bloodthirsty warrior and would not be considered a good Christian by later standards, Clovis was considered a good ruler by most of his contemporaries because simply because he was a generous patron and defender of the Church, a vicious fighter against the heretic Arians, and defended the concept of the Trinity. Gregory explained the one reason for Clovis's success as a ruler with the following observation:

Clovis, who believed in the Trinity, crushed the heretics with divine help and enlarged his dominion to include all of Gaul; but Alaric, who refused to accept the Trinity, was therefore deprived of his kingship, his subjects and, what is more important, the life hereafter (III.0.161).

In contrast to Clovis, king Chilperic, one of Clovis' successors, was not a defender of the Church; in fact, he plundered it and constantly went on relentless rampages across the French countryside. In Gregory's eyes, Chilperic epitomised all the characteristics of a despised despot. According to Gregory:

Many a district did he ravage and burn, not once but many times. He showed no remorse at what he did, but rather rejoiced in it... He frequently brought unjust charges against his subjects with the sole object of confiscating their property. In his day churchmen were rarely elected to bishoprics [my emphasis]... He hated the poor and all that they stood for. He never ceased his attacks on those who served our Lord...There was nothing that he hated so much as he hated the churches (VI.46.380).

Gregory vehemently continued to go on and on about Chilperic's faults and vices, including dishonesty, and extreme cruelty (VI.46.80-81). It’s telling that Clovis was also blatantly guilty of some of these evils and vices, but Gregory did not comment on them. Since Chilperic was on the wrong side of the power struggle in which Gregory was involved in, he was considered by Gregory a bad ruler.

The History of the Franks rarely gave the reader any specific characteristics of a good ruler; there was never any mention of the concept of the existence of a king for the benefit of his people or other traits of a good ruler valued by late medieval Europe. However, Gregory essentially allowed the reader to recognise what were the things that a king should not do. In fact, he often enumerated his very specific and particular list prohibitions: plundering the Church, not respecting St. Martin, and keeping the Arian faith. If a monarch violated any of these principles, he would not be a good ruler in the eyes of Gregory. Perhaps this obvious bias also suggested a lack of uniformity in values and perceptions in a turbulent society in transition whose principal orders, and their respective philosophies, beliefs, and values, struggle for dominance.

he Murder of Charles the Good was a chronicle written by Galbert of Bruges, the notary of that town who recorded the events as they unfolded in Flanders during the years 1127-1128. The document focused on two very different rulers: magnanimous Count Charles of Flanders and his unpopular successor, Count William. According to the work’s English translator James B. Ross, Galbert's record was surprisingly objective despite his close proximity to the events recorded (64). Galbert was, however, not a figure of significant political influence (he was employed by the Church as a minor clerk who wasn't a priest nor a cannon)(Ross 66) and his motives for writing Murder were not entirely clear. (However, with such a loaded title, the book’s canonisation of its subject would not be surprising.) He was trained to record events and data, and this chronicle was obviously a very appropriate project for him to undertake. Despite its few references to omens and usages of divine intervention to explain and justify the events, Murder was basically a relatively accurate account which was not tainted by more overt biases of the other sources discussed in this essay.

Count Charles was obviously a ruler greatly admired by Galbert, who clearly identified with and shared his views with the people of Bruges. In fact, Galbert spent almost the first quarter of the document providing specific examples of Charles exemplary qualities. He was not only an ostensibly magnanimous ruler who was pious, humble, and extremely considerate of the welfare of his subjects, but he was also brave, competent, and responsible.

The notary first pointed out that Charles became an exemplary ruler because of his noble origins, which, according to a medieval personage like Galbert, partly enabled him to become a brave, strong and admirable knight who "fought with distinction against his enemies and gained a fine reputation and glory for his name among the rulers of the world" (Galbert 81-82). As a greatly admired ruler of his time, Charles also...

undertook chivalric exploits for the honor of his land and the training of his knights in the lands of the counts or princes of Normandy or France, sometimes even beyond the kingdom of France; and there with two hundred knights on horseback he engaged in tourneys, in this way enhancing his own fame and the power and glory of his county (Galbert 92).

Even though Charles was depicted as a brave knight, Galbert did not forget to expound his peace-loving qualities and his uncommonly strong dedication to keeping peace in his land. Charles really recognized the importance of a peaceful county, which would allow his subjects to be happy, safe and prosperous. According to Galbert, Charles competently initiated effective peace-keeping measures which included placing restrictions on the possession of arms; "bows and arrows and subsequently all arms were laid aside not only in those places already protected by the count's peace but in other places as well" (Galbert 84).

Of all the traits admired by Galbert, Charles' pious, caring and magnanimous nature seemed to stand out. "The count tried in every possible way to take care of the poor, distributing alms in the towns and throughout his domain, both in person and by his officials" (Galbert 87). In addition to feeding and clothing paupers (Galbert 89), Charles, with a seemingly strong sense of responsibility, decreed that "whoever sowed two measures of land in sowing time should sow another measure in peas and beans, because these legumes yield more quickly and seasonably and therefore could nourish the poor more quickly..." (Galbert 87) He also cleverly and appropriately prohibited the brewing of beer during famine because the oats could be made into bread for the poor (Galbert 88).

As a good Christian, Count Charles was also admired for his piety and for his respect for the Church and its rituals. According to Galbert, "he was in the habit of going to the church where, kneeling in prayer, he would sing psalms to the Lord, and according to his custom would distribute pennies to the poor while prostrate before God"(89). Even when Charles was murdered, he was kneeling in prayer (Galbert 119).

Charles' pious humility also extended to his politics. He refused an offer to become the [Holy] Roman emperor and another offer to become the king of Jerusalem (a Crusader state). After consulting and counseling with the nobles and peer of his land, he decided to reject the offers since his advisors viewed them unfavorably (Galbert 90-91, 93). Not only did Charles have somewhat democratic sensibilities, but he also refused the crown because he wanted to remain with those who loved him (Galbert 91).

In contrast to Charles, Count William, his successor and the other major figure examined by Galbert, was not considered a good ruler because his leadership and authority did not existed for the benefit of his subjects. He was depicted by Galbert as an oppressive, selfish, and ultimately dishonest ruler. The town of Bruges and other cities openly defied him, and Galbert, in an unusually subjunctive stance, described him "an evil count, who was interested only in seeing how he could slyly oppress his citizens" (270).

William's main fault was that he did not consider the welfare and the opinions of his subjects. His numerous mistakes range from seizing a particular citizen in Lille without the consent of the townsfolk (who subsequently chased the count and his men out of the town)(Galbert 265-266) to appointing to a town a castellan "who had violently seized the goods and substance of [its] citizens and was still trying to despoil them"(266). William even subsequently imposed the hated castellan on the town by force (Galbert 267). If all that was not enough, William also broke promises, the most important being the one regarding the imposition of tolls on burghers for the benefit of his own vassals. Under pressure from his vassals, William reinstated the tolls which he had previously rescinded. As a result, he had seriously alienated the burghers and barons of his domain (Galbert 260).

A baron named Ivan who acted as a spokesman for the citizens addressed their main grievances to the count:

"Lord Count, if you had wished to deal justly with our citizens, your burghers, and with us their friends, you would not have imposed evil exactions upon us and acted with hostility toward us... But now you have acted contrary to law and in your person you have broken the oaths that we swore in your name concerning the remission of the toll... Everyone knows how many acts of violence and how much pillage you have been responsible for in Lille, and how unjustly and wrongfully you have persecuted the citizens of St. Omer" (Galbert 268).

A good ruler would obviously not pillage the towns of his own domain.

Unlike Gregory or Galbert, Odo of Deuil, the author of The Journey of Louis VII to the East, was almost a commissioned writer who was somewhat under pressure to make that king's story more noble and glorified than what actually happened. Odo was originally a monk (and later abbot) from St. Denis who was the king's personal chaplain. He accompanied the French sovereign throughout the entire journey to the Holy Lands during the Second Crusade of 1184, which was a complete fiasco that ended with the siege of Damascus. Unfortunately, the journey was also plagued by famine, violent Turkish raids, and utter dispair. More than anything else, Odo wrote the Journey as an eulogy for his king and to show his gratitude and admiration for him (Berry xvii). Because the king's Second Crusade was a tragedy and a failure, Odo was left with quite a formidable task; he probably had to embellish and/ or exaggerate the truth in order to produce a glorifying portrait of Louis VII. Even though parts of the story may be distorted, the reader of the Odo's work could still identify what were considered ideal traits for a king, which were exemplified in Journey by Odo's portrayal of Louis VII.

Not too dissimilar to Count Charles of Flanders or the legend of Charlemagne, Louis VII was depicted as a noble, pious, and extremely humble monarch who was also brave and excelled in battle. His strongest characteristic, however, seemed to be his being a very good Christian. The king deeply respected the Catholic Church and its rituals, and he never failed to observe Sabbaths and other religious days of significance (even during times of battle and/or trying circumstances). According to Odo:

Then came the deluging rains... and while feeling them above and beneath us in our small tents, we celebrated the feast of the Purification of the Virgin; for it is true that during the entire journey the king never forget mass or the hours because of floods of rain or the enemy's violence (129).

Needless to say, public displays of humility were important and profuse. Passages like the following were also common in the Journey:

Then he prostrated himself most humbly on the ground; he venerated his patron saint (Odo 17).

Like Count Charles, Louis VII also cared for the poor and the needy. He would often sacrifice himself to take care of others. Among his various acts of magnanimity included a visit to the leper colony (Odo 17) and taking out portions for his provisions for the journey and giving them to the needy (Odo 45).

Germanic warrior ideals were still evident in the Journey when the king was also depicted as a courageous leader who excelled in battle. He would often try to take on the enemy himself, "careless of his own life and with the desire of freeing the dying mob [under his command]" (Odo 119). Louis was a person with unusual strength and was able to defend himself and kill rampaging enemies in impossible situations.

Louis VII was also depicted as an ever-humble and patient leader with a strong sense of diplomacy. He would often go to great lengths to deal with difficult monarchs. The bad monarch of the Journey would have to be the emperor of the Byzantine Empire, who was an insincere flatterer who took advantage of Louis' good nature. As depicted by Odo, the emperor was not an exception to the Frankish stereotype of the Greeks, who were believed to be treacherous, dishonest, untrustworthy, and most of all, not really Christian (almost pagan). Not only did the Greeks collaborated with the pagan Turkish enemies, but they were also heretics, not Roman Catholics.

Almost all of the characteristics of Louis VII were shared by Count Charles (including his belief that a king should only exist for the benefit of his people). According to Odo:

His only grief was for the misfortune of his subjects, of whom he always took as care as much as possible, on the theory that a king is born, not for his own benefit, but for the advantage of others and that a king should not only be pious but also without any fear of poverty (143).

The humble, gentle, patient, and peace-loving qualities of Louis VII and Count Charles were not in conflict with the 12th century trends focusing on the "gentling" of the knight, and of the image and conception of Jesus Christ himself, who was now increasingly depicted as an extremely humble and suffering human figure who was forgiving and gentle (as opposed to an almost warrior-like ideal figure of the earlier Germanic era). These Christ-like qualities of gentleness and humility (e.g., St. Francis of Assisi) seemed to be the new ideals and standards for rulers, who were supposed to strive towards these qualities.

he three texts discussed in this essay revealed a significant shift in values between that of the early medieval Europe of Gregory of Tours and that of the late medieval Europe of Galbert of Bruges and Odo of Deuil. The only significant traits which were valued by both eras seemed to be the respect and humility for the Church, excelling in battle, honesty, and courage. The late medieval period brought an end to the siege mentality and "battle-axe diplomacy" of Clovis's turbulent time, and the concept of pious and humble kings who existed for the benefit of their subjects became universally accepted.

NOTES

Berry, Virginia Gingerick. Introduction. 
   The Journey of Louis VII to the East.
   By Odo of Deuil. Trans. Virginia Gingerick Berry. 
   New York : Norton/ Columbia University 
   Press, 1948.

Galbert of Bruges. The Murder of Charles the Good.
   Trans. James Bruce Ross.
   Toronto : Medieval Academy of America/ 
   University of Toronto Press, 1987.

Gregory of Tours. The History of the Franks.
   Trans. Lewis Thorpe.
   Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 1974.

Odo of Deuil. The Journey of Louis VII 
   to the East.
   Trans. Virginia Gingerick Berry.
   New York: Norton/ Columbia University 
   Press, 1948.

Ross, James Bruce. Introduction.
   The Murder of Charles the Good.
   By Galbert of Bruges. Trans. James Bruce Ross.
   Toronto : Medieval Academy of America/
   University of Toronto Press, 1987.

Thorpe, Lewis. Introduction. The History of the 
   Franks.
   By Gregory of Tours. Trans. Lewis Thorpe.
   Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin, 1974.

 

26 November 1991