Customary aids and royal finance in Capetian France: the marriage aid of Philip the Fair 9780915651009

Table of contents :
Frontmatter
List of Abbreviations (page ix)
List of Illustrations (page xi)
Acknowledgments (page xiii)
Introduction (page 1)
I. The Marriage of Isabelle and Royal Finances, 1308 (page 11)
1. The Marriage of Isabelle (page 12)
2. Philip the Fair and the Marriages of His Children (page 22)
3. Royal Finances in 1308 (page 26)
II. The Theory and Practice of Customary Aids (page 35)
1. The Justifiability of Customary Aids (page 36)
2. The Collection of Customary Aids (page 44)
III. The King and the Marriage Aid, 1308-1309 (page 71)
1. The First Attempts to Levy the Aid (page 71)
2. Fiscal Crisis and the Appointment of Commissioners (page 80)
3. The Results of the Commissioner's Initial Efforts (page 92)
IV. Resistance and Protest in the Provinces, 1309 (page 97)
1. Representative Traditions in Quercy and Périgord (page 99)
2. The Organization of Opposition in Quercy (page 112)
3. The Final Configuration of the Embassy and the Agents' Powers (page 136)
Note: Carton J 356 of the Archives nationales (page 143)
V. Protest and Negotiation in Paris and the Provinces, 1309-1311 (page 147)
1. Delegations to the King in 1309 (page 147)
2. The Government Presses Collection (page 157)
3. The Yield of the Marriage Aid (page 177)
VI. Customary Aids and Royal Policy in the Later Fourteenth Century (page 187)
1. The Knighting Aid of 1313 (page 188)
2. The Aids of the Last Direct Capetians (page 207)
3. The Aids of the Valois Kings (page 213)
Conclusions (page 219)
Appendix: Documents (page 227)
Bibliography (page 281)
Index (page 309)

Citation preview

Customary Aids and Royal Finance in Capetian France

MEDIEVAL ACADEMY BOOKS, No. 100

Customary Aids and Royal Finance in Capetian France The Marriage Aid of Philtp the Fair

Elizabeth A. R. Brown

\vilyZ THE MEDIEVAL ACADEMY

\Dre/ . ay Cambridge, Massachusetts

SEN} OF AMERICA 1992

Copyright © 1992 By The Medieval Academy of America Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 77-89929 ISBN 0-915651-00-9 Printed in the United States of America

For Ralph

BLANK PAGE

Contents

List of Abbreviations 1x , List of Illustrations xi Acknowledgments xi

Introduction 1 I. The Marriage of Isabelle and Royal Finances, 1308 11 1. The MarriageofIsabelle 12 2. Philip the Fair and the Marriages of His Children 22

3. Royal Financesin 1308 26 I]. The Theory and Practice of Customary Aids 35 1. The Justifiability of Customary Aids 36 2. The Collectionof Customary Aids 44 Il. ‘The King and the Marriage Aid, 1308-1309 71 1. The First Attemptsto Levythe Aid 71 2. Fiscal Crisis and the Appointment of Commissioners 80 3. The Results of the Commissioners’ Initial Efforts 92

IV. Resistance and Protest in the Provinces, 1309 97 1. Representative Traditions in Quercy and Périgord 99 2. The Organization of Opposition in Quercy 112 3. The Final Configuration of the Embassy and the Agents’ Powers 136 Note: Carton J 356 of the Archives nationales 143

V. Protest and Negotiation in Paris and the Provinces,

1309-1311 147 1. Delegations tothe Kingin 1309 = 147 2. The Government Presses Collection 157 3. The Yieldofthe Marriage Aid 177 VI. Customary Aids and Royal Policy in the Later

Fourteenth Century 187 1. The Knighting Aidof1313 188 2. The Aids ofthe Last Direct Capetians 207 3. The Aids ofthe Valois Kings 213

Conclusions 219 Appendix: Documents 227 Bibliography 281

Index 309

Vil

BLANK PAGE

Abbreviations ABSHF: Annuatre-Bulletin de la Société de V’histotre de France AC: Archives communales AD: Archives départementales AHP: Archives historiques du Poitou

AM: Archives municipales | AN: Paris, Archives nationales ar.: arrondissement

BEC: Bibliotheque de ?Ecole des Chartes BM: Bibliotheque municipale BN: Bibliotheque nationale

Boutaric, Actes: Edgard Boutaric. Actes du Parlement de Paris, lre série, de ’an 1254 a l’an 1328. 2 vols. Paris, 1863-67. BPH: Bulletin philologique et historique (jusqu’a 1610/1715) du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques

c.: canton ch.L: chef-lieu cne.: commune CR (1285-1314): Comptes royaux (1285-1314). Edited by Robert Fawtier with Francois Maillard. 3 vols. Recueil des historiens de la France, Documents financiers, no. 3. Paris, 1953-56. CR (1314-1328): Comptes royaux (1314-1328). Edited by Francois Maillard. 2 vols. Recueil des historiens de la France, Documents financiers, no. 4. Paris, 1961. EAR: English Historical Review Essai de restitution: Joseph Petit, Michel Gavrilovitch, Maury, and Téodoru. Essai de restitution des plus anciens mémoriaux de la Chambre des comptes de Paris. Paris, 1899.

Fawtier, Registres, 1: Robert Fawtier, with Jean Glénisson and Jean Guerout. Registres du Trésor des Chartes. Inventaire analytique. Vol. 1: Régne de Philippe le Bel. Paris, 1958.

Fawuer, Registres, 2: Robert Fawtier, with Jean Guerout. Registres du Trésor des Chartes. Inventaire analytique. Vol. 2: Régnes des fils de Philippe le Bel. Part 1: Régnes de Louis X le Hutin et de Philippe V le Long. Paris, 1966.

Foedera: Foedera, conventiones, litterae.... Edited by Thomas Rymer and Robert Sanderson, and by Adam Clarke and Frederick Holbrooke. 4 vols. London, 181669.

Gallia Christiana: Gallia Christiana in provinctas ecclesiasticas distributa.... Edited by Denis de Sainte-Marthe et al. 16 vols. Paris, 1715-1865. HF: Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France. Edited by Martin Bouquet et al. 24 vols. Paris, 1738-1904. HL: Claude de Vic and Jean-Joseph Vaissete. Histozre générale de Languedoc. Edited by Auguste Molinier. 15 vols. Toulouse, 1872-93. l.par.: livre(s) parisis 1X

xX ABBREVIATIONS l.p.par.: livre(s) de petits parisis l.p.t.: livre(s) de petits tournois l.t.: livre(s) tournois LTC: Layettes du Trésor des Chartes. Edited by Alexandre Teulet et al. 5 vols. Paris, 1863-1909. MA: Le Moyen Age MAIBL: Mémoires de l’ Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres

MGH: Monumenta Germaniae Historica Mignon: Inventaire d’anciens comptes royaux dressé par Robert Mignon sous le régne de Philippe de Valois. Edited by Charles-Victor Langlois. Recueil des historiens de la France, Documents financiers, no. 1. Paris, 1899. n. a. f: Fonds francais, nouvelles acquisitions n. a. l.: Fonds latin, nouvelles acquisitions NE: Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliotheque du Rot/impériale/nationale et autres bibliothéques Olim: Les Olim, ou registres des arréts rendus par la cour du roi sous les régnes de saint Louts, de Philippe le Hardt, de Philippe le Bel, de Louis le Hutin et de Philippe le

Long. Edited by Arthur-Auguste Beugnot. 4 vols. Paris, 1839-48. Ordonnances: Ordonnances des rois de France de la trotsiéme race, recueillies par ordre chronologique. ... Edited by Eusébe-Jacob de Lauriére et al. 22 vols. and Supplément.

Paris, 1723-1849. PRO: London, Public Record Office SPICHRPI: Studies Presented to the International Commission for the History of Representative and Parliamentary Institutions

Note: The fivre tournois was worth four-fifths of the /vre parisis; 20 s. (sous) equaled a /ivre; 12 d. (deniers) a sous. The relative value of the coinage termed “petit”

and money not so designated was variable, but the former coinage was evidently always worth less than the latter. The conversion rate between the |.t. and the pound sterling was generally four to one, for example, but in 1315 5 Lp.t. were equivalent to one pound sterling; in 1305, in contrast, Philip the Fair’s devaluation of the currency meant that the rate of exchange between the I.p.t. ozr and the pound sterling was eight to one: Réles gascons, 4: 1307-1317, ed. Yves Renouard (Paris, 1962), 573; Bryce D. Lyon, “Un compte de l’échiquier relatif aux relations d’Edouard ler d’Angleterre avec le duc Jean HI de Brabant,” Bulletin de la Commission royale d’histotre, Académie royale des sciences, des lettres et des beaux-arts, Bruxelles 120 (1955),

72-73; Elizabeth A. R. Brown, “Gascon Subsidies and the Finances of the English Dominions, 1315-1324,” Studtes in Medieval and Renaissance History 8 (1971), 151

n. 22. For a useful guide, see John Bell Henneman, Royal Taxation in Fourteenth Century France: The Development of War Financing, 1322-1356 (Princeton, 1971), pp. 331-53. See also Peter Spufford, with Wendy Wilkinson and Sarah Tolley, Handbook of Medieval Exchange (London, 1986).

Plates Signs Manual of the Notaries of 1309 (a-d) —_facing page \

Signs Manual of the Notaries of 1309 (e-h) 10

Table Communities of Quercy Participating in the Coalitions of 1307, 1309, and 1311 =110-11

Maps The Confederation of 19 June 1307 104 The Confederation of 24 March 1311 106

The Confederation of 1309 114-15

Xl

BLANK PAGE

Acknowledgments This book has been a long time in the making. It owes its existence to the late Charles Holt Taylor, who in the early 1930s became interested in the procurations relating to the marriage aid of Philip the Fair. Between 1932 and 1955 groups of his graduate students at Harvard University were, through these texts, introduced to medieval political and administrative history. I was fortunate enough to be among them. With Carl Schmitt and Marilyn S. Mavrinac I became acquainted with the marriage aid in the

| seminar which Charles Taylor offered in the spring of 1955. After completing my dissertation on another, related subject, I decided, with Charles Taylor’s encouragement, to undertake a comprehensive study of the marriage aid. A paper embodying some of my tentative conclusions was pre-

sented at a meeting of the International Commission for the History of Representative and Parliamentary Institutions at Bryn Mawr in May 1968.' I subsequently published related studies on agency law and representation in the Midi and on the customary aids of Philip of Valois.2 As I worked on these topics, Charles Taylor advised and offered suggestions; this book is the poorer for not having benefited from his rigorous criticism to the very end. My principal debt is to him. As exemplary magister, devoted friend, wise counselor, sympathetic critic, and patient guide, he has influenced me, like all those privileged to study with him, in ways too varied and important to find easy expression. For many years the late Joseph Reese Strayer, Charles Taylor’s fellow student and longtime colleague, gave me valuable counsel. | came to count myself as one of his students by adoption. This book, like many of my other projects, bears the imprint of his generosity and wisdom.

Many other people have helped me as I gathered the material for and wrote this book. It is a pleasure to thank them. In France I have received gracious assistance from many colleagues and friends. I owe special thanks to the late Marie-Théréese d’Alverny, Jean Favier, Lucie Favier, the late Robert Fawtier, Jean Guerout, Elisabeth Lalou, Bernard Mahieu, and es‘Elizabeth A. R. Brown, “Philip the Fair, Plena Potestas, and the Aide pur fille marier of 1308,” Representative Institutions in Theory and Practice: Historical Papers Read at Bryn Mawr College, April 1968, SPICHRPI, no. 39 (Brussels, 1971), pp. 1-27.

Elizabeth A. R. Brown, “‘Representation and Agency Law in the Later Middle Ages: The Theoretical Foundations and the Evolution of Practice in the Thirteenth- and FourteenthCentury Midi,” Viator 3 (1972), 329-64; eadem, “Customary Aids and Royal Fiscal Policy under Philip VI of Valois,” Traditio 30 (1974), 191-258 (rpt. in eadem, Politics and Institutions in Medieval France | Aldershot, 1991], nos. I, IX).

Xl

X1V ACKNOWLEDGMENTS pecially Francois Maillard. René Prat, former director of the Archives départementales du Lot, shared with me his extensive knowledge of the Midi; his successor, Christiane Constant-Le Stum, has given me invaluable aid; so too have Danielle Nierinck, director of the Archives départementales de l’Aude, and Claire Delmas, conservator of antiquities and art objects of the Aveyron. I am particularly grateful to Pierre Bougard, director emeritus of the Archives départementales du Pas-de-Calais, who for many years has rendered the friendliest and promptest possible help. Annie Monzat-Charnay courteously answered questions relating to the community of Gourdon, and Jean Glénisson kindly gave me a copy of his thesis on the Capetians’ enquéteurs-réformateurs. To them all, and to the tireless and patient staffs of the Archives nationales, the Bibliotheque nationale, the Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes, and numerous departmental archives, I offer my profound thanks. For assistance in the Public Record Office in London I am grateful to Kenneth Timing, Patricia Barnes, Elizabeth M. Hallam, and Robin Oggin. In this country I have been fortunate to be able to use the rich collections of the Columbia University libraries and the New York Public Library and to rely on their superb staffs. For their counsel I warmly thank my colleagues Thomas N. Bisson, James A. Brundage, James Robert Carter, Jr., Pierre Chaplais, Fredric L. Cheyette,

Giles Constable, Noél Coulet, the late George P. Cuttino, Paul Charles Doherty, Richard C. Famiglietti, Alan J. Forey, Ann Freeman, Alan M. Friedlander, Bernard Guenée, Jeffrey Scott Hamilton, John B. Henneman, Norman Housley, Maurice Keen, Andrew W. Lewis, the late Josette Metman, Paul Meyvaert, John C. Parsons, the late Gaines Post, Charles M. Radding, Susan Reynolds, Susanne Roberts, Teofilo F. Ruiz, Alan Stahl, Louis Stouff, Christopher J. Tyerman, Stephen Victor, the late Robert Lee Wolff, and Charles T. Wood. Special thanks are owed to the late John F. Benton, who for some twenty years encouraged and prodded. Indispensable support in the final stages of research and writing was given me by the American Council of Learned Societies, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the PSC-CUNY Research Award Program of the City University of New York, and, through sabbatical leaves, by Brooklyn College of the City University of New York. I am also indebted to Wang C. Wong and his fine staff at the Computer Center of Brooklyn College, to Peter Harriss and Wayne D. Geist, for the wonders they work with films and negatives, and to Eliza McClennen, for her fine cartography. I extend particular thanks to Luke Wenger and his skilled colleagues at the Medieval Academy, who have labored long, hard, and sympathetically over my text and many emendations. Help of a different but equally indispensable sort has been given me by my husband, my children, my parents, Edris Brown, Lucy Leseur Brown,

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS XV Cecilia Moss, and Ruth Schindelin. Ralph Sawyer Brown, Jr.’s keen sense of legal principle, political reality, and literary style have saved me from numerous errors of interpretation and infelicities of expression. Over the years he, Victoria Brown, and Alexander Brown have resigned themselves with patience and good humor to the continuing and pervasive presence in our household of Philip the Fair, a sometimes trying guest.

Signs M l of th Notari f 1309

Sas eee pear my Ie -| ae ee a, as See eT ee ee ee eeie gags RESON: : ak, OE ie RES Bek Pe Silas Se er i, CRC Riee cena a eeio a aie Ai” seoeerip 5‘ 4rapn > *es - Pwae . Pal| ey = we | Gaeta ae “epi “WAP og Ma % 4 tn 1 ie se aia alate te ana ? i ie : | ee eR >. PM Bae Bae OE PEtSercs oe Aa MeSoot.eiSea ee ee ae wsmeee heey, ;eee etter ee A ae pa

2p RE reteEeysPao * ;de tf ee oe,Re, REies OrCN, re ie wae RS.hee eer eo pyry AbBat iss 2565 eee Sr PO ) oe Gar 4 AWA CED « 6 eo. Sage iat ite el” ee

= j oa Te eeeeeaete' i* Sefer sy Bd fagom has hah Ak ee £5 Batts ORE ei)a. he fe ‘ 5 Bet BayPatel 3A< cith phn mee: eereat , 7 , .A |= Pat ae pL arenasaEtats Th Weanebeoearath PRERascee a? cee ¥

Foie "ss aaASEEN ee ae gt ry aease) eh he.ptt F i ih ee ee 2b SR ore eS 4; aa eV Reaee PUey f Se TA The aids were unpopular, and in 1306, because of the war being waged against Scotland, Edward I secured _ from Parliament a thirtieth and a twentieth in place of an aid for the knight32See clauses 12 and 14-15 of Magna Carta (omitted from later versions): William Stubbs,

Select Charters ..., ed. H. W. C. Davis, 9th ed. (Oxford, 1921), pp. 294-95; and also J. C. Holt, Magna Carta (Cambridge, Eng., 1965), pp. 218-19, 271. For the burdensome tax that Henry I imposed in 1110 for his daughter’s marriage, see The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle ..., ed. and tr. Benjamin Thorpe, Rolls Series, no. 23 (London, 1861), 1:369 (version E). 3Qn the aids collected in England in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, see Sydney Knox Mitchell, Taxation in Medteval England, ed. Sidney Painter (New Haven, 1951), passim, s.v.

“aids” in index.

4Clause 36 of the Statute of Westminster I (1275) stipulated that knighting aids could not be taken until the son was fifteen and marriage aids only when the daughter was seven: Statutes of the Realm ..., ed. A. Luders et al. (London, 1810-28), 1:35; see also Brown, “Taxation and

Morality,” p. 10. In 1245 and 1253 Henry III, unable to secure extraordinary grants, had accepted instead the authorization of his council to levy anticipatory marriage and knighting aids: Powicke, Thirteenth Century, pp. 32-33. In Gascony the knighting aid was levied only after the ceremony had been performed, and letters of nonprejudice were issued to communities contributing to the aid, whose payments were termed “gifts”: Roles gascons. Supplément au tome premier, 1254-1255, ed. Charles Bémont (Paris, 1896), nos. 4393-96. The first surviving ref-

erence to the three aids in Scotland appears in the grant of a hill farm made in 1208: Jenny Wormald, Lords and Men in Scotland: Bonds of Manrent, 1442-1603 (Edinburgh, 1985), p. 30. 5On negotiations over a marriage aid in 1290, see Powicke, Thirteenth Century, pp. 3233, 513; Post, Studies, pp. 329-30 n. 49; and D. Pasquet, Az Essay on the Origins of the House of Commons, tr. R. G. D. Laffan (Cambridge, Eng., 1925), pp. 90-94, 221, 236. Collected at a double rate, the aid yielded little more than 3,000 pounds sterling, a pitifully small sum compared with the 120,000 pounds sterling produced by the fifteenth granted in 1290.

THEORY AND PRACTICE 45 ing of his son; the wary Parliament was careful to secure the king’s pledge that the grant would not prejudice his subjects’ rights.*¢ It is hardly surprising

that in 1340 Edward III agreed to renounce the customary aids; his subsequent attempts, despite his pledge, to impose knighting and marriage aids serve as sure evidence of the extent of his need in the 1340s.” The limitation and regulation of aids that occurred in England was exceptional, although on the continent as well the aids provoked opposition and debate, and some lords were forced to restrict their demands. In the mid-thirteenth century the people of Brabant seemed to have gained enviable freedom from liability to customary taxes. In 1248 Henri II and his son declared that, by the counsel of their men, they would so regulate their expenses that all exactions imposed on the land would be levied on the advice of good and religious people.** This statement indicated that the dukes were magnanimously relinquishing any claims based on custom, but the apparent liberty of the people of Brabant was deceptive. As prince, Henri III had sponsored the decree of 1248, and in the will he drew up in 1261 he exempted the duchy from all levies. He excepted certain aids, however, not only the easily justifiable levies for defense and the support of ducal

service to the emperor and king of Germany, but also the more dubious impositions to conserve ducal rights, avenge injuries to the duke, marry his eldest son and daughter, and knight his eldest son.*? The Charter of Kortenberg, issued by Jean II immediately before his death in 1312, guaranteed the people of Brabant more protection. Jean pledged that neither he nor his successors would take any taxes, but he nonetheless reserved three of the For complaints against the aids voiced in 1297, see Wilkinson, Constitutional History, 1:196-98, 217, 220, 223, 225, 228; and Jeffrey H. Denton, “A Worcester Text of the Remonstrances of 1297,” Speculum 53 (1978), 514. For the marriage aid imposed by Edward I in 1302, see Foedera, 17:945-46. On the events of 1306, see Pasquet, Essay, pp. 235-36, and also pp. 122-23, 152, 220. *7Brown, “Taxation and Morality,” pp. 10-11. *8See ibid., p. 11. In 1245, when Henry canceled the tallage and service owed by the people of Kiel, he specifically reserved the aids due for the knighting of the duke’s son, the marriage of his son and daughter, and any pilgrimage to Jerusalem: Edmond de Dynter, Chronica nobilissimorum ducum Lotharingiae et Brabantiae ac regum Francorum, ed. P. F. X. de Ram (Brussels, 1854-60), 2:179. °>Mina Martens, “‘A propos des testaments d’Henri II (22 janvier 1248) et d’Henri III (26 février 1261), ducs de Brabant,” Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire 23 (1944), 291. In his will Henri made numerous restitutions; he instructed his successor to expel from Brabant all Jews and Caorsins guilty of taking usury. See also G. Boland, “Le testament d’Henri III, duc de Brabant (26 février 1261),” Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique 38 (1942), 94; F. L. Ganshof, “Le testament du duc de Brabant Henri III,” Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire 22 (1943), 587; Alphonse Wauters, Le duc Jean Ter et le Brabant sous le regne de ce prince (1267-1294) (Brussels,

1862), pp. 17-18. Henri’s successor, Jean I, levied taxes on so many pretexts that a number of Brabantine towns agreed to pay an annual sum for fifteen years to be free of ducal impositions: Wauters, Le duc, p. 319.

46 CHAPTER II traditional aids: for the son’s knighting, the daughter’s marriage, and the duke’s ransom.*° ‘The numerous declarations and pledges made by the dukes of Brabant may have salved their consciences. They did little for the people of Brabant, who in the early fourteenth century found themselves in essentially the same position regarding the traditional aids as did the people of England in 1215. In the duchy of Burgundy the dukes relied on both custom and explicit consent as warrant for the aids they levied. The dukes had concluded specific agreements with some towns and churches; elsewhere custom ruled, and those directly subject to the duke’s high justice were generally considered liable for the aids. In 1310 lawyers of Hugues V successfully maintained

the duke’s prescriptive right to levy an aid for the marriage of the eldest daughter; they incidentally asserted that this was a prerogative enjoyed by all the peers of France.*! But the lawyers’ confidence and this ducal victory did not banish all doubts concerning the legitimacy of aids. Revealing his own qualms, Hugues V ordered in the will he drew on 4 September 1314

that if he died before the aid being collected for his own knighting had been fully gathered, those who had not yet paid should be excused.*? Hugues

lived and the levy continued, but in the codicil he drew in April 1315 he provided that all those overburdened by the aid should be given relief by his executors.*} Even if aids were endorsed by custom and consent, their ultimate legitimacy was not thereby established, and Hugues’s testamentary provisions clearly echo the doubts and hesitancy voiced by the stricter moral theologians.

Such tender consciences as those of Hugues V of Burgundy and Henri Ill of Brabant were rare. Like the later dukes of Brabant, Renaud, count of

Forez, took refuge in the embrace of custom when he drew his will in 1270. Although he canceled, generally, all levies traditionally imposed in the county, he reserved the customary annual taxes owed to the count, as well as aids for knighting the count and his heir, marrying the count’s daughter, and redeeming crusading vows.** In the early fourteenth century, Amauri, *°Josephus van der Straeten, “Une charte de pays. La charte de Cortenberg en Brabant,” Schweizer Beitrage zur allgemeinen Geschichte 12 (1954), 149-50; and idem, Het Charter en de

Raad van Kortenberg, SPICHRPI, nos. 12-13 (Brussels, 1952), 2:13*. See also Brown, “Taxation and Morality,” p. 11. “Jean Richard, “Droit d’indire et subvention ducale au début du XIVe siécle,” Mémoires de la Société pour Uhistoire du droit et des institutions des anciens pays bourguignons, comtois et

romands 14 (1952), 173-81, esp. pp. 177-79, nos. 3-4; this case involved the community of Fleurey-sur-Ouche. See below, pp. 183-84. “Urbain Plancher and Zacharie Merle, Histozre générale et particuliére de Bourgogne ... (Dijon, 1739-81), 2:preuves, p. cliil. *Ibid., p. clvi; Brown, “Taxation and Morality,” pp. 12-13. *“Ttem volo et precipio quod decaetero non fiant complaintae hominibus nostris vel alliis [sec] in locis consuetis in comitatu forensis nisi in tribus casibus [:] videlicet, si comes vel filius

THEORY AND PRACTICE 47 viscount of Narbonne, demanded aids not only for the second marriage of his third daughter but also for the marriage of his fourth.** In 1322 subjects of the counts of Rodez were said to owe aids for the marriages of the counts’ sisters as well as their daughters.‘ By the early fourteenth century the counts of Provence had established their right to six sorts of aids: for visits to the

emperor; for the knighting of themselves or their sons; for crusading; for the marriages of their daughters; for the purchase of land worth more than a thousand silver marks; and for their ransom. They were ordinarily able to collect such levies, but typically some communities asserted their right to exemption and succeeded in escaping payment.*’ By the mid-thirteenth century lords in nearby Dauphiné were regularly levying as many as five aids (often termed taz/les honnétes). Aids for knighting, marriage, the purchase of land, and trips to the Holy Land or crusading expeditions were widely collected, whereas in some places aids were also taken for ransom, visits to the court of Rome, or trips in arms to the imperial court. After 1260 the last two occasions were combined, and an aid for visiting the Roman and imperial court, as well as a ransom aid, was regularly added to the other four traditional aids in charters defining relations between lords and their subjects. These charters often stipulated that lords could take no more than they actually spent, and after the first decades of the fourteenth century references to aids were found only in the charters of Dauphine issued by the least important lords.** comitis qui debet esse comes efficeretur novus miles vel quando comes maritaret filiam suam et pro voto crucis redimendo. Nolo tamen quod talliae quas singulis annis consuetum est facere propter hoc remittantur”: AD, Nievre, ser. 2, F 192, a copy made on 8-9 August 1765. For a different interpretation, see Perroy, “Une émeute fiscale,” pp. 64-65, esp. p. 65 n. 1. Aids for marrying the daughter, knighting the son, purchasing land, and going on crusade were levied in Forez in the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries: Etienne Fournial, Les villes et Véconomie déchange en Forez aux XIIIe et XIVe siécles (Paris, 1967), pp. 364-67.

45], Régné, “Amauri II, vicomte de Narbonne (1260?-1328), sa jeunesse, ses expéditions, son gouvernement, son administration,” Bulletin de la Commission archéologique de Narbonne 10 (1908[-1909]), 563-64. As Régné shows, the dowry paid for Amauri’s fourth daughter was larger than the annual revenue produced by his lands. **AD, Aveyron, G 964, fol. 130. For the aid that the count levied in 1298 for the marriages of his two daughters, see Gaujal, Etudes historiques, 2:141-42. See above, p. 25 n. 51.

*’Baratier, Démographie, pp. 13-22, 213-14. In 1344 Marie, countess of Provence, was attempting to levy a marriage aid for her sister, whose dos had been arranged by their grandfather,

Robert, count of Provence. The tax was opposed by representatives of Sisteron, Digne, Apt, Forcalquier, Riez, Reillane, and Oraison and all “sibi adherere volent[es] in hac parte,” not because they contested its legality but because of privileges obtained from and agreements negotiated with Marie’s predecessors, which, they claimed, had gained them exemption from the knighting aids levied for Robert’s two brothers: AM, Digne, CC 23, 24. *8Pierre Vaillant, Recueil de documents relatifs a histoire du droit municipal en France des ovigines a la Révolution. Les libertés des communautés dauphinoises (des origines au S janvier 1355)

(Paris, 1951), pp. 313-16.

48 CHAPTER II . Alfonse of Poitiers’s approach to the customary aids is particularly interesting because of the important role that communities in his lands played in negotiations over the marriage aid of 1308. The brother of Louis IX and a leading and respected member of the French royal family, Alfonse ruled a divergent group of lands with distinct traditions, lands that, after his death, were incorporated into the royal domain.‘ Alfonse imposed a number of aids. In Auvergne, which his father had bequeathed to him, he took them for his knighting, for his brother’s two crusades, and for his own ransom when he was captured on the first of these expeditions. The aids were not collected throughout his territories, but none

of his lands, whether inherited from his father or held by virtue of his

| marriage to the heiress of Raymond of Toulouse, escaped all the taxes. Unfortunately, no information survives concerning the levy of the knighting aid, the only aid he collected that theologians had difficulty in justifying. For his second crusading aid (which is, in contrast, well documented), he

relied more on negotiation for freewill offerings and appeal to custom, regional and general, than on rigid demands based on proven need and prerogative right. Intent on amassing funds, Alfonse’s approach was flexible, and he invoked law and principle only when his subjects balked at contributing.

Instructions concerning the crusading aid which were drafted for Auvergne in 1267 suggest that the count had no clear notion whether he had received the first crusading aid as “donum, talliam, promissum seu graciam.”’ He originally intended to hold inquests to clarify this question and thus to

establish whether or not he had a customary right to the aid, but this plan was eventually abandoned.*! There was thus nothing to prevent him from asserting in May 1268 that “it had become an approved and customary usage

for subjects to furnish their temporal lords who had taken the cross with welcome support, not only in money, but sometimes even in person.” He claimed no legal right to the aid but instead commanded his officials to remind the townspeople of Auvergne how much faithful subjects owed a prince who was not continually exacting payments from them. In August *See Edgard Boutaric, Saimt Louzs et Alfonse de Poitiers ... (Paris, 1870), pp. 278-311, 348-49; and Thomas N. Bisson, “Negotiations for Taxes under Alfonse of Poitiers,” Xe Congrés International des Sciences Historiques, Vienna 1965, SPICHRPI, no. 31 (Louvain, 1966),

pp. 75-101 (rpt. in idem, Medieval France and Her Pyrenean Neighbors: Studies in Early Institutional History, SPICHRPI, no. 70 [London, 1989], pp. 49-74). Boutaric, Saint Louis et Alfonse, pp. 278, 292-93; Bisson, “Negotiations,” p. 78; Correspondance administrative d’Alfonse de Poitiers, ed. Auguste Molinier (Paris, 1894-1900), 1:no. 1911; Stephenson, Mediaeval Institutions, pp. 20-25. ‘Bisson, “Negotiations,” pp. 78-81; Correspondance, ed. Molinier, 1:nos. 211, 224. soe |. CUM quasi VersumM sit in usuM et consuetudinem approbatam quod subditi dominis suis temporalibus, qui crucis transmarine sint caractere insigniti, grata impendant subsidia, non

THEORY AND PRACTICE 49 1268, again taking refuge in ambiguity, Alfonse stated that the people of Auvergne “were said to be obligated by the custom of the country to make us a gracious offer, which, as they were bound to do, they did on another similar occasion.” To strengthen his case, he also stressed the necessity in which he found himself, and he commanded the constable of Auvergne to emphasize his own participation in the expedition and the towns’ contributions to the earlier crusade.*? In the face of continued resistance Alfonse became firmer and bolder. A month later he proclaimed that it was “a general and notorious custom in France that subjects were bound to pay an aid to their lords for the crusade,

for ransom, for marrying a daughter and knighting a son, and, in many places, for acquiring a fief within the barony or county.” He did not believe

the people of Auvergne exempt from this custom, he declared. Thus he ordered the constable to make a formal inquiry to determine the actual amounts paid by the towns for his first crusade and the precise aids that law (zus) and custom obligated them to contribute.** In October 1268, negotiating directly with the recalcitrant community of Riom, Alfonse invoked “the general and notorious custom of France that subjects are bound to pay

an aid for the support of the Holy Land to their lords who have taken the cross.” He also emphasized his personal involvement in the crusade, the mildness with which he had treated them in the past, their payment of an aid for the first crusade, and their promise to pay another for the second.°° In the end, disregarding legality and custom, he accepted a grant from Riom made “out of pure liberality and special grace.”** In Poitou and Saintonge, appeal to the general and notorious custom of France was fruitless. There it was established by inquest that crusading lords had a right to a double cens, and Alfonse relied on this local custom for his levy.*’ Similar inquiry

solum in peccunia, sed nonnunquam in personis”: Correspondance, ed. Molinier, 1:462, no. 725;

Boutaric, Saint Louis et Alfonse, p. 290 n. 1. Alfonse also noted that the inhabitants of Riom were employing laws, customs, and statutes that neither he nor his predecessors had confirmed, and he threatened action if he did not receive cooperation. Had Alfonse reserved the traditional aids in the charter granted to Riom in 1249, he would probably have referred to this in 1268: Bisson, “Negotiations,” p. 79 n. 7; Brown, “Customary Aids,” pp. 211-12. 53° |, . ac ipsi homines in tali causa asserantur teneri nobis facere graciam de consuetudine patrie et alias fecerint in casu consimili et prout ex debito tenebantur”: Correspondance, ed. Molinier, 1:479, no. 739; see also no. 743.

- 4Tbid., I:no. 746. ‘STbid., 1:no. 749 (10 October 1268). SoIbid., I:no. 756.

*7In letters written on 18 August 1268 to his officials in Poitou and Saintonge, Alfonse indicated that they were to emphasize his need and then request a free and gracious offer from his roturters; he added, however, that the offer should be at least equivalent to the proceeds of a double cens, “cum ad id in tali casu teneri ex debito juxta consuetudinem patrie asserantur a

50 CHAPTER II into the traditional obligations of the lords of the region enabled Alfonse to demand as customary (usztatum) contributions from the other inhabitants of Poitou and Saintonge.** The situation in the lands that had come to Alfonse from Raymond VII

of Toulouse was ambiguous. There is no evidence that Raymond had levied the usual customary aids in his lands, but with papal endorsement he collected

a special aid in 1230 to cover his debts, and his subjects granted him a crusading aid in 1247.5° The pledges made in 1247 were apparently voluntary, and in 1257 Alfonse acknowledged that Agen’s grant for his first crusade had been a free gift and that he had no intention of spending it on

pluribus fide dignis”: ibid., 1:391, no. 632; see also no. 707, for orders dated 3 October 1268, commanding the levy of the double cens “selonc la coutume du pays.” In instructions addressed

to his seneschals on 10 October 1268 Alfonse appealed to the general and notorious custom | of France, although he also stressed his participation in the crusade and his need: ibid., 1:no. 651. In a letter of 21 October 1269 Alfonse emphasized that the double cens had been imposed not only for the Holy Land, but also “pretextu consuetudinis aprobate ususque longevi, cujus

non est vilis auctoritas, ... prius facta nobis sepius relacione quod secundum usum patrie tanquam crucesignati id facere poteramus, sicut alii barones crucesignati super homines suos frequenter hoc utuntur”: ibid., 1:680-81, no. 1044; see also Boutaric, Saimt Louis et Alfonse, pp. 281-85. *®An initial investigation failed to produce any evidence that the barons of Poitou were bound to pay an aid, but on 3 October 1268 Alfonse insisted that earlier crusading lords of the region had levied taxes; he instructed his officials to determine “qui cil sont ou furent qui cele aide ont eu, ne de qui et quele aide, et savoir mon se il lorent par la volenté de leurs

homes et de leur gré, ou par acune meniere de coustume ou d’usage, ou par meniere de , couaction”: Correspondance, ed. Molinier, 1:450, no. 707; and Boutaric, Saint Louis et Alfonse, pp. 283-84. A year later, on 19 October 1269, Alfonse proclaimed that the nobles of Saintonge and Poitou owed payment because of the Poitevin custom (“usitatum,” “usu supposito’’) binding nobles to provide aid for the Holy Land: Correspondance, ed. Molinier, 1:678, no. 1041; and Boutaric, Saint Louzs et Alfonse, p. 285. Since the barons refused to cooperate, Alfonse ordered them summoned to appear before him at Poitiers “super requisicione”: Correspondance, ed. Molinier, 1:79, no. 1067 (28 January 1270). I am not convinced, despite Bisson’s arguments

(““Negotiations,” pp. 95-96), that Alfonse was at this point treating the crusading aid as a subject for adjudication rather than negotiation.

| _ °F, 7:notes, p. 166; see also 8:preuves, cols. 931-32, no. 289-CCI, Bisson, “Negotiations,” p. 81. In 1269 ’Isle-en-Venaissin claimed immunity from the crusading aid on the basis of an alleged exemption granted by Raymond of Toulouse, and Alfonse’s seneschal believed that the document they produced would protect them from prosecution: Enquétes administratives d’Alfonse de Poitiers. Arréts de son parlement tenu a Toulouse et textes annexes, 1249-1271, ed. Pierre-

Francois Fournier and Pascal Guébin (Paris, 1959), p. 284, no. 123, esp. n. 10. The privilege granted to the probi homines of the town by Raymond VII on 31 July 1237 had not, however, referred specifically to the traditional aids, although it did exempt them from “lesdam sive lesdas, pedagium sive pedagia” and “ab omnibus quistis sive collectis et albergis invitis et ab omni jugo servitutis ... , salvis cavalcatis ... , et salva jurisdictione et dominatione”: Victorin Laval and Hyacinthe Chobaut, “Le consulat seigneurial de I’Isle-en-Venaissin (XIe-XIIle siécles),” Mémoires de VAcadémie de Vaucluse, 2nd ser., 13 (1913), 37.

THEORY AND PRACTICE 51 anything except the Holy Land.® When Alfonse initiated his drive to gain support for his second crusade in these lands, he did not suggest that he possessed customary justification for levying an aid, and he willingly accepted the pledge of a hearth tax in the Agenais, Quercy, Toulousain, Albigeois, Rouergue, and Comtat Venaissin.®! Alfonse indeed ordered his officials to determine how much each community in the Agenais, Toulousain, Rouergue, and Albigeois had promised for Raymond’s crusade, how these sums compared with the expected proceeds of the hearth tax, whether a grant like the one made to Raymond would be more popular than a hearth tax, and whether he would lose any great sum by accepting such a grant. There is, however, no evidence that Alfonse intended to use his officials’ findings to claim a customary right to an aid, and in the end the hearth tax was collected, although some communities instead made free gifts, presumably like those offered to Raymond.”

The impositions were collected in Agenais and Quercy by the spring of 1267,° although there as elsewhere additional support for the crusade was solicited; again special emphasis was laid on the Holy Land’s needs and on Alfonse’s own participation in the crusade.** This campaign was successful, but collection was more difficult in the Toulousain, where many of Alfonse’s subjects denied the validity of any pledges that had been made; problems were also encountered in Rouergue and the Comtat Venaissin.® Alfonse’s posture stiffened. A number of inquests were ordered, and the count’s mandates suggested not only that he might try to demand an aid from these

regions on the basis of custom and law, but also that he might try to collect ! Correspondance, ed. Molinier, 2:nos. 1974-75; for Alfonse’s pledge to Agen, see Archives municipales d’Agen. Chartes. Premiere série (1189-1328), ed. Adolphe Magen and G. Tholin (Villeneuve-sur-Lot, 1876), pp. 73-74, no. LIL. °\Correspondance, ed. Molinier, 2:nos. 1741, 1962, 1967; see also Bisson, “Negotiations,” pp. 80-81, 89-90; and Boutaric, Saint Louis and Alfonse, pp. 299-300. Commissioners were instructed to contrast Alfonse’s restraint with the rapacity of other lords: Correspondance, ed.

Molinier, 2:no. 1968; see Bisson, “Negotiations,” pp. 80-81, 83-84; and Boutaric, Sait Louss | et Alfonse, pp. 296-98.

“Correspondance, ed. Molinier, 2:nos. 1974-75. For the offers made by Agen and PortSainte-Marie, see ibid., 2:no. 1978; see nos. 1962-63 and 1968 for Alfonse’s instructions to his agents, in which he indicated that such voluntary grants might be accepted in lieu of the hearth tax. “Ibid., l:no. 243, a letter of Alfonse dated 19 May 1267 to the seneschal of Toulouse and Albi, informing him that the seneschal of Agenais and Quercy had already sent him the proceeds

of the hearth tax; see also ibid., 1:no. 323, the general letter that Alfonse dispatched to all his officials on 2 October 1267, from which clauses concerning the hearth tax were deleted in the copy sent to the Agenais and Quercy. Cf. Bisson, “Negotiations,” pp. 86-87. Correspondance, ed. Molinier, 1:no. 323. 6sFor the Toulousain, ibid., l:nos. 249, 255, 257, 267, 278, 287, 299, 301, 325, 339; for Rouergue, ibid., I:nos. 152, 158-59, 162, 164, 168, 170-73, 175-76, 181-84; for the Comtat Venaissin, ibid., 2:nos. 1741, 1764, 1773-74, 1812.

52 CHAPTER II the aid from his vassals’ subjects.®% In the fall of 1267 Alfonse ordered officials in Rouergue to ascertain whether promises of hearth taxes had been made by the subjects of various lords and the inhabitants of various districts, whether these people had made any similar grant to Raymond of Toulouse

and, if so, on what terms, and finally, whether they were bound to make such payments “by law or custom, usage, or any other just cause.’’® In every

case, however, Alfonse’s approach was tentative, for he knew that he had most to gain from freewill offerings. He admitted to his officials that he was willing to accept money on virtually any terms® and, as in the Agenais and Quercy, assurances of nonprejudice were freely issued.”° Among his contemporaries, Alfonse was known for his extravagance and largesse.”! This may explain why, in his dealings with his subjects over the crusading aid, he was clearly more interested in income than in principle. In at least one case Alfonse’s officials, unsure of his rights, decided to compromise rather than test the issue of liability in court.”* Although negotiations 6On 6 July 1267 Alfonse commanded the seneschal of Toulouse and Albi to determine whether the subjects of Jourdain de l’Isle “‘teneantur solvere focagium de jure vel de consuetudine, usagio seu promisso vel alia justa causa”: ibid., 1:178, no. 287; see also no. 299; compare

the less direct approach in his letter of 7 June 1267, ibid., l:no. 249. On 27 June 1269 the seneschal of the Comtat Venaissin was ordered to determine whether the subjects of a certain lord were held to pay the count “subvencionem vel auxilium ... de jure vel consuetudine seu longo usagio vel promisso,” whether taxes had been paid in the past, whether the lord collected

aids from his vassal’s subjects for the marriage of his daughter, the knighting of his son, or any other purpose; the seneschal was also to try to obtain voluntary offers of support: ibid., 2:384, no. 1793. 7[bid., l:no. 152 (2 October 1267); see also nos. 158-59, 162, 164, 168, 170-73, 175-76, 181-84. For the same instructions regarding the Rouergue in 1269, ibid., 2:nos. 1622, 1634, 1660, 1707. See also no. 1652 (8 June 1269), a letter ordering the seneschal to discover what rights the count of Rodez possessed over his subjects and their dependents in similar cases; and also no. 1682 (22 September 1269), a letter instructing the seneschal to establish whether the subjects of a certain lord of Rouergue were bound to pay aids for crusading, for his son’s knighting, his daughter’s marriage, or any other similar purpose. On 26 March 1268 Alfonse ordered the seneschal of Rouergue to request the count of Rodez to permit his subjects to furnish a “subvencionem seu graciam pro subsidio Terre sancte”’; the task of inducing them, “benigne et curialiter,” to cooperate was to be left to the count: ibid., 1:326, no. 542; see also no. 158. Ibid., l:no. 339; 2:nos. 1359, 1382, 1773-76, 1778, 1793, 1797, 1822-23; and Enquétes administratives, ed. Fournier and Guébin, no. 123. “Boutaric, Sammt Louis et Alfonse, pp. 301-2; Correspondance, ed. Molinier, 2:nos. 2061-62;

and Bisson, “Negotiations,” p. 82 n. 19, and pp. 86-87. Correspondance, ed. Molinier, 1:nos. 517, 529, 542, 545; 2:no. 1698; Boutaric, Saint Louis et Alfonse, pp. 288, 300-301, and esp. p. 301 n. 1, a letter to Alfonse from the consuls of Millau, dated 15 May 1269; and Bisson, “Negotiations,” p. 82. "HF, 21:257 (Jean, lord of Joinville). ”?Enquétes administratives, ed. Fournier and Guébin, no. 123. Because Alfonse obtained the

support of his direct subjects in Rouergue and the Toulousain before soliciting support from their dependents, his agents were able to conduct intensive negotiations with such people: nn.

THEORY AND PRACTICE 53 over the aid occurred in sessions of his council and his court, there is no evidence that he required his subjects to appear as litigants to defend their claims.” Insistence on custom might well have been counterproductive, since Alfonse often lacked any such foundation for his demands. He may have hoped

that by receiving money on any terms he was taking a first step toward establishing precedent for the future; on the other hand, if his subjects retained them, the many letters of nonprejudice that he issued would have guarded those who paid voluntarily from later exploitation. Alfonse’s avoidance of litigation, his disinclination to emphasize custom and principle, his success in gaining voluntary grants inevitably affected the policies of his successors, who, as fate would have it, were the kings of France. In the lands that came to them at Alfonse’s death, clear principles concerning the customary aids were yet to be determined, but, as Alfonse’s experiences had shown, whatever the traditional practices in the areas he governed, their inhabitants could generally be persuaded to support their ruler’s ventures. Like the lords of their realm, the kings of France accepted with equanimity the legitimacy of the customary aids. Perhaps influenced by the declarations of Alfonse of Poitiers, the officials of Louis [X and his son, Philip III, made some attempt to assert a general custom of the realm sanctioning such impositions. But in general they hearkened more to what Alfonse had done than to what had been said on his behalf. Bargaining, compromise, and voluntary donation had distinct advantages over invocation of principle and litigation. The monarchs were nonetheless ready, when challenged, to defend their claims in court by appealing to principle, precedent, and tradition.

| In the twelfth century the kings were apparently hesitant to demand aids from their subjects, except occasionally for their crusades.” In the thirteenth century taxes of different sorts, including customary aids, began to be taken

Alfonse, pp. 299-300. ,

67-68 above; see also Bisson, “Negotiations,” p. 81 n. 17 and p. 84; Boutaric, Saint Louis et

Cf. Bisson, “Negotiations,” pp. 90-97. When Alfonse ordered his officials to see that the barons of Poitou appeared before his councilors in the spring of 1270 regarding the aid, he did not state that judicial action was contemplated but said, ambiguously, that they were “super requisicione eis jam facta de subvencione nobis pro Terre sancte subsidio facienda, ut condecet, responsuri et secundum processus in hac parte habitos ulterius processuri”: Correspondance, ed. Molinier, 1:701, no. 1067. For Louis VI and 1146-47, see Stephenson, Mediaeval Institutions, pp. 32-33, and for later aids, pp. 26-28. See also Alphonse Callery, Histotre du pouvoir royal dimposer .. . (Brussels, [1879]), pp. 26-32; and Alexander Cartellieri, Philipp II. August, Konig von Frankreich (Leipzig, 1899-1922), 2:5-6. For Philip Augustus’s subsidies, see ibid., pp. 66-74; Callery, Hzstozre, pp. 32-41, and also the review of this book by Jules Flammermont in Revue historique 18 (1882),

434, 437; on the aid for the Holy Land of 1185, see Fred A. Cazel, Jr., ““The Tax of 1185 in Aid of the Holy Land,” Speculum 30 (1955), 385-92.

54 CHAPTER II on a regular basis. The reign of Louis [X was critically important. Louis acquired a posthumous reputation for self-denial and restraint as eulogists, devising exempla to impress his successors, declared that he had not taxed at all or that he had taxed so moderately and justly that his subjects had never complained.”* In fact, like his brother Alfonse, Louis collected taxes frequently. He took them not only for such clearly defensible ends as his crusades, his ransom, his wars, and to accomplish peace with England, but also on more questionable occasions, for the marriage of his daughter and the knighting of his son.” Louis showed no sign of doubting his right to any of these taxes; the marriage and knighting aids were claimed as “legally his, and due to him by common law.”’”’ Still, on these occasions he accepted numerous donations from subjects, who thereby avoided the issue of legal liability.”? As such negotiation suggests, Louis’s subjects were wary.’? His repeated demands for money aroused opposition, revealed in diatribes and pointed stories directed explicitly or obliquely against his policies,®° and, more important, in appeals for exemption to Louis’s own high court. Numerous cases connected with Louis’s last aid, a combined tax for the knighting of his eldest son and for his crusade, came before the Parlement. Many suits involved simple claims for immunity from local taxes imposed to pay the aid,*! but other cases raised the question of ultimate liability. The first suits to be decided were settled in 1270, but two years earlier, in 1268, the Parlement rendered a judgment regarding certain Norman vassals’ ob-

ligation to pay a knighting aid; this judgment may well have affected the court’s approach to the later cases. The Parlement held that since the Nor7sFor Joinville, see Stephenson, Mediaeval Institutions, p. 31; see also La chronique métrique

attribuée a Geffroy de Paris, ed. Armel Diverrés (Strasbourg, 1956), p. 214, vv. 6525-42. Stephenson, Mediaeval Institutions, pp. 31-32; William Chester Jordan, Louis LX and the Challenge of the Crusade: A Study in Rulership (Princeton, 1979), pp. 94-104, 215; Gérard Sivéry, Saint Louis et son siécle (Paris, 1983), pp. 288-96, 498-503, 567-72. For grants received from communities outside the royal domain, see HL, 7:notes, pp. 515-17, and 8:preuves, cols. 1668-71.

77 |. tanquam jus suum, et de jure communi sibi debitum”: O/im, 1:848; Stephenson, Mediaeval Institutions, p. 32. After the knighting of Philip in 1267, Sens presented the king with a donation of 2,000 |., Villeneuve-sur-Yonne with 600 |.: Maurice Prou, “Les coutumes de Lorris et leur propagation aux XIle et XIlIle siécles,” Nouvelle revue historique de droit francais et étranger 8 (1884), 549-50. 8Stephenson, Mediaeval Institutions, pp. 28-32, esp. n. 92. ”7The viscount of Lautrec, who owed Louis an aid for the crusade, forbade his subjects to make any payments directly to the king’s officers, doubtless because he feared that such action might provide the king grounds for demanding money from these subjects in the future: HL, 8:preuves, cols. 1669-70. °°For contemporary criticism of Louis’s taxes, see Lester K. Little, “Saint Louis’ Involvement

with the Friars,” Church History 33 (1964), 141-43, 147-48; Callery, Histozre, p. 55; Brown, “Taxation and Morality,” pp. 25-26. —81Olim, 1:794, no. X; 804-5, no. XVII; 810-11, nos. XXX-XXXI.

THEORY AND PRACTICE 55 mans possessed no written evidence and could furnish no satisfactory proof of the immunity they claimed, they must pay whatever was customary in the duchy.* This decision foreshadowed the conservative position the court adopted two years later in dealing with four small communities subject to the king, which were located to the west and southwest of Paris.*? These communities’ representatives claimed that their constituents did not owe the aid for the knighting of the king’s son, “since in their region it was not customary for taz/les to be paid, nor had they ever made such payments.” In 1270 the Parlement decreed that unless the communities could prove that

they were especially privileged, they were bound to pay by the general

;,;

custom of the land (per generalem consuetudinem terre). The communities’ claim was decisively defeated when such levies were found to be traditional in the district in which the communities lay.®°

The Parlement heard a similar but far more complex case in 1271. In this instance the decision demonstrated even more clearly than the decree of 1270 the court’s determination to establish the king’s legal right to the traditional aids. The communities of Bourges, Dun-le-Roi, and Issoudun denied their liability not only for the knighting aid of the king’s son (then ruling as Philip HI) but also for the aid levied some years earlier for the marriage of Louis’s daughter Isabelle. According to the court, the king sought these aids “‘tanquam jus suum, et de jure communi sibi debitum.” To support their position, the communities’ agents presented the royal judges with charters that guaranteed them freedom from “‘tolta, tallia, bocagio et culcitrarum exactione.’*® They also declared that the aids were uncustomary 1n their region.®” The Parlement rejected both arguments. First, the king was not levying any of the payments listed in the charters but rather

aids due by the general custom of the kingdom. Next, the contrary custom of the region was no defense, since as former serfs the inhabitants of the

82[bid., 1:732, no. XXII. *Ibid., 1:832, no. XLIII. These communities were Lormaye, Montchauvet, Anet, and Bréval. sae"... Cum in partibus illis non sit consuetum solvi tallia, nec ipsi unquam talia solverant,

ut dicebant”: Olim, 1:832, no. XLIII. This decision did not refer to the crusade, and the communities may have admitted liability for the portion of the aid intended for the Holy Land. The terminology used in other decisions relating to the aid is distinctly different: ibid., 1:794, no. X; 804-5, no. XVII; 810-11, nos. XXX-XXXI; see also 828-29, no. XXII. sTbid., 1:832, no. XLII. 8oTbid., 1:848, no. XXVIII. See Pierre Petot, “Le droit commun en France selon les coutumiers,” Revue historique de droit francais et étranger, 4th ser., 38 (1960), 424. ®7Olim, 1:848-49, nos. XXVUI-XXX. On the charters of these communities, see Stephenson, Mediaeval Institutions, pp. 4-5, and see p. 28, for an aid paid to Louis in 1234; for Bourges, see E. ‘Toubeau de Maisonneuve, “Aides royales et impositions municipales dans la ville de Bourges,” Mémoires de la Société des antiquaires du Centre 6 (1875-76), 141-42.

56 CHAPTER I communities enjoyed only the privileges bestowed on them by the lord who had freed them.®*

As the decisions of 1270 and 1271 demonstrate, the Parlement supported the king’s right to aids justified primarily by custom. Accepting local custom that upheld royal claims, the judges also invoked a broader, far more elastic concept: the custom of the realm. The court’s decrees showed that custom was manipulatable, and that it, rather than any more politically sophisticated or morally defensible principle, was the sole warrant for the marriage and knighting aids. The judgments betrayed no sign of compunction.

Taxes continued to be taken under Philip III, Louis IX’s son, and the number levied for military expeditions increased.*® The Parlement heard many complaints, and secular and ecclesiastical subjects gained exemption by producing privileges that explicitly mentioned service in time of war.” Liability for customary aids did not become an issue until 1284, shortly before Philip III’s death. Despite the Parlement’s invocation of the general custom of the realm in 1271, the king’s approach was hesitant. In 1276, when royal agents were seeking an aid for what proved to be an abortive

war against Castile, the king, as in the days of Alfonse of Poitiers, acknowledged that grants made in the Agenais were free gifts and pledged that they would not prejudice the donors’ rights.°! ‘These guarantees were issued to Montauban and other communities of the Quercy that in 1276 were attached to the seneschalsy of Agen. Like the earlier pledges of Raymond of Toulouse and Alfonse of Poitiers, they affected later negotiations between the southern communities and the central government. In 1284, the last year of his reign, Philip III proclaimed an expedition against Aragon 88Stephenson, Mediaeval Institutions, p. 32; for a different interpretation, see Thomas N. Bisson, “Consultative Functions in the King’s Parlements (1250-1314),” Speculum 44 (1969), 370 (rpt. in idem, Medieval France, pp. 75-95). *°Stephenson, Mediaeval Institutions, pp. 33-36; Charles-Victor Langlois, Le régne de Philippe III le Hard: (Paris, 1887), pp. 342-55. Stephenson, Mediaeval Institutions, pp. 33-35; Bisson, “Consultative Functions,” p. 370,

esp. n. 85. Voluntary gifts were also made. In 1281 the community of Alés (near Nimes) pledged 540 Lt. for the war against Castile, but royal officials were still trying to collect the subsidy in January 1289, when the consuls of Alés were asserting that since war had not broken

out, they were not bound to pay: AC, Ales, I.S. 12, no. 1, and IS. 16, no. 1. Similarly, the consuls of Riom had complained to the king in the fall of 1282 against the attempts of the balls of Auvergne to collect the 1,000 |.t. they had promised for the war, “que condicio nondum exstat”: AC, Riom, CC 7, no. 1411. For Narbonne’s donations to the king in 1276 and 1282, see AM, Narbonne, AA 63, fols. 50, 70, and AA 103, fols. 43v, 44, 45v.

91°... omnes et singuli nobis hac vice de dono et gracia speciali liberaliter concesserunt una vice tantum se daturos subventionem et auxilium supra dicta”: Archives d’Agen. Chartes,

ed. Magen and Tholin, pp. 82-83, no. LIX; see AM, Montauban, AA 1, fol. 50, and AA 3, fol. 29v. See also Antoine de Cathala-Coture, Histoire politique, ecclésiastique et littéraire du Querci (Montauban, 1785), 2:459; Langlois, Le régne, p. 350; and for the campaign, idem, Saint Louis—Philippe le Bel, p. 112.

THEORY AND PRACTICE 57 which was officially termed a crusade but whose legitimacy Philip, like others, may have doubted. No crusading aid was demanded, and the king secured funds by other means.” One source of funds was the aid that Philip decreed in the same year, 1284, for the knighting of his eldest son and namesake. The king apparently had no hesitation whatsoever about this aid, the only one he widely imposed and rigorously pursued. No more than his father did Philip the Fair harbor

| any doubt about his right to this aid. Collection continued after his father’s death on 5 October 1285.9? Again, to avoid the imposition, voluntary donations were offered. The inhabitants of Sens stipulated that their payment was not legally owed and thus enabled their successors to resist later royal demands for similar support.** Such tactics did not, however, always succeed.

In 1269 Villeneuve-sur-Yonne had escaped direct payment of Louis’s knighting and crusading aids by giving him 600 |., and the community’s gift of 1,200 |. to the king in 1284 may well have been intended to protect the town from a demand for the knighting aid. Any such expectations proved

delusive, and in 1285 the community was forced to defend its claim to immunity before the royal court. The Parlement rejected the community’s plea, based on privileges shared with Lorris, and in 1286 it paid 24 I. for

the aid.

The royal judges declared invalid this and other claims based on municipal charters, but they were less aggressive than had been true in 1271, for they °2See Langlois, Le régne, pp. 349, 356-57; and Joseph R. Strayer, “‘Crusade Against Aragon,”

pp. 111-14. When the lord of Mirebeau acknowledged as nonprejudicial an aid given him by a priory under his lordship, he said that it was intended for his “vaage d’Arragon”: Milan S. La Du, Chartes et documents poitevins du XITIe siécle en langue vulgaire, AHP 57 (1960), 148,

no. 90. A rhymed chronicle of ca. 1317 praised Philip III’s financial moderation, particularly with regard to this crusade: La chronique ... Geffroy, ed. Diverrés, pp. 214-25, vv. 6549-70. For a different view, see Ferdinand Lot and Robert Fawtier, Histozre des institutions frangaises au Moyen Age, 2: Institutions royales (Paris, 1958), 171. For Philip the Fair’s attitude to the crusade after his father’s death, see Brown, “Prince Is Father,” pp. 297-98. *Strayer, as cited in n. 92; and Stephenson, Mediaeval Institutions, pp. 34-35. The expenses of Philip the Fair’s knighting amounted to 14,684 |. 12 d. (probably parisis), a little more than half the sum (23,160 |. 72 s. par.) spent for his coronation: HF, 21:405. **A tax levied in Sens in 1286 was taken “en lieu de la chevalerie du Roy”: Prou, “Les coutumes de Lorris,” p. 549. *>Prou, “Les coutumes de Lorris,” pp. 550-51, which should be corrected from AN, P 2289, p. 153. See below, p. 198 n. 48, for this payment’s effect on the community’s position in 1313-14, when a knighting aid was again levied. Referred to as “La ville neuue le Roy” in the sources, the community lay in the “baillie de Sens” and must be identical with the presentday Villeneuve-sur-Yonne, located thirteen kilometers south of Sens. See O/im, 2:249, no. IV, for the declaration of the All Saints Parlement of 1285 that the privileges of various royal towns headed by Lorris did not include exemption from the knighting aid; see also BM, Rouen, MS 3398 (Leber 5870, Menant 1), fol. 19, for a brief description of these decisions, which were recorded in Mémorial B of the Chamber of Accounts, fol. 46. For a different interpretation,

see Strayer, “Consent to Taxation,” p. 43 n. 136.

58 CHAPTER II made no reference to the general custom of the realm. In dealing with several communities of the Orléanais, the Gatinais, and the bas//iage of Gisors, the

judges invoked regional custom and ordained that royal communities be treated like the dependents of other lords of the area.°° Some communities obtained exemption—including localities held by the king jointly (in pariage) with ecclesiastics who had no such right over their subjects.%” The Parlement of Philip the Fair was prepared to defend the king’s rights

by reading charters closely and by relying on favorable local custom. The | high court was not ready, however, to stretch the law in favor of the crown. The Parlement did not appeal to any general custom of the realm; it exempted

communities held by the king and ecclesiastical lords who demanded no such aids. Even more important, it opposed royal officials’ attempts to extend

obligation to the subjects of the king’s direct vassals. The situation in the Rouergue is well documented. Pierre de Chalon, dean of Saint-Martin of Tours, the king’s agent in Rouergue, convoked the inhabitants of the region in preparation for collecting the knighting aid from the king’s immediate subjects and from these people’s dependents.** The decision to make this demand, whether Pierre’s or that of royal officials in Paris, may have been motivated by the notorious zeal of royal bureaucrats; it may have been influenced by the success of Alfonse of Poitiers in securing crusading grants from his vassals’ subjects in the Rouergue. Pierre made no attempt, however, to imitate Alfonse’s careful preliminary negotiations with his vassals, and his orders aroused resentment. On 4 October 1285 Pierre received two lawyers representing the bishop and chapter of Rodez, the count of Rodez, and various lay and ecclesiastical lords, all of whom contested his right to summon the dependents of the king’s immediate subjects without their lords’ consent. No more was he justified in requiring a knighting aid when they, the lords, opposed it.

The plaintiffs presented a long and detailed argument. They first attempted to enlist Pierre’s sympathy by describing the depopulation of the area, which was caused, they said, by the flight of those who could not afford both to discharge their obligations to their lords and to pay the com*%Olim, 2:245, no. XVIII, and 249, no. IV. *Tbid., 2:249, no. IV. °*8For background, Strayer, “Consent to Taxation,” p. 43, and Thomas N. Bisson, Assemblies and Representation in Languedoc in the Thirteenth Century (Princeton, 1964), p. 276. On Pierre, see Gallia Christiana ..., 15:180—81; and Jan Rogozinkski, Power, Caste, and Law: Social Conflict

in Fourteenth-Century Montpellier (Cambridge, Mass., 1982), pp. 8-9, 11, 72, 147, 172, and, most important, 152-54. See AC, Saint-Antonin, AA 2, no. 5, for a reform ordinance issued by Pierre and a colleague, who acted as enquéteurs-réformateurs in the Agenais and the Toulousain in the 1270s.

THEORY AND PRACTICE 59 mune pacis owed annually to the king. Their chief argument was based on customary practice: the counts of Toulouse had never imposed any aid on any lord’s subjects. Therefore such people were free and immune from paying the aid “both by law and by common custom” (tam de jure quam de usu communi, in terra predicta observato). Pierre should revoke his orders. If he did not, the plaintiffs would appeal to the king.'!™ Word of the resistance reached Paris. The king commanded the seneschal of Rouergue to collect the aid from his immediate subjects on the dates set by Pierre de Chalon. He was, however, to take no further action until the following July.'°! This deadline was extended to November when, late in December, the king ordered the seneschal to summon to the Martinmas (10 November) Parlement all those who opposed the levy.'® Resistance cannot have been confined to the Rouergue, for similar summonses were apparently addressed to the seneschalsy of Carcassonne, and perhaps to other parts of the Midi as well.!° The plaintiffs from the Rouergue decided to send to Paris the same two lawyers who had appeared before Pierre de Chalon. Before the advocates set forth, they apparently sought learned counsel; the brief prepared for presentation in Paris was far more elaborate and sophisticated than their first defense. Their brief opened by arguing on the basis of the written law (the customary law of the Rouergue) that liberty was to be assumed in the absence of any special law proving servitude. Then the lawyers asserted that

both laws and canons prohibited new taxes and that no law sanctioned knighting aids. They finally invoked Jean de Blanot’s famous dictum, “Subditus mei subditi non sit mihi subditus” (“The subject of my subject is not

subject to me’’).!0 , Roffredo’s opinions were also discussed. Aware that he supported the

collection of aids but clearly unprepared or unwilling to deal with the subtler *°On this tax, instituted to support the maintenance of peace, see Bisson, Assemblies and Representation, pp. 108-21; for an inquest concerning the tax that was held in the Quercy in

the late thirteenth century, see AN, J 896, no. 33, which records the testimony of many witnesses that “[pax] nullo modo potest seruari nisi per regem.” 0 FTL, 10:preuves, cols. 193-94, no. 41. '0l Half of the aid was to be paid in early February and half in late May: BN, Doat 176, fol. 243; published in Veterum scriptorum et monumentorum historicorum, dogmaticorum, moralium amplissima collectio, ed. Edmond Marténe and Ursin Durand (Paris, 1724-33), 1:1406-7.

'?Ibid., and see Bisson, “Consultative Functions,” p. 370, esp. n. 89. Philip’s itinerary, prepared by Robert Fawtier, Francois Maillard, Robert-Henri Bautier, and Elisabeth Lalou, shows that these mandates, issued in December at Pierrefonds, must be dated 1285. '°3See the last section of the brief (BN, Doat 176, fols. 250-53), in the Appendix, no. 1. 'o¢See his Summa super homagio, edited by Jean Acher in “Notes sur le droit savant au Moyen Age,” Nouvelle revue historique de droit francais et étranger 30 (1906), 159, section XI]; see also the similar statement of Jacques de Révigny, BN, lat. 14350, fol. 185; and Post, Studies,

pp. 340-41.

60 CHAPTER II aspects of his argument, the lawyers attempted to forestall invocation of his opinions. The brief declared that Roffredo had no written authority for his approval of knighting aids and noted that, in any case, he made no reference to payment by the subjects of vassals. Roffredo, the lawyers remarked, was neither prince nor legislator; he was simply an observer and recorder of unwritten Italian custom; his assertions did not apply outside the area where they were composed. Turning from written law to custom, the lawyers stated that since such an aid had never been collected in the region, the barons and prelates possessed prescriptive immunity. In the Rouergue, it was argued, barons who levied knighting aids did not take them from their subjects’ subjects or from knights or nobles. After citing special rights possessed by the bishop of Rodez and the abbot of Conques, the brief ended by dissociating the proctors’ constituents from any contrary admissions made by representatives from other seneschalsies. The king should maintain the area in its former liberties and cease collecting the aid.!° The brief was cogently argued and impressively documented. It seems unlikely, however, that the king’s direct subjects in the Rouergue, having admitted their liability for the knighting aid in 1285, were seriously intending to claim total immunity a year later. Like others who sent proctors to Paris in 1286, they were doubtless chiefly interested in obtaining freedom for their own subjects. They and the other appellants seem to have achieved their goal. On 9 February 1287, in response to the request of the religious houses of Pamiers and Alet, the king suspended indefinitely the levy of the

aid from their dependents and forbade the seneschal of Carcassonne to permit them to be disturbed unless the court issued further instructions.’ | In all likelihood a similar policy was followed in other areas. The mandate of 9 February avoided the issue of ultimate liability by referring to the aid as “subuentionem seu donum quod petebatur” and by suspending rather than canceling the levy. In the end, however, the king loSBN, Doat 176, fols. 250-53, in the Appendix, no. 1. 'os*’Cum nos subuentionem seu donum quod petebatur ab hominibus Abbatum et monasteriorum Appamiarum et Electi ratione militiae nostrae in sufferentiam posuerimus, donec nostrae placuerit voluntati, mandamus vobis quatinus homines praedictos occasione praemissorum non molestetis vel permittatis molestar1 eosdem donec a nobis seu curia nostra quod super hoc ordinatum fuerit receperitis in mandatis”: BN, Languedoc-Bénédictins 81, fol. 131, see also Martin-Chabot, Les archives, p. 81, no. 415. A consul of Pamiers, Pons Bruni, presented

the royal letter to Simon Briseteste, seneschal of Carcassonne and Béziers, on 10 May 1288, before Pierre Raymond, juge-mage of Carcassonne; Bérenger de Pro/ano, judge of Carcassonne;

Guilhem Bonmassip, judge of Pamiers; and Pierre de Paris, notary of the royal court of Carcassonne. On these officials, see Strayer, Gens de justice, pp. 99-102, 107-8, 122-23; the document just cited proves that Bonmassip, known to Strayer as a lawyer of Carcassonne, also served as a judge; it suggests that the men he refers to as Bérenger de Prelan and Bérenger de Prouille (pp. 89, 107-8) may be identical.

THEORY AND PRACTICE 61 was driven to clarify his position by individuals who, invoking the order that the knighting donum should be taken only from immediate royal subjects, sought to recover the money they had paid. On 22 January 1290 Philip the Fair ordered the seneschal of Carcassonne to make prompt restitution. Evidently attempting to placate, the king admitted that only his direct subjects were bound to pay the aid. He went so far as to suggest that their payments might legitimately be considered gifts rather than taxes that were legally owed.!0”

Within five years of Philip the Fair’s accession to the throne, the king and the Parlement had made declarations indicating that royal rights would be strictly enforced but that they would not be ruthlessly expanded. The court did not invoke the general custom of the realm or appeal to common law as it had under Louis LX and Philip II. Although their decision was apparently made slowly, deliberately, and perhaps reluctantly, Philip and his

ministers in the end refused to support royal agents’ plans to increase the yield of the customary aids by forcing all subjects to pay them. In the years between 1290 and 1308, the king’s attitudes were doubtless affected by the dispute over traditional aids that arose between his own brother, Charles of Valois, and Charles’s subjects in Maine and Anjou. Philip and his officials played an active role in the dispute, which occurred when Philip was seeking military subsidies from his realm, some years before he attempted to raise a marriage aid. The arguments advanced by Charles’s lawyers were far more radical than the moderate statements of the king and his court. They may have prompted the more aggressive interpretation of royal rights that was advanced when the next customary levy was imposed. Further, a compromise proposed by a group of Charles’s vassals may have influenced a remarkably similar settlement adopted and perhaps formulated by Philip the Fair and his agents in connection with the marriage aid. As in other parts of France, the traditional aids were highly controversial in Anjou and Maine. In 1290 Charles II of Sicily, nephew of Louis IX, concluded the marriage agreement between his daughter Marguerite and Charles of Valois that resulted in the conveyance of Anjou and Maine to her husband. In order to release the lands from obligations with which they were encumbered, Charles of Sicily needed large sums of money. To raise this revenue, he planned to collect the four traditional aids he claimed were due him: for ransom, for relief, for knighting his son, and for marrying his daughter.'°® Diverting these aids to ends so different from those for which "HL, 10:preuves, col. 248, no. 67-II; Martin-Chabot, Les archives, p. 67, no. 357. See also Jacques Ourgaud, Notice historique sur la ville et le pays de Pamiers, ancien royaume de Frédelas

(Paris, 1865), p. 135, and AZ, 9:131-32 n. 5. 'o6For the final agreement, concluded at Senlis on 18 August 1290, see Thesaurus novus anecdotorum, ed. Edmond Marteéne and Ursin Durand (Paris, 1717), 1:1236-40, esp. 1238-39.

62 CHAPTER II they were intended was patently questionable, and, raising questions of fundamental principle, Charles’s subjects stubbornly resisted the demands. An inquest was ordered in 1294, but if it was held, it produced no conclusive

results,'? and the aids had not been fully collected in 1314. Nor had there been any final determination of what aids were owed, how they should be collected, and who was liable for them.'!° In 1295 Charles of Valois gained full control of Anjou and Maine “as his own heritage, as if they had come to him from his parents.”'!! When in 1300 his eldest daughter Isabelle was married to Jean III, duke of Brit-

At an earlier stage of negotiations, all the profits of the aids were expected to be used to enable Charles of Sicily to release the counties from obligations to Marguerite of Provence (widow of Louis 1X), to Charles’s own wife, and to Marie of Jerusalem: Digard, Philippe le Bel, 1:100,

and for a prior agreement dated at Corbeil on 29 December 1289, 2:275-78. For the negotiations, see Petit, Charles de Valois, pp. 17-22. Since it proved impossible to come to terms with these women, the agreement of Senlis provided that Charles of Valois should receive 45,000 |.t.zoirs to compensate him for the obligations. The terms of the treaty indicate that Charles of Sicily expected the aids to yield enough to cover not only this sum but also a debt of 8,000 1.t. to his mother and an additional 6,000 I.t., which he claimed for himself. 1 Archives d’Anjou ..., ed. Paul Marchegay (Angers, 1843-54), 2:182, no. 51. 'Tbid., 2:194-95, 201-2; see AN, J 179A, no. 84, a mandate issued by Charles of Valois on 25 April 1314, which declared that a formal inquest would be held to settle these questions since various aids, owed both to Charles of Sicily and to himself, remained unpaid. ‘The agreements of Corbeil (1289) and of Senlis (1290) stipulated that if, in the course of peace negotiations between France and Aragon, Charles of Valois renounced his claim to Aragon and Valencia and Barcelona, he would receive the land “in propriam hereditatem, tamquam si a suis parentibus obvenisset”: Digard, Philippe le Bel, 2:276; Thesaurus, ed. Marténe

and Durand, 1:1237. Although conferences between French and Aragonese representatives were held sporadically after 1290, no definite renunciation was made until June 1295: Digard, Philippe le Bel, 1:222-25; Registres de Boniface VIII, nos. 164 and 184 (20 and 21 June 1295); see also Petit, Charles de Valois, pp. 17-22; and Chronik des edlen En Ramon Muntaner, ed.

Karl Lanz (Stuttgart, 1844), pp. 324-25. Anjou and Maine thus passed into the possession of , Charles of Valois in 1295; they remained his despite the death of his wife Marguerite in 1299: Petit, Charles de Valois, p. 236. During the struggle over the aids Charles’s vassals maintained in 1301 that the count held the lands only “par bail,” because of his marriage to Marguerite; therefore, it was argued, he had no right to collect a marriage aid for their daughter, since “la coustume est tel que nus se il n’est heritier ne peut fere demande de heritage se la cause n’est commencié de l’eritier avant le temps du bail”: Coutumes et institutions de l’Anjou et du Maine antérieures au XVIe siécle .. .. ed. Charles-Jean Beautemps-Beaupré (Paris, 1877-97), pt. 2, vol. 4, p. 29. Charles’s lawyers contended correctly that he held the lands “comme seues propres, par certains convenanz qui furent fez au mariage de lui et de Madame Marguerite”: ibid., and see p. 27, for his lawyers’ assertions that Charles possessed sovereign rights in the two counties since the king of France had given the territories to Charles of Sicily “ausi franchement et 0 tel droit comme il i avoit sanz riens retenir fors le pur ressort de deffaut de droit et de mauvais jugement.” This is certainly implied in the original grant, made by Louis IX in August 1246, although the royal letter is not as explicit as are the statements of Charles’s lawyers: Ordonnances, 11:329-30; see Wood, French Apanages, pp. 23-24, 30, 42-43.

THEORY AND PRACTICE 63 tany,'!* Charles determined to collect an aid in Anjou and Maine, despite the difficulty he was still encountering in levying the aids his father-in-law had claimed. Pressing for a broad interpretation of his rights, Charles redoubled his efforts to gather the arrears of the other aids. He demanded the marriage aid for his daughter from a large number of his subjects—apparently

most if not all of the land-holders in the two counties. Thus he demanded , the aid from all nobles who held fiefs directly of the count, of rear-vassals, of ecclesiastics, and of many towns.'!? Collectors were dispatched, fines were imposed. By the spring of 1301 opposition was rampant. Before taking more drastic action, seven lords offered Charles a compromise; by the end of May 1301 they presented their proposals to Charles’s baz//z. Volunteering to accept the Parlement’s arbitral judgment, they advanced the alternative proposal that their own vassals should be instructed to collect the tax due from their own subjects when aids were owed directly to them, that the proceeds should then be channeled to Charles, and that he should be compensated for any reduction or cancellation of payment granted in the past. The seven lords also offered to permit Charles to fine any rear-vassal who refused to cooperate.!!* These proposals were apparently rejected, for Charles’s adversaries appealed formally to the king.'!5 Philip the Fair intervened, and representatives of Charles and his subjects agreed that commissioners appointed by the king should hold a general inquest at Le Mans to determine who owed the aids and how they were to be collected; any obscure issues were to be referred to the Parlement for clarification. The commissioners were named on 27 October 1301,!!¢ and they ordered the bai/li of Maine and Anjou to summon all barons; all abbots, priors, and chapters of collegiate churches, and all other ecclesiastics affected by Charles’s demands; nobles and others holding ‘Petit, Charles de Valois, p. 240; Isabelle died in 1303. See ibid., pp. 288-91 for the levy of the aid. '13See the commission that Philip the Fair issued to royal investigators on 27 October 130,

AN, J 178B, no. 61', published in the Appendix, no. 2. See also Coutumes, ed. BeautempsBeaupré, pt. 2, vol. 4, p. 35; Archives d’Anjou, ed. Marchegay, 2:188, no. 61'. I4AN, J 178B, no. 61, in the Appendix, no. 2. The document shows that the aid was being levied on the lands of the counties “Par les mesurages & par les arpentages,” which suggests that assessments were based both on units of lands possessed by individual families and on the actual amount of territory held. See Coutumes, ed. Beautemps-Beaupré, pt. 2, vol. 4, p. 38, for the customary rates at which aids were collected in the counties. The count was to be permitted to levy fines against those who refused to collect the aid “par les masurages.”” The seven lords promised to waive any rights they had against such resisters or their subjects unless the fine, to be set by the constable of France, involved forfeiture of the fief and of all movables; in this case Charles would be guaranteed the fine assigned him by the constable on the rear-vassal’s movable property, and the immediate overlord would receive the rest. ''SPetit, Charles de Valois, pp. 288-91; Archives d’Anjou, ed. Marchegay, 2:188, no. 61+; 190,

nos. 63? and 633; and 191, no. 65°. "6 Archives d’Anjou, ed. Marchegay, 2:188, no. 61°.

64 CHAPTER II , rear-fiefs in the counties; and, finally, the citizens of Angers and Le Mans and of other towns being asked for the aid. They were all to appear in Le Mans on 5 December 1301. There, after numerous delays, the pleas and defenses of the parties were heard.!!” Proctors of the nobles and the city of Angers declared that they considered the aids an odious form of servitude.'!8 Charles’s advocates countered, in the spirit of Louis [X, that “what is due by general custom cannot be called hateful service.”!'!® They also argued that such payments, termed “the loyal aids of Anjou and Maine,” could not be considered servile since they were imposed on the lands rather than the inhabitants of the counties.!2° The barons of the district, they asserted, collected similar dues, and princes had as much right as their subjects to profit from the customs of their lands.!?! The nobles and the city of Angers maintained that various services and payments relieved them of any obligation to pay the marriage aid. Charles’s proctors countered that other liege barons, who served him in arms, had admitted liability. As to Angers, they declared that although the city had purchased exemption from taz/les, such levies, taken in times of necessity and at the count’s discretion, were different from aids, which were required only on certain specific occasions. When the question was raised before, they said, Charles, in the presence of his council, had rejected the city’s plea; this decision, they noted, had been accepted without appeal. Centrally important was the nobles’ allegation that the aids were owed only by the lord’s direct subjects. ‘This Charles’s lawyers flatly denied. Stress-

ing the customary basis for Charles’s claims, they said that the aids were “due so generally in Anjou, Maine, Poitou, Touraine, Normandy, and all ''7On these delays, initiated by the plaintiffs’ proctors and hotly contested by the count’s lawyers, see Coutumes, ed. Beautemps-Beaupré, pt. 2, vol. 4, p. 36. The names of those refusing

to appear or contesting the commissioners’ right to summon them are found in AN, J 178B, no. 61, section 4; in the same document are listed those who actually appeared on 7 and 8 December 1301; see G. de Lestang, “Noms et qualités des habitants du Maine et de l’Anjou qui, en l’année 1301, appelérent au Parlement aprés avoir été condamnés par la cour de leur comte comme ayant refusé de fournir l’aide levée pour le mariage d’Isabelle de Valois,” Bulletin de la Société dagriculture, sciences et arts de la Sarthe 17 (1863-64), 507 n. 1; Archives d’Anjou, ed. Marchegay, 2:189. '18*Servitute haineus,” “service haineus”: Coutumes, ed. Beautemps-Beaupré, pt. 2, vol. 4,

pp. 29, 34. _ —-*19e ce qui est deu par general coustume ne peut estre apelé service haineus, quer tele aide et autres quant les cas avienent sont deues par general coustume 4 ses sougiez esdites conteez, et en usent communelment”’: ibid., p. 29; many references to “general custom” appear

on pp. 29-34. |

120!" ,.. et sont apelées ces aides les loials aides d’Anjou et du Maine, non mie services

haineus; car elles sont deues sus le treffonz”: ibid., pp. 29-30. 121%", .. et aussi bien de droit et de coustume sont les princes parconniers es coustumes qui

courent en leur terres, comme leur sougez; car les princes n’ont pas un droit pour eus et autre pour leur voisins”: ibid., p. 29.

THEORY AND PRACTICE 65 the lands which the king of France had taken from the kings of England that none could claim immunity” unless specific exemption had been granted.'*? In response to arguments presented both by the nobles and by the city of Angers, Charles’s lawyers held that nonperformance and nonpayment did not prove the existence of a contrary custom nullifying the

| count’s traditional right; this could be abrogated neither by the passage of time nor by the count’s failure to exercise it.'?? Maintaining that the count’s prerogative could be established by witnesses and by the “ancient registers - in the count’s castle at Angers, which mention the aids, and other similar registers describing collection,”!** Charles’s lawyers asserted that all his

subjects owed five aids, to be paid at specified rates. Three of these had been formally demanded in 1290 (for ransom, for knighting the eldest son, and for marrying his daughter). Charles’s lawyers did not mention the aid for paying relief which had been claimed in 1290 and added to the list an aid for once acquiring land and an aid for the count’s own knighting.'?° An impasse ensued. During 1302 little progress was made.'”¢ Finally the king intervened. Having called the parties to Paris,'?”? on 9 March 1303 he | 1226" |, . quar ceste aide et les autres d’autele condicion sont si generaument deues en Anjou, ou Maine, en Poitou, en Touraine, et en Normandie, et en toutes les conquestes que les Roys de France firent envers les Roys d’Engleterre, que nul ne s’en puet franchir que il ne les doie quant les cas avienent, se n’est par fet ou par titre especial”: ibid., p. 31. It seems clear that in this context “fet” is equivalent to “fet contraire affirmatif,” a phrase used earlier in the brief to mean “positive proof” as opposed to essentially negative arguments, such as those from silence or those based on nonperformance: ibid., p. 30. Note also the terms “fet expres,” “fet apparissant,” and “fet apparent,” all employed by the count’s lawyers, and also the statement, , made in reply to the nobles’ lawyers, that “les aides sont si generaument deues que nul ne s’en puet defendre sanz espiciauté”: ibid., pp. 32-34. This statement was probably based on the assumption that, as territories acquired by conquest, these regions had become totally subject to the monarchy, which could therefore tax their inhabitants at will. As has been seen, Louis IX’s Parlement adopted a similar position. See also Brown, “Customary Aids,” pp. 224-25, for the use to which Nimes put this doctrine in 1335. '23Coutumes, ed. Beautemps-Beaupré, pt. 2, vol. 4, pp. 30, 34. The count’s lawyers maintained that earlier aids might not have been paid for many reasons, since “moult de choses sont seuffertes, les autres par grace, les autres par pitié, les autres par finances ou par autres contraus”’: ibid., p. 34. 124°" |. et Si avons registres anciens en chastel Mons' le Conte 4 Angers qui font mencion

, de ceste aide, et d’autres semblables en la manere comment elles ont esté levées”: ibid., p. 37. '25Tbid., pp. 37-38; for a different interpretation, see Petit, Charles de Valois, p. 290. \26Archives d’Anjou, ed. Marchegay, 2:190.

27Ibid.; AN, J 178B, no. 63, a mandate to the dbai/li of Tours, dated 31 December 1302, instructing him to summon all appellants to appear before the royal court in Paris on 16 February

1303. In connection with this mandate the king may have sent the daz//z the list of appellants published by Lestang, “Noms et qualités,” pp. 507-22; see Archives d’Anjou, 2:220, no. 107. The list may, however, have been prepared after the compromise was announced, when the king ordered his officials to see that only those who had formally appealed should be exempted from the count’s jurisdiction in cases relating to the appeal: AN, J 178B, no. 63, section 4, a

66 CHAPTER II announced the compromise that all parties had finally accepted; it strikingly resembled the settlement suggested by the barons in 1301.!28 The basic issues remained unsettled. Nonetheless, temporary peace was established when Charles was authorized to receive, without prejudice for the future, a sum equivalent to the aid he was demanding for his daughter’s marriage. He was to levy the aid from all “gentilz homes,” and these “gentilz homes” were

to take it from their subjects in the manner customary when an aid was being levied for a baron. Just how much—if anything—the “gentilz homes”

were to contribute themselves was, perhaps purposely, left unclear.'?° Charles was, however, ordered to conduct a formal inquest to determine what aids were owed, who owed them, and how they were to be levied; he was to issue a final decision according to the dictates of his conscience.'*° Whatever the outcome of the count’s investigations, he was to keep the money, which was to be accepted in full payment of the marriage aid if his subjects were found liable for it.'! Charles collected the aid immediately,'?? but he established no commission to investigate the fundamental question of principle until March 1309.!3

mandate dated 21 March 1303, for which see Archives d’Anjou, ed. Marchegay, 2:191. The list

iN question contains the names of three regular clergy and eight laymen empowered by the appellants; two of the ecclesiastics and three of the laymen appeared as proctors before the Parlement early in 1303: Coutumes, ed. Beautemps-Beaupré, pt. 2, vol. 4, p. 39; Lestang, ““Noms

et qualités,” p. 522. '8Coutumes, ed. Beautemps-Beaupré, pt. 2, vol. 4, pp. 38-41. The decree is dated at the Louvre in Paris, “coram nobis de consensu partium predictarum,” on the Saturday before the feast of Saint Gregory in 1302: ibid., p. 41. The many feast-days associated with saints named Gregory make dating difficult. Although the dates of 6 May and 1 September 1302 which, respectively, Beautemps-Beaupré and Marchegay suggest are consistent with the liturgical calendar, the itinerary of Philip the Fair shows that he was in Arras on | September 1302, and the royal mandates issued in 1302 demonstrate that no final settlement had yet been reached: Coutumes, ed. Beautemps-Beaupré, pt. 2, vol. 4, pp. 189, no. 62, and 190, nos. 63', 632, 63°; for Philip’s itinerary, HF, 21:439-40. The date of 9 March 1303, based on the feast of Pope Gregory on 12 March, seems to me far more likely; HF, 21:441. 129“Que il donnent des orendroit audit Conte 4 prendre par sa main seur les gentilz homes, et les gentilz homes seur leur subgiez, autant comme une des aides monteroit a lever de touz leurs subgiez de degré en degré, en la forme et en la maniere que |’en la lieve pour aucuns des | barons quant le cas li eschiet de lever aide de ses subgiez: et aura ledit Conte ce qui sera levé entierement senz ce que nul des subgiez en puisse riens retenir”: Coutumes, ed. BeautempsBeaupré, pt. 2, vol. 4, p. 39. °lbid., p. 40, and see also p. 42.

i[bid., pp. 39-40. |

'32F or resistance encountered by his agents, see Spzcilegium, ed. Achery, 1:197-98, and Livre

de Guillaume le Maire, ed. Frangois-Célestin Port (Paris, 1877), pp. 386-88. '33'The text of Charles’s letter, dated in the week before mid-Lent (“la semaine devant la

mi-karesme,” or between 2 and 8 March in 1309), is found in Coutumes, ed. Beautemps-

THEORY AND PRACTICE 67 By the fall of 1310 Charles had proclaimed that both by general custom and by the special custom of the region he was owed four aids: for the knighting of his son, for the marriage of his daughter, for a single purchase of land, and for his own ransom.'*+ He thus abandoned the more sweeping claims his lawyers had made in 1301, but his proclamation did not allay discontent. The nobles acquiesced in the count’s decision, perhaps because of privileges

they received at this time. In return for a cash payment, Charles granted the lords of Anjou and Maine extensive jurisdictional rights over public roads in their lands and reduced many customary fines for criminal offenses.!35 The citizens of Angers continued to deny their liability for the aids, but, pressed by the count’s officials, on 4 November 1310 they empowered

seven proctors to offer Charles a single hearth tax of 4 s. to be paid by every hearth that was not exempt because of poverty or special privilege. In return the count was to pledge, first, never to take another aid from the town; second, to renounce his pact with the barons; and third, to limit to Beaupré, pt. 2, vol. 4, pp. 41-43; see also Archives d’Anjou, ed. Marchegay, 2:194, no. 71 (dated 3-5 March 1309). Charles said that the judgment would be given “au jour dou mois de Pasques prochain venant”’; mensis Paschae referred not only to the four weeks following Easter but also

to the two-week period beginning on Palm Sunday and ending the Sunday after Easter. The inquest was still in progress at the end of July 1309, when Charles apparently believed it would continue for some time: Archives d’Anjou, ed. Marchegay, 2:195, no. 73. 134°" |. ex parte illustrissimi principis Domini Karoli filii Regis franc’ / Comitis Andegau’ et Cenoman’ contra ciues ville Andegauensis inter cetera propositum vt dicitur extitisset quod ciues andeg’ eidem domino Comiti et e1us Successores secundum consuetudinem Generalem et etiam illrus patrie Specialem / quatuor subsidia / videlicet pro milicia sui filii primogeniti / Pro sua filia maritanda / Pro emptione terre in sua vita semel facienda ac pro Redemptione sui corporis / si et dum casus accideret facere tenebantur”: AN, J 179A, no. 90 (AE II 1620), dated 4 November 1310. '35“Ttem cum inter ipsum dominum Comitem ex vna parte / ac barones / Milites aliosque nobiles Comitatus Andeg’ et Cenoman’ ex altera / Tractatum extitisset & posset ut dicitur conueniri pro quadam pecunie summa ipsi domino Comiti ab eisdem nobilibus semel danda / quod prefati Barones / Milites ac nobiles inposterum pro suis excessibus uel delictis aliis ve de causis quibuscunque ipsi domino comiti et eius Successoribus in comitatibus eisdem emendas

non facerent nec tenerentur facere nec soluere Consuetas / Immo quod ipsi dominus Comes et alii comites Andeg’ et Cenoman’ qui fuerunt pro tempore / eorumque successores pro emendis

huiusmodi non possent ab eisdem nobilibus exigere quantumcunque factum esset Graue nisi certam pecunie quantitatem et modicam Immo verius quasi nullam / habito Respectu ad emendas Retroacto et moderno tempore consuetas / exceptis excessibus et delictis ex quibus vite amissio

seu membrorum mutilatio / terre ve confiscatio secundum patrie consuetudinem sequeretur / et quod ipsi nobiles cognitionem & [urisdictionem haberent vna cum emenda super hiis que fierent decetero seu fieri proponerentur in viis publicis seu cheminis situatis Infra metas locorum

in quibus ad eosdem nobiles pertinerent al’ Iurisdictio temporalis”: AN, J 179A, no. 90 (AE II 1620), a procuration issued by the citizens of Angers on 4 November 1310. For other interpretations of this document, see Petit, Charles de Valois, p. 291 at n. 4, and Archives d’Anjou,

ed. Marchegay, 2:207-8, no. 90.

68 CHAPTER II 60 s. the fines imposed on citizens of Angers in cases involving pledges or counterpledges given against letters of the count’s court.!%6 Despite these efforts at compromise, the problems were not resolved. The conflict revived when in 1313 Charles of Valois demanded an aid for the knighting of his son Philip.!37 A commission was appointed to resolve

is unknown. | the points at issue,'** but delays occurred, and the commission’s final decision

Philip the Fair’s stance in the dispute between Charles of Valois and his subjects was conciliatory. His repeated insistence on instituting inquests to determine what former practice had been witnesses his allegiance to the sovereignty of custom, although, as the lawyers’ arguments showed, custom was a slippery and unreliable ally. Two other arguments proposed by Charles’s lawyers offered potentially greater assistance and solace to lords who were intent on collecting the aids. They persuasively advocated the inefficacy of pleas based on nonpayment and nonperformance by insisting that plaintiffs produce positive and afhrmative evidence of exemption from specific aids. Second, they proclaimed that all inhabitants of conquered lands—and specifically those that Philip Augustus had taken from John of England—owed the traditional aids. This doctrine had been foreshadowed by a decree of the Parlement in 1271, but the count’s lawyers amplified and sharpened the earlier pronouncement. This increased its potential significance for the monarchy, since it was Philip the Fair, not Charles of Valois, who held the bulk of the territory seized from England. The arguments marshaled by the lawyers of Charles of Valois were compelling; they provided useful precedents for future litigation. Yet the conflict

between the count and his subjects produced more important lessons. No _ one observing the dreary process—and least of all the shrewd ministers and officials of Philip the Fair—could have failed to see that negotiated compromise possessed distinct advantages over protracted suits at law. The 6AN, J 179A, no. 90 (AE II 1620). The proctors were accorded extensive powers, but the detailed instructions included in the procuration left them little freedom of action. The path they were to follow was carefully specified. If a deadlock occurred, and if both proctors and citizens agreed, the demand concerning the fines might be dropped, as might the question of ransom aids, from which the citizens nonetheless claimed total immunity. See Brown, “Representation and Agency Law,” passim. '37Petit, Charles de Valois, p. 292.

G8AN, J 179A, no. 84, a mandate of Charles of Valois dated at Pontoise on 25 April 1314; Archives d’Anjou, ed. Marchegay, 2:194-95, no. 72, and 201-2, no. 84; Thesaurus, ed. Marténe and Durand, 1:1347. Charles also ordered the commissioners to have all protesters summoned

to Le Mans on 16 June to hear his decision: Thesaurus, ed. Marténe and Durand, 1:1347. Delays apparently occurred, for on 22 June 1314 the citizens of Le Mans were just naming proctors to negotiate a settlement, presumably concerning the aids: Archives d’Anjou, Marchegay,

2:202-3, no. 85, and 212-13, nos. 102'-; see also Petit, Charles de Valois, p. 292.

THEORY AND PRACTICE 69 solution finally reached in 1303 after more than a year of litigation was essentially the same settlement proposed by the antagonists of Charles of Valois in 1301. Had this settlement been accepted when offered, much time and effort would have been saved, and much animosity avoided. Agreements

that brought profit to the overlord, spared his immediate vassals personal loss, and in the end affected only subjects with little power to protest had much to recommend them. By 1308 the French monarchs had levied many aids that were warranted chiefly by prescription. The Capetians were apparently untroubled by the admonitions of the stricter moral theologians and legal theorists and unmoved by the examples of their more sensitive contemporaries; they were seemingly unaffected by the arguments and conflicts that in some regions resulted in restriction and definition of the lord’s right to the traditional aids. Relying on custom as justification for the levies, the Capetians neither limited nor canceled them, nor did they attempt to defend them by invoking royal need. Louis IX self-assuredly called on all subjects to pay the taxes, which he claimed as justly his, and his reign provided his successors with the “particular acts” and “approved custom” subsequently endorsed by Giles of Rome as grounds for collecting revenues.'*® Later kings followed Louis’s example, although, seemingly less confident than he, they were less willing

to bend tradition in order to extend the royal prerogative. The king’s subjects were understandably skeptical regarding the justice of the customary aids, but the objections they offered were neither persuasive nor effective. Those who appealed were generally hesitant to question the

principle that custom warranted the collection of the aids. Instead, they relied primarily on claims of individual or regional immunity. Any noble was rash to challenge the king’s right: to do so was to cast doubt on the legitimacy of demands that all lords made of their subjects. The Parlement and the officials of Philip the Fair retreated from the position that Louis [X had taken. During the early years of Philip’s reign it began to appear that the government might admit limitations on the king’s

right to collect the aids. By refusing to endorse other lords’ attempts to expand their claims in defiance of custom, the royal court indicated that the king as well would be strictly bound by tradition. On the other hand, the king’s ministers and judges still harbored a desire for sweeping definition of liability and consequent expansion of the royal prerogative. The impulse to clarify and establish principle was balanced by the attraction of the gains to be won through compromise. Only the future would show which of these ends would prove most attractive to Philip the Fair and the officials who served him. '39Giles of Rome, De regimine principum, 2.3.12.

BLANK PAGE

III. The King and the Marriage Aid, 1308-1309 Soon after the wedding of Isabelle, in the early months of 1308, Philip the Fair ordered officials to begin collecting a marriage aid. Philip’s mandate has not survived, but his action can be inferred from the steps his agents took to begin collection. The government’s initial approach appears to have been generally hesitant, almost casual, although the rewards of intensive negotiation were demonstrated in Carcassonne and Paris. By the late summer of 1308 the king decided to enforce his claims more resolutely. A new note of urgency and assurance appeared in royal mandates. The alteration of royal policy is reflected in the decree of 6 September

1308 that proclaimed the king’s right to take the marriage aid from all Normans. The change became even more apparent in June 1309, when, reacting to financial stress and the opposition already provoked by the aid, the king appointed a group of special commissioners and dispatched them throughout the realm to perform tasks ranging from reformation of the land

to collection of sums due to the treasury. Of central importance was the marriage aid; owing to their extensive and varied powers, the commissioners were more effective agents than the local officials who had initially supervised the levy. Their zealous pursuit of the king’s rights, sure evidence of their identification with and loyalty to the interests of the crown they served, stimulated the growth of resistance. This opposition was far more bitter than any that had been manifested in 1308. Angry individuals and groups turned for relief to the king himself. 1. THE First ATTEMPTS TO LEVY THE AID

In the late winter and spring of 1308 Philip the Fair was taking various steps to raise revenue and improve the state of his finances. On 16 February he empowered Pierre de Ferriéres, seneschal of Rouergue, to negotiate and collect fines for the illegal acquisition of fiefs. Pierre’s activities seem to have been initiated to enable the treasury to reap the fruits of the investigations conducted three years earlier by two special royal commissioners, Nicolas de Luzarches and Jean d’Auxois.' In mid-April the king began an 'For Pierre’s commission, see Fawtier, Registres, 1:no. 526. Some months before the commission was issued, in November 1307, Pierre had completed an agreement concerning the acquisition of fiefs in Millau: ibid., 1:no. 959. For Pierre’s work in the fall of 1308 and early 1309, see ibid., l:nos. 526-32; for his continued activities in 1314-15, see ibid., 2:nos. 4549. 71

72 CHAPTER III extensive reform of the customs administration.? In this case, profit would not be produced immediately, and financial gain was doubtless only one of the king’s goals in instituting the reorganization. Financial benefit and administrative reform were not incompatible, as the long list of fines imposed by enquéteurs-réformateurs sent to Champagne in 1308 demonstrates.’ Reform was as important as revenue in the spring of 1308, when the king was planning to proceed against the Templars, who had been seized on 13 October 1307. Philip the Fair needed to convince the realm of his commitment to good government and to confirm his subjects’ allegiance. Between 22 and 29 March 1308 summonses were issued to an assembly to be held in Tours in May; at the same time the king took steps to demonstrate his dedication to his people’s well-being.* In late March or early April Philip apparently held a meeting of burgesses in Paris to discuss the coinage, and in the middle of April, just when the reorganization of the customs service was announced, he issued a comprehensive reform ordonnance based on the burgesses’ advice, together with many mandates aiming to ensure its enforcement and guarantee improvement of the coinage.’ While the assembly of Tours was in progress, on 17 May 1308 Philip the Fair took steps to enforce reductions in the number of royal sergeants which he had recently ordained, a step that was sure to be popular.° In keeping with the king’s conciliatory posture, little serious effort to collect the marriage aid was made before the summer of 1308. The king’s local officials made overtures in some parts of the realm, but nowhere were their efforts determined. Negotiations were conducted with the city of Carcassonne, apparently in connection with the calling of the assembly at Tours.

The city was in no position to resist royal demands, but, even so, the negotiations resulted in compromise rather than confirmation of the king’s 2AN, P 2290, pp. 221-23, for Philip’s commission of 18 April 1308 to Guillaume de Marcilly, Geffroy Coquatrix, and Pierre de Chalon; see Joseph R. Strayer, “Pierre de Chalon and the Origins of the French Customs Service” (orig. pub. 1964), in Medieval Statecraft, pp. 234-35. >Robert-Henri Bautier, “Inventaires de comptes royaux particuliers de 1328 a 1351,” BPH (1960), 789, no. 58; Glénisson, “Les enquéteurs-réformateurs,” pp. 275-76, no. 38. *Lizerand, Clément V, pp. 115-27; Documents relatifs aux Etats généraux et assemblées réunis

sous Philippe le Bel, ed. Georges Picot (Paris, 1901), pp. xlv-lvii and, for the text of the summonses, pp. 487-96. On 12 March 1308 the king issued a mandate protecting the consuls and citizens of Cahors against actions detrimental to their privileges allegedly committed by the royal viguier charged with supervising the pariage between the king and the bishop of Cahors: AN, J 341, no. 8. ’Ordonnances, 1:449-50; Fawtier, Registres, 1:nos. 737-41. Additional steps, to be discussed

below, were taken during 1309 to reform the coinage. On royal money during this period, see Jules-Adrien Blanchet and Adolphe-E. Dieudonné, Manuel de numismatique francaise (Paris, 1912-36), 2:153. See below, p. 83. ‘Fawtier, Registres, 1:no. 736.

THE MARRIAGE AID 73 rights. The settlement that was concluded bears marked similarities to the compromise Charles of Valois reached with his subjects in 1303; in the early stages of the marriage aid campaign, royal strategy may well have been affected by that dispute. Royal agents approached the citizens of Carcassonne in the spring of 1308 to require payment of the marriage aid, but the city’s officials rebuffed them and refused to admit liability. However strong their grounds for resistance, the citizens had little hope of escaping contribution; they desperately needed the king’s favor. In 1305, as a result of their rebellion against the king, the city was fined 60,000 1.t. and deprived perpetually of its rights of self-government.’ Attempts to secure royal forgiveness were made in 1306 and 1307, and one of the participants in the missions to the king was chosen, with a consul, to represent Carcassonne at Tours in May 1308, perhaps because the city hoped that peace would be achieved at the as-

| sembly.®

| In 1308 Carcassonne owed the king 20,000 I.t., a third of the fine originally imposed.® Having determined to raise the money by farming certain municipal taxes, the city needed the king’s sanction. The citizens had already

found a moneylender (Guillaume de Bercellis, a fellow-citizen) who was willing to pay 23,000 I.t. for the right to collect for three years a local tax, the retrodecima, which was an eleventh of all profits, income, and property held or received by the citizens of Carcassonne. This solution was attractive,

since the city government stood to gain 3,000 I.t. over and above the sum they owed the king. No effort was made to conceal this fact when the city, presumably through its representatives at Tours,!° sought royal approval. The king’s officers shrewdly exploited this candor to secure additional funds for the royal treasury. Raising the issue of the marriage aid, they persuaded Carcassonne’s proctors, who stoutly denied the city’s liability, to offer an

additional 2,000 I.t. as a contribution to the aid and to obtain the king’s endorsement. The representatives were also induced to agree that if more than 25,000 |.t. were collected from the retrodecima, the surplus would be "AN, J 335, no. 4; HL, 9:277-80, esp. 279 n. 2; Wenck, Philipp der Schine, pp. 44-47; Lea, Inquisition, 2:63-90; Alan Friedlander’s forthcoming study of Bernard Délicieux. ®See Brown, “Representation,” pp. 351-52; for the nomination of representatives to the assembly, Documents, ed. Picot, pp. 700-701, no. MXLVIII. *In 1306 Carcassonne offered the king 30,000 1.t. to be paid in equal annual installments

over the next three years; if Philip accepted this offer, the sum of 20,000 I.t. may represent the two installments still due. See HZ, 10:preuves, cols. 457-58. '0The final accord was dated May 1308 at Paris, but the negotiations were in all likelihood conducted at Tours, where other towns were petitioning the king for favors. See Documents, ed. Picot, pp. 609-10, no. DCCCLXIX, for instructions issued to the deputies of Béthune to ask the king to permit the town “de faire aucune assize sour les marcheandises qui sont en la ville devant dite”; see also p. lui. For the decree regarding municipal taxes that Montauban’s representatives obtained at Tours on 13 May 1308, see AM, Montauban, AA 3, fol. 41.

74 CHAPTER III divided between the king and Guillaume de Bercellzs. Carcassonne thus had no hope of obtaining any more than 1,000 Lt. As in the settlement between Charles of Valois and his subjects, the issue of obligation for the aid was

not resolved; but, again as in that settlement, the king would retain the money promised for the aid whatever the outcome of the suit regarding liability. Carcassonne’s representatives were forced to content themselves with the guarantee that if the city’s immunity was established, no additional payment would be required.!! In other parts of the kingdom negotiations gained momentum slowly. To judge from the approach taken by the seneschal of Rouergue, the attitude of the king’s officials in the provinces mirrored the king’s hesitancy. Between

the middle of March and the third week of April the seneschal held an assembly of the consulates of Rouergue at Villefranche to discuss the subsidy, but he apparently did little more than announce the king’s mandate." Soon afterwards, on 21 April 1308, the seneschal convened a similar assembly to plan for the assembly of Tours, but, probably for tactical reasons, he does not seem to have broached the question of the aid.'? The issue was, however, by no means dead, and, the assembly of Tours having ended, two leading consuls of Najac went to Villefranche on 26 June 1308 to respond to the king’s demand for subsidy.'* 'For the agreement, HZ, 10:preuves, cols. 473-75, no. 151; see also Fawtier, Regustres, l:no. 778; and Strayer, “Consent to Taxation,” p. 78. Another important letter regarding the agreement was drafted at this time, but it was not registered and apparently has not survived. See Fawtier, Registres, 1:no. 778, “Alia major littera facta fuit super hoc, sed nondum registrata.” 2A D, Aveyron, 2 E.178.2, fol. 85 (the fiscal accounts of Najac); on this source see Elizabeth A. R. Brown, “Subsidy and Reform in 1321: The Accounts of Najac and the Policies of Philip

V,” Traditio 27 (1971), 400-401 (rpt. in eadem, Pofstics, no. VIII). SAD, Aveyron, 2 E.178.2, fol. 85v (“per la anada detors”’). These accounts do not indicate that Najac sent its own representative to Tours, and the consulates assembled at Villefranche probably empowered the proctor of Millau to act for them all, although the king wanted each locus insignis to send two deputies. In September 1308 the seneschal summoned representatives

of Najac to Villefranche to discuss the division of expenses for the assembly; he later ordered the consuls to pay 45 s. of Rodez as their part “delas messios que fetz i cossols damelhau estan a Peitiaus per los cossolatz derozergue”: ibid., fols. 91, 92. This entry suggests that after the assembly at Tours had ended, the consuls of Millau may have accompanied the king to Poitiers, although the statement may reflect confusion over the place where the assembly was actually held, since it was originally scheduled to meet at Poitiers: see Documents, ed. Picot, pp. 49293, no. DCLXII, and p. 720, no. MLXXVI. The only communities in the Rouergue whose procurations have survived are Conques and Saint-Antonin; the documents were prepared two and six days, respectively, after the meeting in Villefranche on 21 April: Documents, ed. Picot, pp. 695-96, nos. MXXXVIII-IX.

'4One consul stayed at Villefranche for three days, the other for four; while they were there they communicated several times with the town, and particularly with Gueri de Cumbelas, Najac’s delegate to the initial meeting on the subsidy: AD, Aveyron, 2 E.178.2, fol. 85v; see ibid., fol. 83v, for Gueri’s position as councilor of Najac during 1307-8.

THE MARRIAGE AID 75 Restive at the repeated summonses and convinced of the king’s determination to levy the aid, the people of Rouergue took action. For some of them the route to exemption was clear. On 4 July 1308 the community of Saint-Antonin secured an exemplification of a sweeping privilege originally issued by three lords with jurisdiction over the town and subsequently confirmed in September 1203 by Count Raymond of Toulouse. The act declared the town free of “the bad custom called quettes“ and promised that, in future,

only voluntary contributions would be taken.'’ These precautions were timely; there is no evidence that Saint-Antonin was ever required to pay the marriage aid. Communities whose privileged status was less secure reacted more aggressively. Sometime in July the consulates of Rouergue held a meeting at La Bastide-l’Evéque to consider the subsidy. There Najac was represented by Gueri de Cumbelas, who had attended the first assembly called at Villefranche to discuss the subsidy.'* He and the other proctors determined to send a joint delegation to the king in Paris. On 13 July the consuls of Najac

elected to serve in 1308-9 drafted an elaborate document revoking the powers of proctors established by their predecessors and commissioning seventeen men to present the town’s claims to immunity from the marriage aid and to seek from the king’s court letters of grace and justice declaring

their immunity.'? Only two of the agents appear to have been natives of Najac; the other fifteen included a number of important people—a lord, 'SOn 4 July 1308 “the procurator and the canons of the monastery of Saint-Antonin” attested that they had viewed and read an authentic copy of liberties granted to the town by the viscounts

Isarn, Guillaume-Jourdain, and Pierre, with the approval of Bishop Adémar of Rodez, Bishop Raymond of Toulouse, and Pierre Gros, in which they abandoned “cette Mauuaise coutume qu’on appelloit quettes excepte ce quils voudront donner de leur propre Volonte . . . tellement que nous ne Rechercherons point leur bien contre leur Volonte.” The privilege was contained in a confirmation of the town’s liberties granted by Count Raymond in September 1203 and exemplified on 17 September 1269 by the prior of the church of Saint-Antonin: AC, SaintAntonin, II.11, fols. 25, 56. See Baratier, Démographie, p. 13, for the use of the word questes to designate the customary aids. ‘Item anet G. decumbelas alabasada delauesque per parlar ablos autres cossolatz del fah del subcidi”: AD, Aveyron, 2 E.178.2, fol. 85v. La Bastide-l’Evéque, the place where the meeting

was held, is located some twelve kilometers east of Villefranche. The date of the meeting is not specified, but, since Gueri’s expenses appear in the accounts of the consuls of 1307-8, the assembly must have been held before these accounts end in mid-July. The accounts of this fiscal year contain later expenses, but they are all connected with the mission to Paris of the agent, Raymond de Cumbelas, who left Najac on 31 July 1307 and returned on 10 September 1308: ibid., fols. 85v, 87v. The consuls of 1308-9 had taken office by 13 July 1308, when they canceled the authority of three proctors named by their predecessors, one of whom was Raymond de Cumbelas: AD, Aveyron 2 E.178.12, in the Appendix, no. 4. The first recorded expense of the new consulate was made on 19 July 1308: AD, Aveyron, 2 E.178.2, fol. 90v; see ibid., fol. 149, for the alteration in the municipal calendar in 1319, when the town offices began to change hands in late January. '7AD, Aveyron, 2 E.178.12, in the Appendix, no. 4.

76 CHAPTER III several donzels—who apparently came from neighboring communities that also opposed the subsidy.'® This document, strikingly similar to procurations utilized in a mass protest organized in the Midi a year later, suggests that joint action was being planned. No formal delegation, however, seems to have been dispatched; if it was, Najac did not participate. The procuration of 13 July remained in Najac’s archives, a virtually certain sign that it was never used.'®? Nor do the accounts of Najac contain any trace of a contribution to the expenses of a joint mission. The consuls of Najac determined instead to act independently. Toward the end of July they dispatched their own proctor to the king. P. Maioral, one of the men named in the procuration of 13 July, was instructed to deal with the marriage aid and with several other local affairs.2° Maioral remained

in Paris for more than two months, and when he returned home at the beginning of October, he brought with him one or more royal letters.?! One of these probably put at least a temporary halt to the demands of the local royal officials. There is no evidence that the proctor of Najac who traveled to Paris in February 1309 was instructed to raise the issue of the marriage aid, and the municipal accounts indicate that the king’s officials reopened negotiations on the aid only in the late summer of 1310.72 As in the Rouergue, indecisiveness and procrastination characterized the

initial stages of proceedings throughout the realm. In the seneschalsy of Périgord and Quercy a meeting concerning the aid was held at Sarlat in late 'SJohan Marcafava was Najac’s delegate to Paris in 1307-8, and P. Maioral presented Najac’s

protest to the king in 1308: AD, Aveyron, 2 E.178.2, fols. 87, 91v.

'Flizabeth A. R. Brown, “Assemblies of French Towns in 1316: Some New Texts,” Speculum 46 (1971), 285 (rpt. in eadem, Politics, no. VI). Although the instrument of 13 July 1308 canceled the authority of Raymond de Cumbelas, the consuls of 1308-9 eventually paid him for “letras que empetret de mosenhen lorei del fah del pezatgue edels dexs edelapazada”: AD, Aveyron, 2 E.178.2, fol. 92v. Suggesting as it does that Raymond performed at least some acts in an official capacity after mid-July, this entry offers yet another indication that the act of 13 July 1308 was never executed. 0The column of the accounts concerning this mission is torn and partly obliterated. The fragmentary record does show, however, that a special proctor left Najac to deal with the aid and with “dexs” and “pezatgue” on or about the feast of Mary Magdalene, 22 July, and that he was away for 73 days, returning to Najac in early October: AD, Aveyron, 2 E.178.2, fol. 92. Another entry indicates that this deputy was P. Maioral. According to the accounts, on 9 October 1308, immediately after the deputy’s return, three townsmen presented to the seneschal a letter “que auia aportada P. Maioral de nostre senhor que auia aportada de Fransa”: ibid., fol. 91v. Both Raymond de Cumbelas and P. Maioral were in Paris during the summer of 1308; it is impossible to determine which royal mandates Maioral obtained. See ibid., fols. 87v and

92v, for letters secured by Cumbelas; see also BN, n. a. f. 564 (an inventory of the Najac archives compiled in 1575), fols. 9v, 47v, 59v, 79v, 173, and 175. 1The fragment of the entry concerning the mission relating to the aid refers to “letras del rei”: AD, Aveyron, 2 E.178.2, fol. 92. See also the preceding note. 22The account of the mission of Pons Carrieira is also fragmentary, but it seems to contain no reference to the aid: AD, Aveyron, 2 E.178.2, fols. 92v, 101.

THE MARRIAGE AID 77 June or July 1308, but if local officials made a determined attempt to raise money before the summer of 1309, no trace of their efforts has survived.?? In Auvergne the bailli delayed until after the middle of July before calling a district meeting at Riom.”* Whatever the outcome of the meeting, by the beginning of September two or more communities of the baillage had been summoned before the Parlement, possibly in connection with the aid.?°

Montferrand dispatched three proctors, including a consul and a representative sent to the assembly at Tours;*° the envoys were given supplications

addressed to the king as well as the usual procurations.’’ Even if they and the other deputies were not specifically instructed to deal with the aid, they may have raised the issue in Paris, for Montferrand’s evasive tactics won the town immunity for nine years.*® No such steps were necessary in the neighboring community of Riom, where one of the local assemblies had been held. Although its inhabitants were asked to contribute, they completely escaped payment, probably by claiming, as they apparently had when Alfonse of Poitiers was their lord, that their customs and liberties protected them from such levies.?° ?’The fiscal accounts of Martel show that two deputies, the consul Ai de Cahors and Master G. Jolias, were sent to Sarlat “per lo subcidi que demandaua lo reis per maridar sa filha”: AC, Martel, CC 2, fol. 86. Generally less informative than the accounts of Najac, those of Martel do not indicate whether or not its delegates were on this occasion summoned by a royal official, nor do they suggest the size of the meeting at Sarlat. As will be seen, Sarlat did not join the mass protest of the communities of the Quercy but rather obtained its own letter postponing

collection of the aid. , +E. Teilhard de Chardin, Inventaire sommatre des archives communales antérieures a 1790. Ville de Clermont-Ferrand. Fonds de Montferrand, AA.-CC. 332 (Clermont-Ferrand, 1902), p. 363. The terse accounts note that the baz//i summoned the communes “par un mandement de la cour” but do not indicate precisely why the meeting was held.

5On 3 September 1308 two deputies of Aurillac appeared in Montferrand, asking if the consuls had been summoned to the Parlement: ibid. °Documents, ed. Picot, pp. 677-78, no. MVI. 27’"Teilhard de Chardin, Inventazre, p. 364.

The agents were back in Montferrand by 23 April 1309. Early in May five men of Montferrand made the first assessment of a tax, and the municipal accounts refer to the “‘raire

tacsatio” made by four other men; this imposition does not appear to have been connected with the marriage aid, since the town’s liability for the aid was not finally determined until 1319: ibid., and AM, Clermont-Ferrand, Montferrand CC 1, nos. 3 and 4, which will be discussed below. Royal letters of 1317 and 1319 relating to the aid do not suggest that the issue of Montferrand’s liability was ever raised before the Parlement; the mandate of 1317 was warranted by the royal treasurer. See Bisson, “Consultative Functions,” p. 371 at n. 93. *7AC, Riom, CC 9, no. 783. This protest, drafted against Philip VI’s attempt to raise a knighting and marriage aid in Riom, stated that “Au temps que viuoyt tres excellent princes & de bonne memoyre / mons’ Philippe qui fu Roys de france fu demande par les gens Reaux que li habitant dela dta’ villa de Riom subuenissent & payacent ali pour sa fille marier Et que tout jour hont il dit aynssi comme mayntenant / & en sunt demore en pays / Et fu inhibit dela partie Real / que pour Reyzon dece / aucuna chouza ne leur fut demandea / ne leue de eux /.” On this protest see Brown, “Customary Aids,” pp. 212-13.

78 CHAPTER III In the north royal officials had no more success than their colleagues in the south. The prompt response to the king’s demands in Paris was exceptional. By the middle of August 1308 the city had promised 10,000 L.p. (equivalent to 12,500 |.t.), the amount traditionally offered for customary aids.?° Elsewhere the king’s subjects turned to him for protection against his officials’ demands. Some money was raised in Sens, but the tactics of the royal officials produced appeals to the king. These in turn resulted in a royal mandate, dated 20 August, which gave the inhabitants of Sens a delay until 29 September 1308 and ordered provisional restitution of what had been paid.*!

The Normans’ position was exceptionally strong, and, with characteristic vigor and determination, they contested the king’s demands from the outset. Their reaction is not surprising, for in the duchy royal officials were trying __

to collect the aid from mesne as well as direct subjects of the king. This move, reminiscent of the demands made in the Anjou and the Maine by Charles of Valois’s officials, may have been prompted by the legal doctrine of right by conquest, but neither the king nor his agents attempted to justify their demands by appealing to that principle, which would surely have provoked immediate outcry.??

Litigation began speedily and led to intense debate and the search for precedents in Norman customals and royal registers.?? In the early fall of 1308 Philip the Fair himself journeyed to Normandy. On 6 September 1308,

while he was in the duchy, he proclaimed the custom supported his right to an aid from all Normans.** For good reason, the king cited no specific texts as grounds for his declaration; his position was hardly impregnable. True, all Normans owed fealty to the prince;?> Norman custom, endorsed by the royal court, also held that the duke could call the Normans to arms 0A ntoine-Jean-Victor Le Roux de Lincy, Histoire de ’' Hotel de ville de Paris ... (Paris, 1846), pt. 2, Appendix, p. 171, a selection from the Livre des sentences du parloir aux bourgeois showing that commissioners to collect the aid were named on 15 August 1308. For subsequent offers of similar amounts, see Brown, “Customary Aids,” p. 235 and also below, pp. 190, 209. SAN, JJ 42A, fol. 113v, no. 113; see Fawtier, Regsstres, 1:no. 860.

For background, see Donald W. Sutherland, “Conquest and Law,” Studia Gratiana 15 (Post Scripta) (1972), 35-51. *3For examples of the registers of royal holdings and revenues in Normandy that existed in the Chamber of Accounts at this time, see AN, AB XIX 3135 (104 Mi 30), a volume of the

eighteenth-century Lenoir collection of transcriptions of Chamber of Accounts documents relating to Normandy; on the collection, see M. Le Pesant, “Les manuscrits de Dom Lenoir sur l’histoire de Normandie,” Bulletin de la Société des antiquaires de Normandie 50 (1946-48),

125-51; and C. T. Allmand, “The Collection of Dom Lenoir and the English Occupation of Normandy in the Fifteenth Century,” Archives 6 (1964), 202-10. 4AN, JJ 42A, fol. 101v, no. 83, in the Appendix, no. 6; see Fawtier, Registres, 1:no. 830. sT’ancienne coutume de Normandy, ed. William-Laurence de Gruchy (Jersey, 1881), pp. 42-43, section XIV.

THE MARRIAGE AID 79 and impose extraordinary aids beyond the three warranted by custom.** On the other hand, well-attested Norman custom held that military service was

owed the duke only by his own vassals and by the towns of the duchy; others were exempt unless the rear-ban was proclaimed.’” Most important, custom explicitly endorsed the Normans’ stand on the traditional aids. All lords possessed an unquestioned right to aids for the eldest son’s knighting, the eldest daughter’s marriage, and ransom arising from a war waged by the duke. The subtenant, however, owed no direct payment to the lord’s overlord on any of these occasions, although when a lord was paying an aid to the duke, subjects were bound to pay the lord half the sum they would have owed had the immediate lord been collecting the tax.*® Philip the Fair and his advisers may not have been as convinced of the justice of his position as the royal pronouncement suggests: a decree issued the previous day, 5 September 1308, implicitly recognized the principle that was consonant with Norman custom. Regulating his inalienable right to revenues of land held in wardship, Philip the Fair commanded the baz/li of | Rouen to see that payments of the marriage aid made from such lands be directed to the king, whether or not the lands had been farmed or granted to others; the decree also acknowledged that the aid “would in fact be owed to the minors if they were not in wardship but were of age.’”?° This principle,

endorsed one day, was effectively set aside the next, when the king announced uncompromisingly that all in the duchy owed the subsidy directly to him. Probably anticipating and hoping to diminish controversy over this critical issue, Philip the Fair postponed collection of the aid. Signaling the 6Olim, 2:101, no. XII, and pp. 863-64 n. 27 (a decree of the Epiphany Parlement of 1278). This decree shows that when Philip III called Norman nobles to participate in his expedition of 1276 against Castile, he decreed an aid (auxilium exercitus), which he authorized those fighting for him to collect from their subjects. In connection with the same campaign, the Norman Exchequer declared that if the lord of a fief or membrum lorice did not perform the service owed the king, the king might collect the aid for the army, which would otherwise have been paid directly to the lord: Arresta communia Scacarit ..., ed. Ernest Perrot (Caen, 1910), p. 50, no. 13'; see also Joseph R. Strayer, “Knight Service in Normandy,” in Anniversary

Essays ... Charles Homer Haskins ..., ed. Charles H. Taylor and John L. La Monte (Boston, 1929), pp. 326-27. For a decision similar to the decree of the Parlement of 1278, issued by Philip VI on 11 May 1328 concerning the levy of a war subsidy in Normandy, see Ordonnances, 2:27. See also L’ancienne coutume, ed. Gruchy, pp. 122-23, section XLIV; and Coutumuers de Normandie. Textes critiques, 1: Le trés ancien coutumier de Normandie. Texte latin, ed. Ernest-

Joseph Tardif (Rouen, 1881), 39, ch. XLVIII. 37Coutumiers de Normandie ..., 2: La Summa de Legibus, ed. Ernest-Joseph Tardif (Rouen, 1896), 68-71, ch. XXIIbs, esp. p. 69; see Strayer, “Knight Service,” pp. 314-15. *Summa de Legibus, ed. Tardif, pp. 110-12, ch. XXXII]; see also Le trés ancien coutumier, ed. idem, p. 39, ch. XLVIII. 39AN, JJ 42A, fol. 100, no. 80, in the Appendix, no. 5; see Fawtier, Registres, 1:no. 827. *0As will be seen, Philip eventually reversed this decision. The Norman charters of privilege

obtained from Louis X in 1315 endorsed the principle upheld by the Normans in 1308: Or-

80 CHAPTER III , failure of crops in the duchy and the imminent levy of the triennial tax paid in Normandy to guarantee stable coinage (fowage),*! the king announced that the aid would not be taken in Normandy until 16 February 1309 and that those who had lost their crops would be excused until 15 August 1309.# As Philip doubtless calculated, this period of grace afforded royal officials an opportunity to prepare to defend the king’s stance. 2. FiscaL Crisis AND THE APPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS

To judge from many of the mandates issued by Philip the Fair in October

1308, the government’s financial situation was causing the king and his ministers increasing uneasiness. A thorough audit of fiscal accounts was set in motion;** steps to secure payment of debts were initiated;** attempts were made to hasten collection of regular royal revenues.** In addition, various commissions were issued, and the treasury seems clearly to have been expected to profit from their activities. Having on 8 October empowered an

donnances, \:589; Recueil général des anciennes lois francaises ..., ed. Athanase-J.-L. Jourdan, Decrusy, and Frangois-A. Isambert (Paris, 1822-33), 3:50, 107. Cf. Strayer, “Consent to Tax-

ation,” p. 77, who suggests that the king’s attempt to raise the aid from all his subjects was not confined to Normandy. ‘On this payment, see Summa de Legibus, ed. Tardif, pp. 40-43; L’ancienne coutume, ed. idem, pp. 43-46; E. Bridrey, “Une page oubliée des coutumiers normands. Le chapitre de monnéage,” Bulletin de la Société des antiquaires de Normandie 48 (1940-41), 76-384; Thomas N. Bisson, Conservation of Coinage, Monetary Exploitation, and Its Restraint in France, Catalonia,

and Aragon (c. A.D. 1000-c. 1225) (Oxford, 1979), pp. 14-28. For collection of arrears of the tax in Normandy in 1303, see Mignon, nos. 1498 and 1657a; for 1308, ibid., no. 16571. AN, JJ42A, fol. 101v, no. 83, in the Appendix, no. 6. Fawtier, Registres, 1:no. 751, a royal letter of 2 October 1308 ordering the royal treasurers in Paris to initiate investigation of the accounts of all royal officers. *Ibid., 1:no. 756, a letter issued on the same date, concerning 54,000 I.t. that certain Sienese merchants owed to Philip the Fair; see Georges Bigwood, “Les Tolomei en France au XIVe siécle,” Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire 8 (1929), 1110. On 8 October 1308 Philip the Fair ordered royal officials in the vicinity of Paris to seize the property of all ecclesiastics who had failed to pay a recently granted tax: Fawtier, Registres, 1:no. 754. As if taking their cue from the king, Jacobo da Certaldo and Thote Gui forced the king to pay 10,000 I.t. he owed them in November 1308; Philip used profits from the sale of Jewish property in Beaucaire to liquidate this debt: ibid., 1:no. 767, and, on Thote Gui, see Brown, ‘Gascon Subsidies,” 150 n. 17. *6On 2 October 1308 Philip the Fair commanded bazllis and seneschals and receivers of ecclesiastical taxes to bring to Paris on specified dates all money they had gathered: Fawtier, Registres, \:nos. 752-53. On 20 October 1308, at Rouen, the king ordered different bazllis to come to Vincennes to account for all their receipts on 1 November rather than on the dates they were scheduled to appear before the Parlement, as he had originally decreed: ibid., 1:no. 760, and, for the original order, no. 752; on 3 October the king had postponed (ibid., 1:no. 864) to the octaves of Christmas the session of the Parlement scheduled to begin on the octaves of All Saints. :

THE MARRIAGE AID 81 official to investigate and punish instigators of private warfare in Vermandois

and Senlis, the king, on 14 October, ordered Hugues de La Celle, one of his most trusted agents,*° to work with Guillaume de Chanac‘*’ in investigating and punishing homicide, the carrying of arms, and other grave excesses in Saintonge and Poitou; they were also to take action against delinquent royal officials and to reclaim usurped royal rights and property.** On 23 October 1308 the king ordered Philippe le Convers and Guillaume de Saint-Marcel to survey and reform the royal forests in the seneschalsies of Toulouse, Carcassonne, Saintonge, Poitou, Périgord, and Beaucaire.*? Sub*eOn his career, see HF, 24':194*—95*; Glénisson, “Les enquéteurs-réformateurs,” pp. 1058; and Henri Beauchet-Filleau and Charles de Chergé, Dictionnaire historique et généalogique

des familles du Poitou, 2nd ed. (Poitiers, 1891-[1963]), 2:153-54. From the late summer of 1303 through early 1304 Hugues and Guillaume de Chatenay were in Italy negotiating to secure the trial of Boniface VII. Their mission was coordinated with the campaign of Guillaume

de Nogaret against Boniface, and they continued to work after the death of Boniface and the election of Benedict XI: Paul Funke, Papst Benedikt XI. Eine Monographie (Minster, 1891), pp. 68-71; Tilmann Schmidt, Der Bonifaz-Prozess: Verfahren der Papstanklage in der Zeit Bon-

ifaz’ VIII. und Clemens’ V. (Cologne, 1989), pp. 77, 93, 99. In 1305 Hugues was sent to Flanders to receive the oaths of Flemish towns: Funck-Brentano, “Formes diplomatiques,” pp.

235-40, and idem, Origines, pp. 494-96. For his involvement with proceedings against the Templars in October and November 1307, see Procés des Templiers, ed. Michelet, 2:316, 357, 361. In May 1308 he and Pierre de Blanot were empowered to inquire into a case involving the capitouls of Toulouse; in June he was dispatched to promote the candidacy of Charles of Valois for the imperial throne: AM, Toulouse, AA 3, pp. 289-90, no. 208; Fawtier, Registres, l:nos. 846-49; Leroux, Recherches critiques, pp. 128-29. He must only just have returned from

a trip to report the outcome of the imperial negotiations to Clement V when Philip the Fair issued the commission of 14 October: Mantissa ..., ed. Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz (Han-

over, 1700), pt. 2, p. 241. |

*7Guillaume eventually became bishop of Paris and later Patriarch of Alexandria: Gallia Christiana, 7:129-31. In May 1310 he was present at an interrogation conducted by inquisitors in Paris: AN, J 428, no. 15. A certain Johannes de Chenoto, doctor of laws, assisted Jean d’Auxois and Nicolas de Luzarches, reform commissioners in the Midi in 1305-6, but there is no evidence that he was related to Guillaume: Fawtier, Registres, 1:nos. 359, 2189; HZ, 10:preuves, col. 448. *®For the commission, addressed to Hugues and Guillaume de Chanota, see Recueil... Poitou,

ed. Guérin (1883), p. 22, no. CCV, and ibid. (1881), 68-70, no. XXXIV. See also Henri de Berranger, “Documents financiers sur la sénéchaussée de Poitou aux XIIIe et XIVe siécles,” AHP 82 (1942), 213-14. *Fawtier, Registres, |:no. 761. For Philippe’s services as enquéteur for Norman forests in 1301, ibid., 1:no. 2121, and for his performance of these duties in 1309, no. 2224; see no. 1176 for his activities in Normandy in 1310. For fines that he raised in Normandy in 1309, see CR (1285-1314), 3:lxxxi-ii and 2:559-61. A similar commission may have been issued to Philippe de Saint-Vérain and Guillaume des Buissons for the dazlliages of Auvergne and the Montagnes d’Auvergne and the seneschalsy of Rouergue, although these royal agents are not known to have begun their work until 1309, after the king had commissioned many officials to perform the same tasks assigned to Hugues and Guillaume: see below, pp. 88-89. Robert Mignon’s inventory of royal accounts indicates, however, that in September 1316 Guillaume rendered accounts for himself and “Jean” de Saint-Vérain in Auvergne and Rouergue in 1308

| and later years: Mignon, no. 2682 and p. 365. Another of Mignon’s entries (ibid., no. 1868)

82 CHAPTER III stantial profits (in the form of fines, increased ordinary revenue, and the sale of forest rights) could eventually be anticipated from these missions, but time-consuming preparations were necessary before funds could be collected, as later operations of the forest commissioners demonstrate.*° The nomination of Hugues de La Celle and Guillaume de Chanac had no immediate consequences. The men became involved in different assignments,*!

and their diversion to other activities suggests that financial pressures on the government soon decreased. Not until eight months had passed would the commissioners undertake the duties outlined in their commission. At that point the number of agents would be increased, the range of their activities expanded to include collection of the marriage aid, and their efforts directed at the entire realm. Philip the Fair and his advisers must have been wary of pressing demands for the marriage aid, for they did not intensify efforts to levy the tax during the time of apparent financial crisis. In view of the postponements granted

and the resistance manifested before the end of 1308, the campaign could hardly have been termed a success. Nonetheless, by the beginning of 1309, some money had been gathered in Paris, Sens, and Beaucaire.*? In addition, arrangements for payment of a healthy sum had been made in Carcassonne, and negotiations had commenced in other regions. A potentially lucrative source of revenue was evidently there to be tapped when, in early 1309, the king and his ministers again became concerned over the financial situation. As if to disarm anticipated opposition, Philip the Fair issued a number of letters of grace and privilege during the winter months of 1309. The

doubtless refers to this mission, although the date given by Mignon is 1298 rather than 1308: see Glénisson, “Les enquéteurs-réformateurs,” p. 275, no. 37 n. 1; see below, pp. 89-90 n. 83. OKawtier, Registres, 1:no. 1827, and HL, 10:preuves, cols. 504-6, no. 161, for the appointment of deputies in the Midi in April and May 1309 and for the forest commissioners’ activities in 1311. For 1312-13, see CR (1285-1314), 3:lxxxii—ili and 2:562-65; see also CR (1314-1328),

2:265-70, and Mignon, no. 2259. For background, see Heinrich Rubner, Untersuchungen zur Forstverfassung des mittelalterlichen Frankreichs (Wiesbaden, 1965), pp. 133-39, and Henri

331, 349-56.

Gilles, “L’administration royale des Eaux et Foréts en Languedoc au moyen Age,” BPH (1963),

‘In January 1309 Hugues was named to a commission to implement the peace treaty of 1303 between France and England; as in the preceding May, he was to work with Pierre de Blanot; the third member of the commission was Etienne de Borret: Recueil ... Poitou, ed. Guérin (1883), pp. 23-24, no. CCVII. In January 1309 Guillaume de Chanac acted as an enquéteur for the Parlement, investigating a case involving the consuls of Périgueux: AN, X"™ 3, fol. 45. *2See above, pp. 72-74, 78; for Beaucaire, see HL, 9:340, and Martin-Chabot, Les archives, p. xv. Mignon’s entries for Vermandois and Sens (nos. 1557, 1559) indicate that information about the aid was to be found in the regions’ accounts of debts of 1308, but this does not necessarily mean that money was levied there in that year; cf. nos. 1588, 1593, entries concerning the knighting aid of 1313.

THE MARRIAGE AID 83 Midi, where his agents would later work with particular determination, was especially favored.°?

In taking steps to benefit the treasury, Philip the Fair again attempted to demonstrate the compatibility of reform and financial profit. On 17 January 1309 he dispatched two officials to inspect all seigniorial and royal mints;** the next day he reissued and commanded strict enforcement of the detailed monetary ordonnance he had published in April 1308 to advance the welfare of “the common people of the realm.” This ordonnance, promulgated after consultation with representatives of the “good towns” of the kingdom, had great popular appeal. On the other hand, its strict prohibition of various sorts of coins, its regulation of the rate at which licit coins could circulate, and its injunction against the export of certain coins and silver vessels offered the government the prospect of fines and confiscations, and the year 1309 brought a greater effort to implement the provisions that had been made in 1308.°° On 9 April 1309 the king issued a new commission to Master Pons Raymond, Ozil d’Autéjac, and Bertrand de La Tourette, who before 1308 were overseeing the export of gold and silver from the kingdom. The new commission charged them with implementing the monetary ordonnances in Carcassonne and Beaucaire,® and Ozil d’Autéjac set to work enthusiastically. For a privilege in favor of Reims, issued on 26 January 1309, see Ordonnances, 12:381; for a privilege for Cahors dated 3 February 1309, see BN, Doat 119, fols. 18-19; for a letter of 21 February 1309 concerning the number and conduct of royal sergeants in Poitiers, see Recueil de documents concernant la commune et la ville de Poitiers, ed. E. Audouin and P. Boissonnade, AHP 44 (1923), 307, no. CCX. A mandate of 26 February 1309 favoring Car-

cassonne and Toulouse is found in AM, Toulouse, AA 3, pp. 297-98, no. 222; for orders dispatched to Poitou and Beaucaire on 20 March 1309, commanding enforcement of the great ordonnance of reform of 1303, see Martin-Chabot, Les archives, p. 11, no. 44, and also Cartulazre de l’évéche de Poitiers ou Grand-Gauthier, ed. M. Rédet, AHP 10 (1881), 143-45, no. 97. ‘4A, Dieudonné, “L’ordonnance ou réglement de 1315 sur le monnayage des barons,” BEC 93 (1932), 13; Edgard-Paul Boutaric, La France sous Philippe le Bel ... (Paris, 1861), p. 324. ‘SOrdonnances, \1:454-56, and BN, Doat 7, fols. 356-59, an exemplification dated 24 Feb-

ruary 1309. Fawtier suggests that two meetings of towns were held in 1308 to discuss the coinage, one at the beginning and one at the end of the year: see Lot and Fawtier, Histoire des institutions, 2:555-56, followed by Peter Spufford, “Assemblies of Estates, Taxation and Control of Coinage in Medieval Europe,” Xe Congrés International des Sciences Historiques, Vienna,

1965, SPICHRPI, no. 31 (Louvain, 1966), p. 121; see, in contrast, Thomas N. Bisson, “The General Assemblies of Philip the Fair: Their Character Reconsidered,” Studia Gratiana 15 (Post Scripta) (1972), 547 (rpt. in idem, Medieval France, pp. 97-122). It is true that the ordonnances of both April 1308 and January 1309 alluded to consultation with an assembly. The second ordonnance, however, simply repeated the provisions of the earlier one, and the two additional clauses it contains were probably inserted with the approval of the great council, whose advice Philip the Fair explicitly mentioned in the preamble, as he had not done in the decree of April 1308. For the delivery of royal mandates on coinage to the seneschal of Poitou on 25 March 1309, see Martin-Chabot, Les archives, p. ui n. 2 (continued from p. ii). Final steps to implement the ordonnance were taken in the fall of 1310 and spring of 1311: Exssaz de restitution, nos. 502-3; Ordonnances, 1:474-82. ‘OH, 10:preuves, cols. 503-4, no. 160; Fawtier, Registres, 1:no. 770.

84 CHAPTER III By November 1310 he had imposed an impressive number of fines.*” In the spring of 1309 the government also moved to increase the efficiency of the customs service. On 28 June 1309 the king approved the special deputies

whom his three superintendents of customs had appointed to supervise export traffic.**

Earlier in June Philip the Fair had named a group of important royal officials to act as his commissioners in the various baz/liages and seneschalsies

of the kingdom.*® The appointments seem to have been designed to win popular approval as well as revenue, for the king apparently assigned his commissioners a wide range of reforming powers. Nonetheless, it was their fiscal activities—and particularly those connected with the collection of the marriage aid and fines for the acquisition of fiefs—that would most affect the areas to which they were dispatched. The evidence concerning these commissioners is fragmentary. Fundamentally important is a list of twenty-eight names that appears in a register containing royal letters issued between 1307 and 1311. The names are assigned to bailliages, seneschalsies, and the prévété of Paris, and to the appointees were joined as colleagues the chief royal officers in these districts. The nature of the commissioners’ assignment is not specified nor is the list dated. The only indication of their function is found in a note, written in a different hand, which states, “Item, in the same register follow many letters close sent to many different people and many other letters concerning the coinage, as will more clearly appear to anyone consulting the register.” This note suggests that the list was copied from another register (which must have contained the commissions addressed to the agents), and that the commissions were related to the recently issued mandates concerning the coinage. No trace of this register survives. In the register of letters of 130711, the list follows a royal letter dated 12 June 1309, a mandate inhibiting attacks on two nobles, which is addressed to the seneschals of Beaucaire and Rouergue and the baz/lis. of Sens, Macon, Auvergne, and Bourges. There is no apparent connection between the mandate and the list, and a ‘*Mignon, no. 2028, and see ibid., p. 211 n. 4, for variants of his name. In 1317 10,000 I. of fines he had imposed were still to be collected in Beaucaire. See Georges Bigwood, “La politique de la laine en France sous les régnes de Philippe le Bel et de ses fils,” ed. Armand Grunzweig, Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire 15 (1936), 92. *Fawtier, Registres, 1:nos. 837-38.

As will be seen, although the original list covered all the major administrative divisions of the realm, only two Norman bailliages were included; see below, p. 91 n. 90. 6oSee Henneman, “ ‘Enquéteurs-Réformateurs’,” pp. 345-46. 6“TItem, in eodem registro sequntur [yszc] plures littere clause misse pluribus et diversis personis et plures alie littere factum monetarum tangentes, prout in eodem registro liquidius cuilibet intuenti”: Fawtier, Registres, 1:142, from AN, JJ 42A, fol. 91v; the entire list (ibid., fol. 91) is published by Fawtier, Regestres, 1:141-42. °Fawtier, Registres, 1:no. 798.

, THE MARRIAGE AID 85 more promising key to the list’s significance is found in a royal letter dated the following day.®

On 13 June 1309 an elaborate commission was issued for two of the three men associated in the list with Toulouse and Carcassonne, Bernard du Meix and Master Gérard de Courtonne, canon of Paris and a royal servant with long experience in the Midi.% The mandate’s preface is impressively solemn. Declaring the obligation of superiors to correct their subjects’ misdeeds, the king invoked the dire example of Eli, who, although upstanding himself, had incurred God’s wrath by failing to deal with his wayward sons. Word had reached him, the king proclaimed, that his officials in the seneschalsy of Carcassonne were oppressing his subjects. Implying his resolve to avoid Ehi’s fate by correcting such wrongdoing, Philip the Fair commanded Bernard du Meix and Gérard de Courtonne to investigate the allegations and take suitable action.*% The commission was narrower in scope than the mandate addressed to Hugues de La Celle and Guillaume de

Chanac on 14 October 1308, but after Bernard and Gérard commenced their work in Carcassonne, their powers were expanded to include many °8Umn cartulatre et divers actes des Alaman, des de Lautrec et des de Lévis ..., ed. Edmond Cabié and L. Mazens (Toulouse, 1882), pp. 164-66; and Glénisson, “Les enquéteurs-réformateurs,” p. 69 n. 2; p. 75; and p. 276, no. 39. ‘Bernard was bailli of Tonnerre in 1287 and 1290: AD, Yonne, E 190, pp. 78, 85, 148; Petit, Ducs de Bourgogne, 6:343-44, no. 4789, and pp. 370-71, no. 4968. He was an enquéteur in Quercy in 1311 and in the bai/liage of Macon and the seneschalsy of Lyon in 1312-13: Mignon, nos. 862, 2659, 2685, 2705, and see p. 360; AD, Cote-d’Or, B 1353 and B 11665; Glénisson, “Les enquéteurs-réformateurs,” p. 278, nos. 42-43. In 1311 or 1312 he served with Hugues de La Celle and Guillaume de Nogaret as royal commissioner at the Jours of Troyes: John F. Benton, “Philip the Fair and the Jours of Troyes,” Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History, 6 (1969), 336. He died before 2 June 1319: AN, JJ 59, fols. 184v-87. 65Gérard had recently served as commissioner to deal with Jewish property in Carcassonne, and he continued to act in this capacity: Mignon, nos. 2165-67; HZ, 10:preuves, cols. 483-84; Saige, /uifs, pp. 96-97; Régné, “Amauri II” (1908-[1909]), pp. 222-24; and idem, Etude ... Juifs, pp. 127-31. His actions in Narbonne concerning the Jews and various explecta justicie brought him into conflict with the archbishop and viscount of Narbonne, and a settlement was reached in Paris in early June 1309: HL, 10:preuves, cols. 483-84; Fawtier, Regestres, 1:no. 759; Régné, “Amauri ITP” (1908-[1909]), pp. 221-22 and (1911-[1912]), p. 85. For other activities for which Gérard accounted in the fall of 1308, see Journaux ... Philippe IV, ed. Viard, no. $953; see also J. Pasquier, “Cession définitive du Val d’Aran 4 l’Aragon,” Revue de Comminges 7 (1892), 107; and Fawtier, Registres, 1:nos. 109-11. His distinguished career, culminating in his election as bishop of Soissons, is outlined in Strayer, Les gens de justice, pp. 82-83, and is discussed in Maillard, “Notes sur quelques officiers,” pp. 329, 333; for his career as juge-mage of Agen from 1301 to 1303, see Marcel Gouron, Catalogue des chartes de franchises de la France, 2: Les chartes de franchises de Guienne et Gascogne (Paris, 1935), 666 n. 1. “Cartulaire, ed. Cabié and Mazens, pp. 146-66. Any official convicted of causing damage or injury was to be forced to make suitable amends and restore anything that had been unjustly taken. As concerned cases involving the king, the commissioners were to forward to the royal court a record of their investigations and assign specific dates to the accused to appear in Paris for judgment. See Glénisson, “Les enquéteurs-réformateurs,” p. 75.

86 CHAPTER III of the assignments given to Hugues and Guillaume. On 29 October 1310 the king ordered them to inquire into concealed and usurped royal rights, fraudulent compromises, and misdeeds of royal officials that had not been punished. They were to deal with the judicature of Minervois, which had been greatly diminished owing to the pariage arranged between the king and the viscount of Narbonne; they were to attend to the appointment of a royal procurator and advocate.®’ The next day Bernard was authorized to choose an associate to investigate counterfeiting, homicide, robbery, forgery,

and other crimes in the seneschalsy of Carcassonne.® The two men thus functioned as general reformers in the seneschalsy, where they worked from 1309 through the spring of 1311.°° Their activities centered on Carcassonne, but the king gave them at least one task to perform in Toulouse.” Before 13 June 1309 Bernard and Gérard received other assignments to be carried

out with Guillaume de Plaisians, the third person whom the undated list associates with Carcassonne and Toulouse.”?! Why Plaisians assumed an °’Cartulaire, ed. Cabié and Mazens, p. 166.

Ibid., pp. 157-58. | 6°An appeal registered by the consuls of Narbonne on | April 1310 termed them “destinati a regia magestate ad partes istas pro reformatione patrie,” and reformers working in Carcassonne

in 1319 said that the two men had been dispatched in 1309 “pro reformatione patrie & correctione Curialium”: Le livre de comptes de Jacme Olivier, marchand narbonnais du XIVe stecle, ed. Alphonse Blanc (Paris, 1899), p. 642; AN, JJ 59, fol. 184v, no. 345; Fawtier, Registres,

2:no. 3066; and Glénisson, “Les enquéteurs-réformateurs,” pp. 75, 157, and 276, no. 39, n. 1. Gérard was recalled to the royal court by mid-March 1311, and Bernard left Carcassonne in early June: Cartulatre, ed. Cabié and Mazens, pp. 166-67, 173-74. 70F. Roschach, Ville de Toulouse. Inventaire des archives communales antérieures a 1790. Série

AA (Toulouse, 1891), p. 451 (AA 34, no. 53); published in Lettres inédites de Philippe le Bel, ed. Adolphe Baudouin (Paris, 1887), p. 161. On 23 February 1310 the king ordered the men

to intervene in a dispute between the consuls of Toulouse and the royal procurator over jurisdictional rights. "On 7 May 1309 the three men were ordered to inquire into various problems caused by

the pariage the king had concluded in 1308 with the bishop and chapter of Pamiers, which involved the count of Foix: Glénisson, “Les enquéteurs-réformateurs,” p. 163 n. 2; p. 276, no. 39, n. 1; and also Jean-M. Vidal, Bernard Saisset, évéque de Pamiers (Toulouse, 1926), pp. 53-55. When, on 30 September 1309, they heard the count’s charges against the king and bishop, they were said to be acting as clericus and familiaris “domini Regis ad partes Senescalliae

Carcassonae autoritate [s7c] Regis [destinati]”: BN, n. a. f. 7404 (De Camps 74), fol. 427. On 7 June 1309 they were commissioned to estimate the value of property assigned to the king by Amauri, viscount of Narbonne, and all three subsequently appeared in Carcassonne to deal with this assignment: Régné, “Amauri IT” (1908-[1909]), pp. 223-25 and also pp. 226-27 for a royal letter concerning the affair addressed to Gérard on 23 October 1310. On 12 June 1309 the king ordered them to deal with a fine owed for alienation of a fief in Carcassonne. The mandate referred to them simply as councilors of the king, but when, on 3 February 1310, Bernard du Meix took action, he was entitled the king’s “familiar,” sent ‘“‘ad partes senescallie Carcasson’ et Biterr’ pro curialium correctione”: AN, JJ 49, fol. 84; Fawtier, Regéstres, 1:no. 2117, a confirmation dated February 1314 and approved by Gérard de Courtonne, then bishop of Soissons.

THE MARRIAGE AID 87 ancillary role in the commissioners’ operations is unclear, but he appears to have followed with attentive interest Bernard’s activities in Carcassonne and Béziers.” Two additional commissions issued to another person named in the un-

dated list suggest that the king planned to bestow authority similar to the powers given to Bernard and Gérard on all those included in the list. Dated in early July 1309, the two mandates show that at least three weeks elapsed between the commissioning of Bernard and Gérard (and, presumably, the drafting of the undated list, which contains their names) and the assignment of functions to other commissioners. During this period changes and reshuffling of personnel occurred, as the government’s objectives were more clearly defined. On 7 and 8 July 1309 two letters were addressed to Hugues de La Celle,

the royal official who, with Guillaume de Chanac, had been named royal reformer in Saintonge and Poitou in 1308. In the undated list Hugues was associated only with Saintonge, and his former colleague, Master Guillaume, was linked with Poitou, but there is no evidence that Guillaume was given any assignment in 1309. Between mid-June and early July the two seneschalsies had been merged into a single district, and the mandates of 7 and 8 July authorized Hugues de La Celle to work in Poitou as well as Saintonge; he was also active in the Limousin, La Marche, and Angouléme.”? The mandates accorded him the powers, if not the title, of general reformer and enquéteur.

The first letter was identical to the commission issued to Hugues and Guillaume on 14 October 1308, which had never been implemented.” ‘This mandate empowered Hugues and the seneschal of Saintonge to seek out and

punish all criminals and delinquent royal officers in the seneschalsies of Saintonge and Poitou, and to recover royal rights and property there. A supplementary mandate, issued the next day and addressed to Hugues alone,

was more obviously directed at financial gain. The earlier letter indeed promised to bring to the royal treasury money gained from fines, confiscations, and the proceeds of reclaimed royal holdings, but its chief purpose 72Among the papers found in the possession of Guillaume de Plaisians at the time of his death was a list of the explecta of Bernard du Meix in Carcassonne and Béziers: Langlois, “Les papiers de Nogaret,” p. 245, no. 573.

Mignon, nos. 1416, 1573, 1575; Fawtier, Regstres, 1:no. 1934. Hugues’s commissions contain no reference to the additional, adjacent territories, nor were they mentioned in the original undated list; they may thus have been considered administratively dependent on Poitou and Saintonge.

For the letter of 7 July 1309, see Recueil ... Poitou, ed. Guérin (1881), pp. 68-70, no. XXXIV; and Glénisson, “Les enquéteurs-réformateurs,” pp. 69 and 277, no. 40. Cf. Fawtier,

Registres, 1:no. 728, who does not note that this letter contains an exemplification of the commission of 7 July 1309; see also ibid., no. 725.

88 | CHAPTER III | was ostensibly to pacify and reform. The second commission, in contrast, authorized Hugues to reach financial agreements and impose penalties on all ecclesiastics and non-nobles of Saintonge and Poitou who had acquired noble fiefs without the king’s consent.’’ He was also instructed to collect the marriage aid.” From the government’s standpoint Hugues performed all these tasks with admirable effectiveness; the fines he imposed proved a welcome source of revenue.”’ As tax collector, he pressed the king’s claims so vigorously and with so little regard for customary limitations that strong opposition ensued. He seems, in short, to have been one of those eternal bureaucrats who derived his own sense of security and self from pressing to the limit the assignments committed to him by his superiors. Similar commissions were apparently issued to many of the other men named in the undated list, although, as in the case of Poitou, the original territorial affiliations were not always preserved. Guillaume des Buissons and Philippe de Saint-Vérain, associated only with the dazllzage of Auvergne and the Montagnes d’Auvergne in the royal list,”* acted as well in the Rouergue For the text of the mandate, see Recueil ... Poitou, ed. Guérin (1881), pp. 65-66, no. XXXII, and idem, “Documents relatifs 4 histoire de la Saintonge et de |’Aunis extraits des registres du Trésor des Chartes,” Archives historiques de la Saintonge et de ’Aunis 12 (1884), 40-41, no. XXI; see also Fawtier, Registres, 1:no. 697. >The mandate has not survived. On 28 September 1310, when Philip the Fair ordered Hugues to collect the marriage aid in Saintonge, he referred to no earlier mandate but simply reissued the mandates of 7 and 8 July 1309. Hugues must, however, have possessed a commission

authorizing him to collect the aid in 1309. In a letter of 15 October 1309 concerning the aid,

addressed to Hugues and the seneschal of Saintonge, Philip the Fair noted that they had performed their duties “virtute commissionis nostre sub certa sub [sic] hloc] uobis forma directe”: AN, JJ 42A, fol. 97v; in the Appendix, no. 37. A sixteenth-century summary of contents of an unidentified register of the Chamber of Accounts indicates that on fol. 53 of the book appeared “commissions pour lever subsides pour le mariage de madame Ysabel fille du roy Philippe, royne dangleterre 1309”: BN, fr. 2838, fol. 75. ’7For prosecutions resulting from the mandate of 7 July 1309, see Recueil... Pottou, ed. Guérin (1881), p. 70 n. 1, and “Documents ... Saintonge,” ed. idem, pp. 45-48, no. XXXII]; Fawtier, Registres, 1:nos. 725-27, 1412-13, 1935-37. For the uses to which the commission of 8 July 1309 was put, see Recueil... Poitou, ed. Guérin (1881), p. 65 n. 1; Fawtier, Regzstres,

l:nos. 697, 702, 704, 1095, 1129, 1737, 1881, 1887. In 1313 Hugues was still carrying out these commissions in the Midi: Fawtier, Registres, 1:nos. 1934-38. For Hugues’s accounts, see Mignon, no. 1415. In 1310 Hugues was also involved in proceedings against the Templars in the diocese of Sens: Le dossier de l’affaire des Templiers, ed. Georges Lizerand (Paris, 1964),

pp. 188-91. See also Glénisson, “Les enquéteurs-réformateurs,” pp. 69, 73, 159-61, 200-1; see also 277, no. 40. 78In connection with Auvergne and the Montagnes d’Auvergne the royal list refers to “Philippo de Blan’ [or B/au’] seu de Sancto Verano,” probably the same person who appears following Hugues de La Celle in a list of officials of the Parlement prepared after 1307 as “Monseigneur Philippe de Blaveau”: Fawtier, Regzstres, 1:141, who renders the name “Philippo de Blan[ello]” and identifies him as Philippe de Saint-Vérain, lord of Bléneau and royal knight; for the Parlement, see Textes relatifs a P’histotre du Parlement depuis les origines jusqu’en 1314, ed. Charles-Victor Langlois (Paris, 1888), p. 179. Bléneau is some thirty-five kilometers north

THE MARRIAGE AID 89 as commissioners “pro corrigendis excessibus” in 1309 and 1310;’° there is no evidence that Philippe de Mornay, assigned to the seneschalsy of Rouergue in the undated list, was connected with the commissioners who worked in that region.*° Complaints against the two royal officials drafted by the inhabitants of Millau late in 1309 or early in 1310 show that, like Hugues de La Celle, the commissioners did not confine themselves to reform. They collected payments from those who had acquired fiefs illegally, and they also levied the marriage aid, pressing the king’s claims to the limit.* The two royal agents also worked in the Auvergne, the district with which their names were linked in the undated royal list. Their thirst for revenue led them to seize and detain various inhabitants of Riom who were prepared to furnish bail, and on 12 February 1310 the king ordered his officials to observe Riom’s privileges and to cease and desist.*? Similar desire for profit may have led the two men to interfere with the system of taxation in Aurillac; complaints from the town prompted the king to forbid his officials (on the same day on which he issued his letter for Riom) such intrusive attacks on the community’s liberties.*®

of Saint-Vérain (Niévre, ar. Cosne-sur-Loire, c. Saint-Amand-en-Puisaye, 14 kilometers northeast of Cosne). A striking number of the individuals included in the Parlement’s list also appear in the undated list of royal commissioners. For the history of the batlliage of the Montagnes d’Auvergne, see René Monboisse, L’ordre féodal des “Montagnes d’Auvergne” du XIIe au XVe siecle (Aurillac, 1966), pp. 23-24, 79-90. For their activities in 1309, see AM, Millau, CC 509, an undated list of protests registered by the inhabitants of Millau against the commissioners. The grievances can be dated to 1309

or early 1310 because of a royal letter responding to them; see below, p. 156 n. 31. Charles H. Taylor brought this list to my attention; it was missing from the archives of Millau when I visited them in 1969. For 1310, see AC, Saint-Antonin, FF 2, dated 17 September 1310, which records the presentation to Philippe de Saint-Vérain of petitions of the consuls of SaintAntonin. The document contains an exemplification of a royal letter of 12 March 1310 that ordered the two commissioners to protect the community from the seneschal’s interference in its financial affairs. I learned of the existence of this document from Francois Maillard, who examined it in the 1950s; this document was missing from the archives of Saint-Antonin in

1969. ,

°°Fawtier, Registres, 1:141. For the career of this clerk, who was active in the Parlement and in royal financial affairs, see Textes, ed. Langlois, p. 179; Mignon, nos. 1621 and 2674; and BN, Doat 52, fol. 26. 81See the undated protest of Millau described above, n. 79, and below, pp. 156-57. 82AC, Riom, AA 12, no. 1 (767). For the privileges granted to Riom in July 1270, which

included guarantees concerning arrest and bail, see AC, Riom, AA 2, nos. 1 (213) and 2, confirmations dated 1283 and 1325. In his letter of 12 February 1310 Philip said that the commissioners had arrested the inhabitants “‘racione financiarum” although the townspeople were “soluendo et parati ... vobis dare de dictis financiis reddendis ydoneam caucionem.” 83AC, Aurillac, AA 11. In the letter the royal commissioners were said to have been dispatched “ad inquirendum de excessibus et eos corrigendum in partibus aruernie.” An entry in Mignon’s inventory (Mignon, no. 1868), which misleadingly associates the mission with 1298

90 CHAPTER III The undated list assigned Master Yves de Landévennec**+ and Master Géraud de Sabanac*®’ to the seneschalsy of Périgord and Quercy, and they were subsequently appointed as commissioners in that region. Their actual commission does not survive, but their fiscal activities eclipsed any attempt they may have made to institute reforms. In levying the marriage aid they worked closely with the seneschal, Jean d’Arreblay.®° The three men’s harsh and uncompromising campaign to exact contributions from townspeople and ecclesiastics aroused a storm of protest. Similar outcry was prompted by Yves’s determined campaign to raise fines for the illegal acquisition of fiefs.2” The efforts of Yves and Géraud apparently produced a flurry of activity; in levying fines for the acquisition of fiefs Yves was assisted not by Géraud but by Jean Robert, who by December 1309 was acting as reformer and enquéteur in Périgord and Quercy.®* The commissioners in that seneschalsy demonstrated particular enthusiasm for the king’s fiscal interests;

rather than with 1308, states that Philippe and Guillaume were commissioned to act “super acquestibus per ignobiles et nobiles et super correctione subditorum”; the entry shows that they imposed fines totaling more than 44,000 |.t., much of which remained to be levied when their accounts were submitted on 17 August 1316; see, for their mission, Glénisson, “Les enquéteurs-réformateurs,” p. 275, no. 37, and above, pp. 81-82 n. 49. For his career, see Strayer, Les gens de justice, pp. 180-81. Yves’s surname has generally been rendered “Laudunaco,” but Maillard suggests that it should be read as ““Landvnaco,” since

a document of 1297 gives it as ““Landevenhaco”: Maillard, “Officiers royaux,” p. 339; see Gallia christiana, 13:Instrumenta, col. 103. He would thus have come originally from Landévennec (Finistére, ar. Chateaulin, c. Crozon), rather than from Loudéac (Cétes-du-Nord, ar. Saint-Brieuc). See above, p. 20 n. 33. ®>On Géraud, whose career was closely linked with the seneschalsy of Périgord and Quercy,

see Strayer, Les gens de justice, p. 145. In May 1304, acting with the seneschal at the king’s command, he assigned to the count of Périgord the communities of Moliéres and Lafrangaise, later to be involved in negotiations concerning the marriage aid: BN, fr. 26264, no. 220; see below, p. 139. A few months before, in January 1304, Géraud had appeared before the king as the proctor of Cahors, representing the city in a dispute with the bishop of Cahors; one of his colleagues was Jean de Lalbugia, a citizen of Cahors appointed in 1309 to register complaints

against Géraud to the king: BN, Doat 118, fols. 226-28v. On Jean, see below, pp. 102 n. 19, 105 n. 25, 116, 117, 118, 120. 86AN, J 356, no. 7, in the Appendix, no. 14. For Jean’s career, see Strayer, Les gens de justice, p. 136, and HF, 24!:214*-17*. 87AN, J 356, no. 7, in the Appendix, no. 14; see also the royal letter of 28 March 1310 concerning these fines, which was addressed to Yves and Jean: Ordonnances, 1:473. ®8Jn December 1309 Yves and Jean were described as royal commissioners “ad inquirendum super excessibus commissis in Senescallia Petrag’ et Caturcen’ et ad puniendum eosdem”: AN,

JJ 50, fol. 10v, no. 8; Fawtier, Registres, 1:no. 2196. The agents demonstrated their instinct for fiscal gain when they persuaded a delinquent lord of the Quercy to offer the king 1,200 l.t. to gain royal forgiveness. Probably fortuitously, one of the proctors whom the consuls of Figeac appointed in 1309 to carry their protests to the king was a clerk called Jean Robert, Junior: see below, p. 263.

THE MARRIAGE AID 91 it is hardly surprising that a royal letter of 1310 termed them simply “superintendents of our finances in the seneschalsy.’® Other officials named in the undated royal list were also involved in collecting the marriage aid. If they worked as reformers as well, such activities have left no trace. The inventory of Robert Mignon shows that Geffroy Coquatrix, associated with the badliage of Caen in the undated list, had some connection with the collection of the marriage aid in both Caen and Coutances.” The inventory also reveals that Guillaume de Marcilly, the seasoned royal official assigned to the prévété of Paris in the undated royal list, supervised the levy of the aid there.®! Two royal officials were dispatched to the bail/iage of Chaumont in 1309 to investigate royal officials’ misdeeds, but neither of these commissioners, Gautier d’Arzilli¢res and the abbot of Val-Secret, was included among the three men assigned to the daz/liages of Champagne in the undated royal list. Nor is there any hard evidence that the two commissioners or the three officials collected the aid or levied fines for the illegal acquisition of fiefs in Chaumont. The other bazlliages of Champagne may also have escaped these demands, perhaps because the county was not directly subject to the king but had passed to his eldest son, Louis, king of Navarre, when his mother, the queen of Navarre and countess of Champagne, died in 1305.° No such jurisdictional anomaly accounts for the apparent failure of the reforming commissioners in Carcassonne, Gérard de Courtonne and Bernard du Meix, to become involved with the levy of the marriage aid there or in the Toulousain. Efforts to collect the tax in Carcassonne had begun se | superintendentibus financiarum nostrarum in senescallia Petragoricensi”: Ordonnances, \:473.

Mignon, no. 1566. The undated royal list specified commissioners only for the bailages of Gisors and Caen; the bailliages of Rouen, Caux, and Coutances are omitted. In Mignon’s inventory no officials are connected with the dailliage of Rouen; with the daidliage of Caux is linked the bail/i, Guillaume de Bois; Guillaume d’Espouville is associated with the bazlliage of Gisors (to which the undated list assigned Guillaume Courteheuse); Gérard de Tyais, Jean de Divione, and Geffroy Coquatrix were linked with the dai//iages of Caen and Coutances: Mignon,

nos. 1564-67; Fawtier, Registres, 1:141-42. Jean de Divione and Geffroy Coquatrix were probably supervising Gérard de Tyais, since Mignon’s inventory shows that in 1310 they authorized him to receive 200 |. for expenses. On Geffroy, see Bigwood, “Politique de la laine,” pp. 88-89, 97. °'Mignon, no. 1455; Fawtier, Registres,1:142. On Guillaume, see Viard, Journaux ... Philippe

IV, cols. 892-93 n. 2. Guillaume was named an executor of the will of Philip the Fair in 1311 but was replaced by Guillaume Courteheuse in the king’s codicil of 1314: AN, J 403, nos. 17 and 17>; Boutaric, “Notices et extraits,” p. 235. °*Mignon, no. 2676 and p. 369; see also Glénisson, “Les enquéteurs-réformateurs,” p. 277, no. 41. According to the undated list, Etienne de Borret, subdean of Poitiers, Master Raoul Rousselet, and Pierre de Dicy were to cooperate with the daz/lis of the administrative districts of Champagne: Fawtier, Registres, 1:142. See below, p. 192 nn. 18-19, for Etienne’s later service in Champagne in connection with the knighting aid of 1313. See also below, n. 95.

92 CHAPTER III long before the commissioners were empowered in 1309, but the people of the Toulousain do not seem to have been approached before 1310.9? There is, however, little information concerning collection of the aid in either seneschalsy.

The surviving evidence, sparse though it 1s, suggests that the king and his advisers decided early in the summer of 1309 to dispatch throughout the realm reforming officials who were from the beginning expected to carry

out a variety of assignments, many of them fiscal in nature, so as to gain revenue and respect for the government. Subsequent modifications of both scope and detail appear to have been introduced. Staffing was altered, and Mignon’s inventory indicates that some areas of the kingdom were canvassed

far more efficiently than others, which may never have been visited by commissioners.®> Nonetheless, in numerous regions the king’s aims appear to have been fully implemented. The levy of the aid thus began in earnest. 3. ‘THe RESULTS OF THE COMMISSIONERS’

| IniTIAL Errorts

The prompt execution of the commissions of June and July 1309 in many parts of the realm suggests that the protests which reached the royal court *3See below, pp. 167, 175-77, although note that in August 1309 Cordes, a community in the seneschalsy of Toulouse, secured an exemplification of various royal privileges, including a letter ordering remission of excessive taxes levied in 1303: AC, Cordes, CC 27. This suggests that officials may have been pressing the community to make some payment to the government. **By identifying in his index each of the people included in the undated royal list (Fawtier, Registres, 1:no. 798) as a “commissaire a lever I’aide au mariage de la reine d’Angleterre” and

referring to the list, Fawtier indicated that those named in the list were intended simply to serve as collectors of the marriage aid. He includes no reference to no. 798, however, under his entry in the index, “aide au mariage.” °>For many northern districts Mignon simply listed the baz//zs as those responsible for levying

the aid, giving no indication that they were working with special royal deputies. See Mignon, no. 1557 (Vermandois, to which Pierre de Latilly and Aubert de Hangest are assigned in the undated list); no. 1558 (Amiens, to which Jean de Varennes is named in the list); no. 1559

(Sens, allotted to Denis de Sens and Pierre de Sainte-Croix in the undated list); no. 1560 (Orléans, with which the vidame of Chartres was associated in the list); no. 1563 (Tours, assigned in the undated list to the dean of Tours); and see n. 90 above, for the Norman bailliages.

Mignon gives no information concerning Senlis (assigned to Pierre de Blanot in the list) or the seneschalsies of Auvergne, Quercy, Toulouse, Rouergue, Carcassonne, Beaucaire, and Périgord: Mignon, nos. 1556, 1576-82, and above, pp. 88-92; Mignon, nos. 1573-75 and above, p- 87, for Poitou, Saintonge, Angouléme, and the Limousin. For Macon and Bourges (in the list associated respectively with Gui de Villers and the royal procurator of Macon, and with Etienne Motel) and the dbazliages of Champagne (see above, n. 92), Mignon simply indicated that much was missing: Mignon, nos. 1561-62, 1569-72 (“Multa ... desunt que addi debent”’;

“addenda sunt que deficiunt”); cf. nos. 1558-59, 1564. This suggests that accounts of some sort were submitted for these areas, which seems likely in the cases of Macon and Bourges (see below, pp. 163-65, 168), although substantiating evidence is lacking for Champagne: see below, pp. 177-82.

THE MARRIAGE AID 93 1308 had sparked the king’s determination to see his rights enforced. The zeal of the royal commissioners who were dispatched did not, however, produce automatic compliance; in some areas the officials’ ardor was coun-

terproductive. Repercussions were soon felt at the king’s court, and the king was forced to intervene. Hugues de La Celle was particularly enthusiastic. By the end of September 1309 the bishop of Poitiers had appealed to the king, alleging that Hugues and the seneschal of Poitou, Pierre de Villeblevin,® were attempting to force him to pay fines for the illegal acquisition of fiefs for property over which, he asserted, he had complete jurisdiction and which he had held from time out of mind. On 26 September 1309 the king ordered that such demands cease, provided the bishop’s complaints were justified and provided his officials had no other grounds for levying the fines.°? The royal commissioners were apparently undaunted by this mandate, for in the spring of 1310 the king issued even more pointed orders to restrain them.** Hugues de La Celle and the seneschal of Saintonge, Bertrand Agace,*” also launched a full-scale invasion of the lands held by the duke of Guyenne in the Saintonge, and on 20 November 1309 a complaint was lodged with the seneschal on the duke’s behalf.'©° Invoking Philip the Fair’s own rallying cry, “Reformation of the Land,” the duke’s representative began by asserting that many of the royal officials’ actions violated certain articles “regarding the reformation of the ducal lands in the Saintonge,” which the king had sent to his seneschal of Saintonge but which, he asserted, the seneschal had not yet begun to implement. Specific charges were then advanced against Hugues and the seneschal. They were accused, first, of denying the duke’s

%On Pierre, see HF, 24!:191*-92". |

°’Grand-Gauthier, ed. Rédet, pp. 154-55, no. 100. **Ibid., p. 155, no. 101 (29 April 1310); and pp. 162-65, no. 112 (2 May 1310). Neither of these letters mentions Hugues by name. One is addressed to the seneschal of Poitou and to Master Pierre de Belmont, who was then collecting fines for the illegal acquisition of fiefs in Poitou. The second is a general letter addressed to the superintendents of finances in the seneschalsies of Toulouse, Périgord, Saintonge and Poitou, and the entire province of Bordeaux.

Another letter addressed on the same day to these superintendents (ibid., pp. 163-64, no. 113) acknowledged the complaints of the ecclesiastics of the province of Bordeaux against the collection of fines for the illegal acquisition of fiefs from nobles who had purchased property in the fiefs and rear-fiefs of ecclesiastics. The king announced that the issue would be determined

in the next session of the Parlement and forbade collection of payments until then.

, *°On Bertrand, see HF, 24':194*. Frangois Maillard kindly pointed out to me that in December 1308 Bertrand was working in Narbonne with Yves de Landévennec: AM, Narbonne, BB 136.

'ooF or the history of French royal officials’ attempts to enforce their king’s ordonnances in the duchy, see Pierre Chaplais, “La souveraineté du roi de France et le pouvoir législatif en Guyenne au début du XIVe siécle,” MA 69 (1963), 449-69 (rpt. in idem, Essays, no. V). See also Henneman, “ ‘Enquéteurs-Réformateurs’,” pp. 324-25, for the later de facto immunity of the apanages from intrusion by royal officials.

94 CHAPTER ITI right both to fines for the illegal acquisition of fiefs and to the debts of Jews

expelled from ducal lands and, second, with proceeding to collect these payments themselves for the king of France.'®' But they transgressed most outrageously, the ducal advocate contended, in demanding payment of the marriage aid in territory belonging to Isabelle’s own husband. Every day, he asserted, the French officials summoned knights, nobles, and non-nobles and required them to make sworn evaluations of their noble fiefs in the duchy to serve as the basis for assessing the aid.'!° Further, although at the insistence of the duke’s agents the commissioners had promised to moderate their demands, they had as yet made no concessions and were still attempting to collect money in parts of Saintonge that were disputed between the king and the duke.!®? Unless the officials were quickly restrained, an enormous amount of money would be drained from the duke’s lands.'* After being informed of these grievances Philip the Fair must have ordered his officials to desist, for there is no evidence of any further attempt to collect fines for the illegal acquisition of fiefs or the marriage aid in ducal territory in Sain-

tonge. , Hugues de La Celle and the seneschal waged an even more intensive

campaign in the parts of Saintonge that, lacking such a powerful lord as the

duke of Guyenne, were more likely to capitulate. During the summer of 1309 Hugues and the seneschal canvassed the entire region, and their efforts

seem to have been coordinated with those of the royal commissioners in Périgord and Quercy, Yves de Landévennec and Géraud de Sabanac.'% Be'oFor the fines for the illegal acquisition of fiefs, see Charles-Victor Langlois, “(Documents relatifs 4 l’Agenais, au Périgord et a la Saintonge 4 la fin du XIIJe ou au commencement du XIVe siécle,” BEC 51 (1890), 299, who omits the final portion of the charge: “‘scilicet a petro fabri de ponte et ab iterio de vado presbitero & sasiuerunt omnia acquista facta per Guillelmum moruni odoni seruientis [s#c] domini Regis anglie in terra Xanct’ dicti ducatus et preceperunt heredibus suis quod ipsa ponerent extra manum suam”: London, British Library, Cott. MS Jul. E.i, fol. 274; Gascon Register A, ed. Cuttino, p. 681, no. 327. For the debts of the Jews, see Langlois, “Documents ... Agenais,” p. 299, and Gascon Register A, ed. Cuttino, p. 682. Gascon Register A, ed. Cuttino, p. 682. The duke’s advocate did not complain that ecclesiastical property was being assessed for the aid. Although the archbishop of Bordeaux sent a proctor to Paris to protest against the aid, the royal letter of postponement that his agent obtained, addressed to the commissioners there, applied to lands under the archbishop’s jurisdiction in the seneschalsy of Périgord and Quercy: see AN, J 356, no. 14, in the Appendix, no. 38. For the archbishop’s holdings in the Périgord, see J.-M. Maubourguet, Le Périgord méridional des origines a Pan 1370... (Cahors, 1926), pp. 205-12.

George P. Cuttino, English Diplomatic Administration, 1259-1339, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1971), pp. 4-8; for similar debates over territory in Périgord and Quercy, see Louis d’Alauzier, ‘Une assignation de revenus en Quercy et Périgord faite en 1287 au roi d’Angleterre,” BPA (1964), 525-57, and esp. the map on p. 534. 14Gascon Register A, ed. Cuttino, p. 681. 105"These commissioners apparently made no attempt to collect the aid in territory subject to the duke of Guyenne: Alauzier, “Assignation,” p. 534.

THE MARRIAGE AID 95 fore the fall, the commissioners in both regions had imposed specific assessments on many ecclesiastics and secular communities. Presumably because they encountered opposition, they decreed that if payment was not made by 1 November 1309, the assessments would immediately be doubled.'!°° Those threatened by this ultimatum quickly determined to appeal to the king. Their protest would exercise a profound effect on royal policy. lo6JJ 42A, fol. 97v, in the Appendix, no. 37; cf. Fawtier, Registres, 1:nos. 819 and 819%,

BLANK PAGE

IV. Resistance and Protest in the Provinces, 1309 In 1276 the towns, castra, and bastides near Montauban in Quercy were persuaded to volunteer an aid to the king to support his crusade.' In 1309, however, the secular and ecclesiastical communities of the seneschalsies of Périgord and Quercy and of Saintonge, subjected to the high-handed tactics of the royal commissioners levying the marriage aid, were not so cooperative. The wedding of the king’s daughter did not possess the evident appeal of a crusade, and the arbitrary attitude of the king’s officials caused the south-

erners to fear for their liberties. Royal fiscality had become increasingly oppressive in recent years; the king’s subjects were more than ever resentful and suspicious of royal demands for support. The king’s war taxes had been _ fully as burdensome in the south as in the north,? and the Midi had particularly suffered from royal agents investigating the alienation of fiefs and the usurpation of royal rights. Similar but less insistent demands for the marriage aid made in 1 308 in the Rouergue and the Auvergne had provoked immediate reaction, and like their neighbors to the east (and perhaps inspired by their example) the inhabitants of Périgord, Quercy, and Saintonge appealed to the king. Drawing on their long experience of cooperative action and their seasoned knowledge of representative practice, they quickly and skillfully organized a delegation to bear their complaints to Paris. 'See above, p. 56. For the meaning of castrum in the Middle Ages, varying from “castle,” to “fortified site,” “fortified village,” and simply “village,” see Josette Juglas, “La vie rurale ...,” Provence historique 8 (1958), 14; Noél Coulet and Louis Stouff, Le village de Provence au bas Moyen Age (Aix, 1987), pp. 5-12; eidem, “Les institutions ...,” Etudes rurales 63-64 (1976), 67-81; and Noél Coulet, “Une enquéte criminelle au XVe siécle,” Provence historique

158 (1989), 571, where he differentiates castrum (village) from the more important villa. The , procurations and list of petitioners of 1309 show the importance of the distinction in the early fourteenth century. The consuls of Albas (AN, J 356, no. 11, in the Appendix, no. 13), for example, referred to their community as a vi//a, whereas the consuls of Caylus (AN, J 356, no. 10, in the Appendix, no. 10) called theirs a castrum, and the royal list used the same terms to designate the two communities. On the other hand, whereas the consuls of both Moliéres and Caussade referred to their communities as castra (AN, J 356, nos. 133 and 13+, in the Appendix, nos. 16 and 19), the royal list termed both places ville. Of the forty sites included in the royal list, Cahors was naturally called a czvitas, whereas fifteen communities were referred

to as castra and twenty-three as ville. The letter of Philip the Fair of 15 October 1309 that announced the results of his negotiations with the proctors from the Midi designated all the communities, perhaps for diplomatic and tactical reasons, as ville: AN, JJ 42A, fols. 97-98, no. 72, in the Appendix, no. 37. Strayer, “Consent to Taxation,” pp. 44-77.

97 ,

98 CHAPTER IV The delegation from Périgord and Quercy, consisting of eighteen men, was larger and better organized than the group sent from Saintonge. Eleven men had been chosen to represent almost fifty communities and two religious

establishments of Périgord and Quercy;? individual proctors acted for the abbey of Aubazine, the priory of Sainte-Féréole, and the archbishop of Bordeaux;* the abbots of Beaulieu, Figeac, Terrasson, and Boulbonne themselves accompanied the group.’ In contrast, only six proctors acted for the inhabitants of Saintonge. Three of them were ecclesiastics: two clerics represented the bishop and chapter of Angouléme, and the proctor of the abbey

of Nanteuil acted for the church of Les Adjots. More impressive in status and the size of their constituencies were the three noble representatives: Alone, lord of Montmoreau, Oduin de Barbezieux, and Armand de Saud. These men acted on behalf of many fellow nobles residing in twenty-seven castellanies of Saintonge, and the lord of Montmoreau and Oduin de Bar_ bezieux represented the leading communities of these castellanies as well.° *Thirty procurations submitted on behalf of the abbey of Tulle, the priory of Saint-Cirgues, and thirty-one places survive in the Archives nationales and are published in the Appendix. To

their number can be added the following fourteen secular communities, whose names are included in the list of localities benefiting from the embassy’s activities that was appended to the royal letter issued in their favor on 15 October 1309: Linac (“de lanhaco”’), Brive-laGaillarde, “Belachessargne,” Saint-Médard, ‘“Podiomissis,” “Montes,” “Aemtum,” Cayarc, Montpezat(-de-Quercy), Piquecos, Beaulieu(-sur-Dordogne), Mondenard (“Mons Lenandus’’),

Rocamadour, and Carennac. See AN, JJ 42A, fols. 97-98, no. 72, in the Appendix, no. 37, and Fawtier, Registres, 1:nos. 819-819. For the locations of these and other places, see the Index and the map on p. 115. Ten of these communities are named in the list of constituents of the proctors who appeared before the king, which does not include Linac, “Podiomissis,” Montpezat(-de-Quercy), and Carennac: AN, J 356, no. 14, in the Appendix, no. 38. This list also includes Payrac, which was virtually represented by its lord; similarly, the community of Cajarc was virtually represented by its consul. The first list indicates that Philippe d’Eudes appeared for the town of Saint-Cirgues, which would bring to forty-seven the total number of secular communities. Philippe is known, however, to have been acting for the abbot of Aurillac on behalf of the priory rather than the community of Saint-Cirgues; if the scribe who copied the king’s letter and the appended list meant to refer to the priory (which is not mentioned in the list) rather than the community in recording Philippe’s constituents, the number of secular communities would be reduced to forty-six. A procuration was deposited at Paris for Lalbenque (AN, J 356, no. 3, in the Appendix, no. 11), but the community 1s included neither in the list of beneficiaries of the royal letter nor in the list of constituents. The community’s name was probably omitted inadvertently from these latter documents; Etienne Delgua, its proctor, seems unlikely to have abandoned representation of the community or to have made a separate settlement on its behalf. On the collection of procurations, see, more fully, the note at the end of this chapter, pp. 143-46. See also p. 132 n. 95 below, for the communities linked with Brive. *AN, J 356, no. 14, in the Appendix, no. 38.

‘Ibid. :

‘Ibid., where the final entry states that these two men were acting “pro se. et aliis villis ut | supra dictum est,” which in all likelihood refers to the preceding list of urban centers of castellanies. See the map on p. 114.

RESISTANCE AND PROTEST 99 How these three nobles came to act for such a large group of constituents and what precise powers they possessed remain, in the absence of documentation, matters for speculation. The selection of such a small number of delegates suggests a high degree of sympathy and cooperation between the nobles and communities of Saintonge—at least as concerned their opposition to the royal commissioners. Whether at the instigation of the nobles or the communities, assemblies were probably held to discuss grievances, formulate complaints, and empower those who were dispatched to the king. The concern of the nobles indicates that Hugues de La Celle and Bertrand Agace were harassing the nobles far more than were their fellow commissioners in Périgord and Quercy, where the efforts of Yves de Landévennec and Géraud de Sabanac seem to have been directed primarily against towns, rural communities, and ecclesiastics. The nobles’ prominence in this dele-

gation may also reflect the subordinate position occupied by towns and villages in the political hierarchy of Saintonge. In sharp contrast with the situation in Périgord and Quercy, the non-nobles of Saintonge were less independent and far less habituated to representative and cooperative action than were their counterparts in the seneschalsy to the south.’ 1. REPRESENTATIVE TRADITIONS IN QUERCY AND PERIGORD

Quercy and, to a lesser extent, the adjacent region of Périgord had shared in the precocious, vigorous flowering of independent communal institutions of the Languedoc. Early emancipated wholly or in part from the control of ecclesiastical and secular overlords, possessing self-sufficient, carefully articulated administrations, the communities of Quercy and Périgord looked

to one another rather than to local lords for support and assistance.® Throughout the Midi habits of joint action were reinforced during the 7See the comments of Jean Fabri Johannes Faber), quoted in Joseph Declareuil, Hzstozre générale du droit francais des origines 4 1789 ... (Paris, 1925), pp. 513-14 nn. 271-72. ’For a concise survey of municipal institutions in the Midi, see Emmanuel Gay, Le consulat et [administration municipale du Vigan au XVIle et au XVIIIe stécle (Paris, 1913), pp. 3-25; see also Dognon, Les institutions politiques, pp. 57-194. Particularly valuable for Quercy are Robert Latouche, La vie en Bas-Quercy du XIVe au XVIITe siécle (Toulouse, 1923) and Pierre Deffontaines, Les hommes et leurs travaux dans les pays de la Moyenne-Garonne (Agenais, BasQuercy) (Lille, 1932). Pierre-Clément Timbal gives a useful introduction to the subject in “Les

villes de consulat dans le Midi de la France. Histoire de leurs institutions administratives et judiciaires,” Recueils de la Société Jean Bodin, 6: Les villes, pt. 1, Institutions administratives et

judiciaires (Brussels, 1954), 343-70. Among the valuable studies of individual communities, | have found particularly helpful Achille Bardon, Histozre de la ville d’Alais de 1250 a 1340 (Nimes,

1894-96); Barral, Considérations ... Clermont en Lodévois; Les coutumes de Saint Gilles (XIeX1Ve siécles) ..., ed. E. Bligny-Bondurand (Paris, 1915); Henri Courteault, Le Bourg-SaintAndéol ... (Paris, 1909); and Marcel Gouron, Histoire de la ville du Pont-Saint-Esprit (Nimes, 1934).

100 CHAPTER IV thirteenth century, when Cahors and the communities in its immediate vicinity developed modes of effective cooperation. On some occasions Cahors assumed the position of natural leadership to which its importance as the regional center of secular and spiritual activity entitled it and acted, as a document of 1251 stated, “for the whole land of Quercy.”® How the city came to represent the countryside’s interests in 1251 is unclear, but when, fourteen years later, the consuls of Cahors acted in a similar capacity, they were said to have been explicitly empowered by a majority of the consulates of the region, presumably meeting in a regional assembly.!°

Cahors often played a dominant role in the joint enterprises of the communities of Quercy, but the communities also worked together on a basis of relative equality. Such was the case when peace organizations were formed in the early thirteenth century.'! The communities also sent joint delegations to the king’s court!? and to local assemblies convened by royal officials.' Nor did the communities band together only for such extraordinary purposes. As the financial accounts of Martel demonstrate, during the early years of the fourteenth century the town was in contact with the neighboring communities of Anglars, Beaulieu, Bretenoux, Brive, Caylus, Figeac, Gourdon, Rocamadour, and Souillac. There was constant communication with Cahors, both because of the city’s administrative importance and also because

the two towns were engaged in many joint enterprises. Martel also sent x... totius terrae Caturcini [sic]”: Bisson, Assemblies, p. 312, where the act is published from BN, Doat 118, fols. 124-25v; see also Bisson, Assemblies, p. 129. Bisson, Assemblies, pp. 129, 314.

'Tbid., pp. 124-27; and idem, “The Organized Peace in Southern France and Catalonia, ca. 1140-ca. 1233,” American Historical Review 82 (1977), 290-311 (rpt. in idem, Medieval France, pp. 215-36). The inhabitants of Cahors and Figeac played a leading role in the peace league formed in February 1233. On 26 November 1263 the consuls of Brive and Figeac, important communities of northern Quercy, and of Périgueux and Sarlat, the leading towns of Périgord, concluded an alliance to maintain their privileges and the peace, and they elected agents to represent them during the first year of the alliance: Michel Hardy, “Association de paix entre les villes de Figeac, Périgueux, Brive et Sarlat en 1263,” Revue des Soctétés savantes des départements, 7th ser., 6 (1882), 433-34; and idem, “Traité d’alliance entre les villes de Brive, Figeac, Périgueux et Sarlat en 1263,” Bulletin de la Société scientifique, historique et archéologique de la Corréze 6 (1884), 529-31. In studying the relationships between Cahors and

other communities of Quercy, I have utilized with great profit Charles H. Taylor, “Some Aspects of Early Representative Institutions in France,” an unpublished address delivered at the annual meeting of the American Historical Association on 27 December 1935. '2Proctors of Cahors, Figeac, Montauban, Moissac, Gourdon, Rocamadour, Lauzerte, Montaigu, Cajarc, and other communities of Quercy appeared before the Parlement in 1281: Ofim, 2:186-87, no. XLV. On 12 May 1287 Montcuq empowered the consuls of Cahors and Figeac

to present a special petition to the king: BN, Doat 118, fols. 229-31. '3For the assembly of some twenty-six consulates of Quercy that was held on 13 June 1295 at Cahors to approve a loan to the king, see Bisson, Assemblies, pp. 282-83. _

RESISTANCE AND PROTEST 101 deputies to Périgueux and Toulouse and, on one occasion, to Montauban." The accounts of the other communities in the district have not survived, but these communities doubtless maintained similar relations with their neighbors. Difficult as it is to document the day-to-day relations among the communities, there is abundant evidence relating to coalitions formed on extraordinary occasions. One of these incidents provides instructive parallels and contrasts with the joint venture of 1309. On 19 June 1307 the consuls of thirty communities of Quercy and of Sarlat (which lay in Périgord) assembled at Cahors to seal a joint petition to the king. Disturbed by the proceedings of royal commissioners surveying royal rights and property, they were determined to ask the king to review and revise the assessments of property his officials had made. To this end they named as their agents five men, three of whom (Hugues Fabrefort, Jean de Lalbugia, and Etienne Delgua) figured prominently in the negotiations of 1309. More than a third of the communities cooperating in 1309 participated in the assembly of 1307, although three leading members of the coalitions of 1309—Brive, Gourdon, and Martel—did not.'' These three communities, located in the northern part of the seneschalsy, could hardly have escaped the royal commissioners’ net, and the accounts of Martel show

that in late May or early June 1307 two delegations went to Cahors to negotiate with the seneschal concerning the assessments.'¢ Perhaps the , northern communities came to terms with the king’s officers; perhaps they were not asked or elected not to join the protest; perhaps the southernmost communities were treated more harshly than they. In the end, the geographical orientation of the group of protesting towns was distinctly southerly, and Cahors was the nucleus of the coalition.'’? This suggests what other

evidence corroborates: that the consuls of Cahors took the initiative in forming the alliance of 1307 and provided the motive force behind it. Not

only was the act of procuration and protest drafted at Cahors,'* but, in 4AC, Martel, CC 2, and also H. Teulié, “Memorandum des consuls de la ville de Martel,” Revue de philologie francaise et provencale 7 (1893), 253-54, and 8 (1894), 17-25, for the close ties that existed between Martel and Gourdon in the thirteenth century. 'sSee the table on pp. 110-11.

‘Two delegates first spent five days at Cahors, at the seneschal’s command; one later returned to Cahors: AC, Martel, CC 2, fol. 82, for entries referring to “la taxamen delas denairadas.”’

'7See the map on p. 104, and the text of the procuration, AM, Cahors, BB 6, in the Appendix, no. 3. '’The procuration was drawn up by Etienne Delgua, the same notary who was named one of Cahors’s proctors in 1309, who prepared a procuration commissioned in that year by one of the confederates of Cahors, and who probably had a hand in drafting the mandates of the other members of the coalition led by Cahors. Etienne Delgua’s name does not appear in the procuration of 1307, but the script is identical with that of three documents signed by Delgua:

102 CHAPTER IV addition, four of the five proctors were leading citizens of Cahors;'* the fifth, Hugues Fabrefort, was a lawyer whose business and interests spread throughout the seneschalsies of Périgord, Quercy, and Rouergue, but who surely had many clients in Cahors.”°

(1) AD, Lot, H 69, no. 2, issued at Cahors on 19 November 1310, in which Etienne describes himself as “‘auctoritate Regia Notari[us] public[us] / deputat[us]que ad recipiendum quoscumque contractus licitos & honestos quorumcumque volentium se supponere & obligere [urisdiction:

& cohercitioni dicti sigilli regii lauserte”: (2) AD, Lot, H 71, no. 4, dated at Cahors on 26 March 1308 [sic] by Etienne Delgua of Martel, royal notary in the seneschal of Périgord and

Quercy; (3) AD, Lot, H 71, no. 5, drawn by Etienne Delgua, “auctoritate Regia Notario publico,” on 14 November 1310 at Cahors. These three documents terminate with Etienne’s distinctive notarial sign: see the plate on p. 10 above (h). The script of these documents is also identical with the procuration of 1309 drafted at Cahors for Caylus, Luzech, Belaye, Castelfranc,

and Puy-l’Evéque, AN, J 356, no. 5, in the Appendix, no. 12. ''The procuration specifically refers to Arnaud de Rotland and Bernard Fabri as burgesses of Cahors. Jean de Lalbugia and Etienne Delgua are simply called clerks: AM, Cahors, BB 6, in the Appendix, no. 3. All four men worked with other proctors in 1306 on a project involving the improved navigation of the Lot River, and the procuration in which they were empowered referred to them as citizens of Cahors: AM, Cahors, DD 31, dated 27 June 1306; see also BN, Doat 118, fols. 277-81v, dated 17 June 1306. Etienne Delgua, clerk, master, and notary, is evidently identical with the Etienne Delgua of Martel who, as notary, was authorized to receive contracts under the seal of Lauzerte: see the preceding note and also BN, Doat 118, fols. 288v89v; for contacts between him and the town of Martel between 1309 and 1323, see AC, Martel, CC 2, fols. 73v, 89, 104, 114v, 122, 123v, 124, 125, 127, 131v, 137; see also Albe, “Inventaire”’

(1920), pp. 12-13 nn. 2-3. Called “dilectus concivis et conburgensis noster,”’ Etienne represented Cahors at the royal assembly at Tours in 1308: Documents, ed. Picot, p. 685, no. MXX. On Jean de Lalbugia, notary, syndic, and citizen of Cahors, see Edmond Albe, Cahors. Inventaire raisonné et analytique des Archives municipales. Premiére partie. XIITe stécle (1200-1300) (Cahors,

[1915]), nos. 191, 198. In April 1310, acting as syndic of Cahors, he secured a royal privilege for the city: AM, Cahors, AA 12. In November 1310 he witnessed an act prepared by Etienne Delgua: AD, Lot, H 71, no. 5. 0Both Perigueux and Figeac named Hugues Fabrefort as their delegate to the royal assembly at Tours in 1308: Documents, ed. Picot, pp. 684, 689, nos. MXIX, MXXVII. In the procuration

of Figeac he is termed “cleric[us], jurisperit[us].” In 1317 he represented a lord of Périgord at a royal assembly in Bourges: Léon Dessalles, Histotre du Périgord (Périgueux, 1883-85), 2:130-31. Hugues held property in Rouergue, and in 1322 he acted as a special royal commissioner there: Fawtier, Registres, 2:no. 1965; see also AD, Tarn-et-Garonne, A 321(1), fol. 3v. In 1320, 1323, 1324, and 1326 he held inquests in Périgord as a delegate of the Parlement: AN, X"™ 8844, fols. 35, 175, 220, 290. In 1328 and 1329 he acted as advocate in the Parlement and in 1332 served as a commissioner of the Parlement in a particularly difficult case involving Montpellier: AN, X™ 8843, fol. 54; Guillaume du Breuil, Stz/us Curie Parlamenti ..., ed. Félix Aubert (Paris, 1909), pp. 28, 105-6; Archives de la ville de Montpellier. Inventatres et documents

(Montpellier, 1895-1955), 1: Inventatre du “Grand Chartrier” rédigé par Pierre Louvet en 1662-1663, ed. Joseph Berthelé, no. 1549; and, most important, Rogozinski, Power, Caste, and Law, pp. 21, 74, 82, 98, 100, 103, 154, 173. In 1326 the king referred to Hugues as “dilectus noster magister,” and in July 1331 he was ennobled: AN, X'* 8844, fol. 290; see also Roland Delachenal, Histoire des avocats au Parlement de Paris, 1300-1600 (Paris, 1885), p. 350; particularly useful are the marginal notes that Félix Aubert inserted in his copy of this volume,

RESISTANCE AND PROTEST 103 The hegemony exercised by Cahors in 1307 is hardly remarkable.?! The city was the leading administrative center in the region; in 1307 the seneschal summoned consular representatives to Cahors to discuss property assessments. Other neighboring communities, however, were also accustomed to acting independently, and they valued the influence they could wield. In

| 1308 the prestige of other consulates was acknowledged and doubtless fortified when the king sent separate summonses to his large assembly at Tours

to ten of the thirty-one places that had joined in the protest of 1307, as well as to nine additional consulates.” Almost without exception the communities selected their own leading inhabitants to represent them. A procuration drafted by forty-eight communities of Quercy in March 1311 also demonstrates the significant role played by secondary centers in the political life of the seneschalsy. This act, jointly sponsored by the communities, the seneschal, and the royal procurator, empowered twenty-one agents to present to Pope Clement V an appeal against the punishments that the bishop of Cahors was inflicting on those who were violating the laws against usury. The emissaries may never have been dispatched. The act remained in the archives of Cahors, and there is no indication that it was

ever sealed. There are only twenty-six holes for seals and only twelve names | of communities were entered above them.?? Whether employed or not, the act still provides valuable evidence regarding community organization in Quercy. The act is similar to the procuration of 1307. It was drafted at Cahors, and its adherents included all but four of the thirty-one communities included

in the act of 1307. Sarlat, located in the diocese of Périgueux, did not participate; also missing are Almont, Beauregard, and Lapenche, three small communities situated nearer Cahors, which also failed to join the coalitions

of 1309. Of the communities that would assume important roles in 1309, Brive, as in 1307, did not appear, perhaps because, although within the

now in the Yale University Library. In 1333 a “Me’ Huc fabrefort” was repaid 50 1.t. he had lent to deputies of Périgueux in Paris; the money was delivered at Figeac: AM, Périgueux, CC 52, fol. 10. For information concerning Hugues I owe special thanks to Frangois Maillard and to Jan Rogozinsk1. 21On the internal government of Cahors during the thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries, see Philippe Wolff, “Les luttes sociales dans les villes du Midi frangais, XIIe-XVe siécles,” Annales: Economies—Sociétés—Crvilisations 2 (1947), 447-50.

2Documents, ed. Picot, pp. 685-95, nos. MXX-XXXVII; my count excludes Périgueux, which was independently important and lay outside the sphere of influence of Cahors; on Périgueux, see below, pp. 109, 112. 3AM, Cahors, FF 15, in the Appendix, no. 43; copies of the document are found in BN, Doat 119, fols. 23-25v, and in AD, Lot, F 121/2. The procuration seems to have been drawn up by the same notary who in 1309 prepared four procurations for communities adhering to the confederation headed by Cahors: see below, pp. 119, 120-21.

21y"@ &$

Vvet” eneov) a aad Participation Ps inCommunity Confederations of ‘

,»

“it Sarlate 1307 Me oe Gramate 1307 & 1311 \Ae PERIGUEUX 5 Fonse 1307, 1309 & 1311

=' BRIVE

my VY

iia ; all anil \_ Dordogne _

\ v (hs ;— mi & \ Lot e Sarlat

\—s> eRocamadour =a oGramat — Y eFons — _ ae Figeac

Ss Dordogne

Pal

GASCONY 7 QUERCY yrs rFigees_, Puy-l'Evéque Castelfranc esi 4 Luzech ¢

> _ Noae \ Saint-Cirq Loy\Cahors Lapopie ai tonnet¥€ Lon \ mom gore Beauregard

‘ cabeeinau-Montratiag ” Beton d “ = jontpezat- ™ ° rapemoe Puytegerde

ee 5 , ; Almont » Montricoux Y g P aBruniquel a de-Tulmont a Tin nee i lary iB) ~~ , -E | "geseOe FRANCE } sion"? de-Quercy elapenche Caylus @NAJAC CXOny, pars Montalzat eSeptfonds Mirabele Caussade

Moissac Bioule

Montauban aint-Cuenne —~__

—

4 é. o % ‘ : L tn, N P « '@) 10 20 Miles ie p TOULOUSE meridia o\ 0 10 20 Kms “\

~

So

E.McC. * 91

The Confederation of 19 June 1307

RESISTANCE AND PROTEST 105 seneschalsy of Périgord and Quercy, it lay in the diocese of Limoges. Gour-

don and Martel, absent from the alliance of 1307, did participate in the coalition of 1311. That confederation’s territorial orientation was again toward the south, and a high proportion of the twenty-one adherents absent from the movement of 1307 (of which eleven participated in the coalitions of 1309) were near Cahors and Montauban.** The proctors named in 1311 were, however, notably different from those appointed in 1307. Seven came from Cahors, but the nominees also included three men from Montauban, four men of Gourdon and four of Lauzerte, two inhabitants of Figeac, and a representative from Rocamadour.?> This diversification of representation was perhaps suggested by the royal officials, who may have wished to secure a broader basis of effective support in order to exert pressure on the pope. On the other hand, the inclusion of proctors from the other communities may have been a simple political move, designed to confirm their dedication to the movement. The significance of the distribution of proctors must not, in any case, be exaggerated: in 1312 the delegates whom Cahors sent to the

assembly of Lyon-Vienne acted for and were reimbursed by other communities of the Quercy.” Nonetheless, the other communities’ sense of communal pride and their aspirations for recognition and power apparently influenced the formation of the coalitions of 1309, and when in 1315 various

communities of the Languedoc joined forces to secure from Louis X a charter of liberties, four of the nine chief towns of the coalition of 1309 and two of the group’s subordinate members acted independently or headed

separate groups to secure separate copies of the charter. In these groups two other leading members of the confederation of 1309 appeared as auxiliary members.?’ 24See the table on pp. 110-11, and the map on p. 106. On the history of Montauban from the twelfth through the fourteenth century, see Philippe Wolff, “Réflexions sur Vhistoire médiévale de Montauban,” Actes du Dixtéme Congrés d’Etudes de la Fédération des Soctétés académiques et savantes Languedoc-Pyrénées-Gascogne (Montauban 29-31 mai 1954) (Montauban,

1956), pp. 13-22. On Montauban’s relations with neighboring towns and royal administrative agents, see Yves Dossat, “Les limites du Toulousain et du Quercy et la bailie du Tescou (12731329),” Annales du Midi 59 (1947), 193-209; on the town’s subordination to the seneschal of Agen in 1276, see Chartes, ed. Magen and Tholin, pp. 82-83. *s5Etienne Delgua and Jean de Lalbugia were named, as was Pierre de Siorac of Lauzerte, who acted for four communities in 1309.

6For the assembly of Lyon-Vienne, see Charles H. Taylor, “The Assembly of 1312 at Lyons-Vienne,” Etudes d’histotre dédiées a la mémoire de Henri Pirenne par ses anciens éléves

(Brussels, 1937), pp. 337-49; see also AC, Martel, CC 2, fol. 98, for evidence that Martel contributed 4 Lt. toward the expenses of the proctors of Cahors. 27Cahors, Montauban, and Lauzerte received special copies of the charter. Martel headed a coalition far more impressive than the group the community led in 1309; it included Rocamadour as well as Brive (which in 1309 led its own group) and Beaulieu (which acted independently in 1309). Montcuq, which had been subordinate to Lauzerte in 1309, seems to have taken independent action in 1315, and Négrepelisse, part of the Martel confederation in

e! | ye

v¥y 2 & , x i Ry J in Confederations of

we Ss a Community Participation

ce Puybrune 1311 e ey Gramate 1307 & 1311 wren PERIGUEUX 5 Martelo 1309 & 1311
5 JS Lo; \ Cahors Lapopie 4d ve Puy-lEveque —\. sel abastide-du-Vert? So" A

BelayesSoint : — wericajar \ Luzech Cirq

ae Y70n ,° \Catteinau-Montratier a ae F Lalbenque ” The mandate is undated. It appears in the register of the Parlement immediately before a decree of 10 April 1310, and Boutaric therefore assigned it this date: O/im, 2:508, no. VII; Boutaric, Actes, no. 3739; see Strayer, “Consent to Taxation,” p. 79. Items were not entered

in the court’s registers in strict chronological order, however, and the king would have had | no reason to issue such a mandate after the court’s decree of 21 March 1310 established his right to receive the aid from the subjects of ecclesiastics. Any letter dispatched after this date would surely have contained some reference to the decree or to the king’s established right. 38"... aucune amiable et convenable composicion”: Olim, 2:508. 9See above, pp. 139-42, and also Bisson, “Consultative Functions,” p. 371. The letter did not explicitly state that the levy of the aid should be temporarily suspended, although the king’s orders could have been interpreted to sanction this. The royal decree of

21 March 1310 refers to an earlier suspension of collection; the reference may be to this mandate or to another more specific letter, now no longer extant, which the king may have issued at the requests of Norman ecclesiastics. See above, p. 155, and below, p. 159; see also Olim, 2:502-3, no. II. *'For a different interpretation, see Strayer, “Consent to Taxation,” p. 79; see also Bisson, “Consultative Functions,” p. 371. *2See the mandate of 16 November 1314 published by Artonne, Le mouvement de 1314, pp. 164-65, and for the circumstances under which it was issued, Brown, “‘Charters and Leagues,” pp. 150-51. The disappointing results of the king’s efforts to negotiate in 1310 may have made

PROTEST AND NEGOTIATION 159 Whatever the king’s expectations, negotiations with the subjects of ecclesiastics seem to have produced no results at all, since the clerics proved to be determined to maintain their rights. As royal decrees issued in 1310 and later demonstrate, ecclesiastics generally preferred to defend their privileges in court rather than accept the immediate but potentially dangerous relief that could be obtained through compromise. Attorneys of the Norman ecclesiastics were sent to the Parlement. There

they were to present their constituents’ contention that the king neither could nor should levy the marriage aid from any free lay people who were subject to or held lands from their establishments. Their efforts were in vain. After the royal officials and procurator had presented their case, the court decreed without elaboration that the ecclesiastics had failed to make _ their case. Consequently, on 21 March 1310 the king canceled an earlier order suspending the levy of the aid from these people and commanded the baillis of Normandy to collect the sums owed by the ecclesiastics’ free lay subjects.*? This ruling gave the king clear judicial authority for his demands. Nonetheless, although the king and the Parlement subsequently made some attempt to insist on the king’s right, they proceeded cautiously and diplomatically. Some important ecclesiastics indeed seem to have protected their dependents against the king’s officials. The only clear principle produced through litigation does not seem to have affected substantially the process of collection. The king’s attempts to encourage negotiation with the Norman ecclesiastics were futile, but the efforts of the royal commissioners in the Midi were more productive. In Poitou and Saintonge, Hugues de La Celle continued his efforts. His labors bore fruit, and on 22 December 1309 the king empowered him to appoint his own deputies to assist him.** From the fall of 1309 through the spring of 1310 Hugues collected fines for the acquisition of fiefs with enthusiasm and he vigorously prosecuted criminals.*5 On one occasion he utilized the full range of his powers to secure 100 1.t. from an unfortunate clerk of the diocese of Poitiers who was charged with homicide.

him and his advisers pessimistic about the possibility of bargaining successfully with deputies sent to the Parlement. ®Olim, 2:502-3, no. II; Boutaric, Actes, no. 3715; Ordonnances, 1:471-72, and also 453; Fawtier, Registres, 1:no. 845. See above, pp. 78-80.

“Recueil ... Poitou, ed. Guérin (1881), pp. 76-77, no. XXXVI; Fawtier, Registres, 1:no. 2268. See below, p. 163 n. 61, for evidence that by the spring of 1310 Hugues may have named Pierre de Belmont to help levy fines for the acquisition of fiefs and given him special responsibility for negotiations with ecclesiastics. In the fall of 1310 two other commissioners were assisting Hugues in collecting these fines in Saintonge: “Documents . . . Saintonge,”’ ed. Guerin, pp. 81-83, no. XLHU; Fawtier, Registres, 1:no. 1887. SFawtier, Registres, 1:nos. 697, 702-4, 1095, 1129, 1737.

160 CHAPTER V By claiming self-defense and his clerical privilege and by exhibiting a letter

showing that the bishop of Poitiers had declared him innocent, the clerk escaped the murder charge, but he was heavily fined. Hugues de La Celle asserted that the clerk had offered the fine voluntarily, not only because he had illegally carried arms but also because he “wished” to contribute to the marriage aid.*° In return for the fine Hugues granted the clerk absolution for his offenses, and the king subsequently confirmed this pardon. If this performance was typical (as Hugues’s earlier actions in Gascony suggest it may have been) Hugues’s success in collecting more than 19,000 L.t. from his districts is hardly surprising.*’ Royal commissioners and officials in Périgord and Quercy were apparently less vigorous in pressing demands for the marriage aid. There is no evidence of resistance in the area, nor, more important, is there any proof that the aid was collected there in 1309 and 1310. The experiences of Martel show that after the delegates returned from Paris, some negotiations were conducted. Whatever the king’s intentions, local royal agents seem to have

played an insignificant role in the proceedings, for the people of Martel insisted on dealing directly with the royal court, despite the consequent trouble and expense. After the agents from the Midi reported the king’s proposals, the inhabitants of Martel doubtless had to confront the king’s district commissioners, as the royal letters of 15 October 1309 indicated would be the case. Whatever encounters occurred, Martel seems to have avoided both payment and commitment. Envoys were sent to the king, and Johan Planhas, who departed shortly before 1 January 1310, remained in Paris until well into February.

| During the summer of 1310 another agent, G. Lacosta, was dispatched.* These negotiations did not win Martel any firm guarantees for the future, but, on the other hand, the town’s accounts do not indicate that Martel was ever forced to pay the marriage aid. Since the king did not possess complete jurisdiction over Martel, his right to collect the aid there could not have been indisputable, and his officials may have avoided final determination of the issue by awarding Martel de facto freedom from payment. What results, if any, the subsidy commissioners achieved with other communities of Périgord and Quercy is unknown. Mignon’s inventory contains no trace whatsoever of any accounts for the region, nor is there any evidence that Martel’s former allies remained concerned about the aid. In Recueil... Poitou, ed. Guérin (1881), pp. 68-72, no. XXXIV. The money was to be paid to the receiver at Saint-Jean-d’Angély: ibid., p. 71. *7Hugues was credited with levying this sum from Saintonge, Poitou, Limousin, La Marche, and the Angoumois: Mignon, no. 1575, and see also no. 1573. See also below, p. 178. *8AC, Martel, CC 2, fols. 89v—90v. I have estimated the duration of Johan’s stay in Paris from his salary, which was half again as much as the 12 I.t. paid to Adémar de Girbert, Martel’s agent in protesting against the aid.

PROTEST AND NEGOTIATION 161 April 1310 representatives of Cahors gained a royal letter to protect them from the seneschal’s and the viguzer’s attacks on their privileges.*? This letter,

however, made no reference to the marriage aid, and the city may in fact have agreed to volunteer a contribution. The issuance of the royal mandate suggests that relations between Cahors and the king were amicable in the

spring of 1310; a year later the same communities of Quercy that had opposed the aid were on good enough terms with the king to join the royal seneschal and procurator in a common petition to the pope against the bishop of Cahors.°° Similarly, in the late summer of 1311, Montauban received a special royal letter of justice concerning its jurisdictional rights.*! By one means or another the questions at issue between the king and the southerners

thus seem to have been resolved during the winter and spring of 1310. Had a solution not been achieved, the dissatisfied communities and ecclesiastics would doubtless have protested again, as happened in connection with the fines for the acquisition of fiefs. Formal pleading concerning these fines was conducted before the Parle-

ment during the winter of 1309-10. There lawyers representing the inhabitants of Périgord maintained that the royal commissioners, Yves de Landévennec and Jean Robert, were acting unjustly in imposing fines on fiefs rented, either temporarily or by perpetual lease, to non-nobles. The lands had not been sold; rights of justice over the lands remained vested in the lords; further, such arrangements enhanced the value of the land, since tenants were bound to pay their lords fixed annual rents. Yves de Landévennec was present in the Parlement by early April 1310, and if he arrived in Paris earlier, his intervention may have undermined the plaintiffs’ position. Despite their arguments, the plaintiffs’ lawyers could obtain no more than a letter of justice, issued on 28 March 1310. In it the king commanded his commissioners to investigate the complaints and desist from the actions they had allegedly taken unless they had reasonable grounds.*? The letter’s immediate value was negligible, and the official responsible for having it *BN, Doat 119, fols. 20-21v, for the royal letter of 9 April 1310, issued at Saint-Ouen. Jean d’Arreblay, seneschal of Périgord and Quercy, sent a letter from Pontoise on 19 April 1310 ordering his lieutenant to execute the royal commands. The king confirmed his orders at Paris on 27 April 1310, and the letter was read publicly at Cahors on 11 May 1310, in the presence of the royal viguier supervising the pariage. See AM, Cahors, AA 11, AA 12; and Albe, “Inventaire” (1920), nos. 246 and 254. See below, p. 178 n. 128. ‘OAM, Cahors, FF 15, in the Appendix, no. 43; see above, pp. 103, 105, 108. S\AM Montauban, 2 FF 1 (25 August 1311). **Bernard du Meix accounted for “condempnationes et financie” imposed and arranged in 1311 in Quercy, but there is no evidence to suggest that his work involved the marriage aid: see above, pp. 85-87. 3Olim, 2:505, no. V; Ordonnances, 1:473; Boutaric, Actes, no. 3725. For Yves’s presence in the Parlement on 2 and 10 April 1310, see Olim, 3:465-66, no. LXXIII, and pp. 472-73, no. LXXIX.

162 CHAPTER V recorded in the registers of the Parlement expressed skepticism regarding its validity. Noting that it took no account of the royal ordonnance on the alienation of fiefs, he remarked that “it would seem wise to have it reviewed.”** Nonetheless, the plaintiffs were momentarily appeased, and many copies of the letter were issued, presumably to provide the different parties to the suit with their own copies.*% Complaints were also voiced by the inhabitants of Millau, who had suffered at the hands of the commissioners seeking fines for the acquisition of

fiefs; they were no more successful than the inhabitants of Périgord in obtaining a final decision.** Appearing in the Chamber of Requests of the Written Law, the representatives of the community presented their grievances against the king’s agents, Guillaume des Buissons and Philippe de Saint-Vérain. Contravening the king’s instructions to the seneschal of Rouergue, the commissioners were, they said, demanding additional payments even though Millau had paid all that was due. On 28 March 1310, the day on which the letter for Périgord was issued, the Parlement issued a similar letter of justice for the Rouergue. Addressed to the commissioners, the letter commanded them to stop their harassment, provided the complaints were justified and provided they had no other grounds for their actions.*” Guil*#De hoc facte fuerunt plures littere, sed tamen visa non fuit ordinacio financiarum, unde bonum videtur esse quod videatur”: Olzm, 2:505. The statute governing the alienation of fiefs

that was in force in 1309 was Philip the Fair’s own ordonnance of 1291: Marie-Elisabeth Carreau, “Les commissaires royaux aux amortissements et aux nouveaux acquéts sous les Ca-

pétiens, 1275-1328,” These, Ecole Nationale des Chartes, Paris, 1953, p. 32; see also the summary of the thesis in Posztions des théses de [’Ecole des Chartes (1953), 19-22; for the text of the ordonnance, see Ordonnances, 1:322-24, esp. clause 9, pp. 323-24. According to the ordonnance, a non-noble who acquired a fief or rear-fief was bound to pay the king three years’ revenue if the service that he rendered for the fief was not fitting and suitable, if the land in question was held by fewer than three intermediate lords, and if royal consent had not been obtained. Even if these conditions were fulfilled, the land’s annual revenue was to be estimated, and a compensatory payment, assessed by royal deputies, was to be made to the king for any decrease in the fief’s value. The second article of the charter granted on 1 April 1315 to the inhabitants of Languedoc was evidently prompted by complaints similar to those received from Périgord in 1309: Artonne, Le mouvement de 1314, p. 153; Ordonnances, 1:554; and see ibid., 12:412, clause 3, for a similar clause in the charter granted to the nobles of Languedoc in January 1316. ‘sOlim, 2:505.

*6In 1288 Millau had obtained a royal letter responding to complaints against the fines, but this letter, like the mandate of 1310, seems to have dealt with specific charges against royal commissioners and to have contained no general declaration or confirmation of exemption: Jules-F. Artieres, “Notice historique sur les libertés, privileges, coutumes et franchises de la ville de Millau en Rouergue, suivie de nouveaux documents inédits concernant la ville de Millau,” Mémozres de la Société des lettres, sciences et arts de ’Aveyron 16 (1900-1905), 219. ‘7AC, Millau, CC 509, a document that is badly torn on the left side. The following notations

appear on the fold: (1) to the left and partly obliterated, “per G’ de Viry in Requestis Iuris [scripti] Chalop” and (2) to the right, “In Requestis Iuris [scripti]. per G’ de Viry istam litteram

PROTEST AND NEGOTIATION 163 laume de Chanac, one of the reforming commissioners appointed in October 1308 to Saintonge and Poitou, was involved in the court’s negotiations with Millau, and the town’s letter was authorized by Guillaume de Viry, who would on 5 May 1310 be named collector of outstanding royal taxes, including the marriage aid, in the bailliage of Macon.** The similar letters issued to the plaintiffs from Périgord and from Millau afforded only temporary relief, and it is not surprising that five years later Millau joined other southern communities in demanding more formal guarantees against exploitation. Difficulties over the fines continued in succeeding years.°° The government did not always succeed in parrying demands by issuing noncommittal letters of justice. The protest of the archbishop of Bordeaux,

in 1309 the ally of the protesters from Périgord, Quercy, and Saintonge, forced the king to take a stricter line with his commissioners later in 1310. The king prudently reserved until the following session of the Parlement the question of whether or not fines were owed by non-nobles acquiring lands in fiefs and rear-fiefs of ecclesiastics.°° On 2 May 1310, however, he _ declared that his commissioners were to levy no fines for acquisitions made by ecclesiastics in lands over which their churches possessed rights of high and low justice.°! Philip the Fair sorely needed the money his agents were raising. If the ambassadors of Aragon thought Philip poor in the spring of 1309, Pope

uidit legit mihi tradidit presente. domino G’ de Che[naco]. Chalop.” Again I express my gratitude to Francois Maillard, who helped me decipher and interpret these notations. 8See Les journaux du Trésor de Charles IV le Bel, ed. Jules-Edouard-M. Viard (Paris, 1917),

no. 9792, and also below, p. 165. See n. 54 above. On 22 October 1325 the consuls of Millau obtained a royal letter stating that the town’s inhabitants owed nothing for noble property they had acquired: Artiéres, “Notice

historique,” p. 220, and Documents ... Millau, ed. idem, p. 67, no. 148. See also AC, Millau,

CC 509, an undated protest of the consuls of Millau against fines imposed by the prior of Saint-Martin-des-Champs, who had acted as general reformer in the Languedoc during the reign of the father of the king to whom the complaint was addressed. Bertrand de Pibrac, prior of Saint-Martin-des-Champs, served as reformer general and imposed fines for the acquisition of fiefs in the area in 1350-52, during the reign of King John, which indicates that the protest

was drafted under Charles V: Henneman, “ ‘Enquéteurs-réformateurs’,” pp. 343-44; idem, Royal Taxation: Development, pp. 242, 246, 255, 259. For Bertrand’s presence in Millau in October 1345 in connection with war subsidy negotiations, see ibid., p. 186; for similar activities

in Rouergue in 1346-47, ibid., pp. 214-15. °Grand-Gauthier, ed. Rédet, pp. 163-64, no. 113. “Tbid., pp. 162-63, no. 112. On 29 April 1310 similar orders were addressed to the seneschal

of Poitou and Master Pierre de Belmont, perhaps a deputy of Hugues de La Celle, for the special benefit of the bishop of Poitiers, a suffragan of the archbishop of Bordeaux: ibid., p. 155, no. 101. Numerous additional letters were granted to the bishop of Poitiers and other ecclesiastics of the province of Bordeaux between 29 April and 2 May 1310: ibid., pp. 15562, nos. 102-11.

164 CHAPTER V Clement V assumed in the fall of 1310 that he had no money at all.°* One of the “questions of importance to the realm” that prompted the king to summon a baronial assembly in early April may have been the state of his finances.® The severity of the crisis is unclear, but additional actions taken in the spring of 1310 suggest the pressure of fiscal problems. The count of

Flanders was pressed to pay the enormous reparations still due from the county in two unusually severe letters, which the king dispatched on 12 April 1310.% Further, during the winter session of 1309-10, the Parlement formulated stringent regulations limiting the expenses of commissioners and auditors of the court.® Finally, in the spring of 1310, steps were taken to rationalize collection of taxes and other levies,® and as part of that effort the government attempted to gather in Paris all funds owed for the marriage aid, to levy the subsidy in those areas that had not yet been assessed, and to collect all taxes due from former years. Beginning on a limited scale, on 31 April 1310 the king commanded the bailli of Vermandois to force the inhabitants of Saint-Quentin to pay immediately the 3,200 |.par. (4,000 I.t.) they owed for the aid; the money was

to be sent at once to the treasury in Paris.°” Within the week, on 5 May 1310, Philip the Fair set in motion a considerably more ambitious campaign in the bailliage of Macon, where there seems to have been no prior attempt to collect the aid.*® The five men named as royal commissioners were to assess and collect the marriage aid and to gather arrears of a variety of taxes, carefully enumerated; they were also to support the efforts of the Chamber of Accounts to obtain final reckoning from all royal collectors and receivers.° The appointees were well qualified to work with the lieutenant of the See above, p. 33. “Fawtier, Registres, 1:no. 844 (AN, JJ 42A, fols. 105v—6v, no. 97). I have found no evidence that the meeting was actually held.

“Codex Diplomaticus, ed. Limburg-Stirum, 2:161-62, no. 265; pp. 200-201, no. 281. 6s Textes, ed. Langlois, pp. 185-86, clause 9.

Fssai de restitution, nos. 495-97, and see no. 499 for the collection of export taxes on wool.

67Archives anciennes de la ville de Saint-Quentin, ed. Emmanuel Lemaire (Saint-Quentin, 1888-1910), 1:193, no. 220. The daz/li, Frémin de Coquerel, transmitted the king’s orders to the prévét of Saint-Quentin on 15 May 1310. In 1151 the people of Saint-Quentin had asserted that they were not obligated to pay their lords any aid, but in 1238 they contributed to an aid levied by Louis IX: Stephenson, Mediaeval Institutions, pp. 9, 28. 68The undated list of commissioners prepared in 1 309 indicates that a knight, Gui de Villers,

was to work with the royal procurator in the Maconnais, but no trace of any commission or activity survives: see Fawtier, Registres, 1:no. 798. For the king’s mandate, see Perroy, “Une émeute fiscale,” p. 64 n. 2 (a transcription of AN, P 2290, pp. 29-30); see also Essai de restitution, no. 494 (undated); Strayer, “Consent to Taxation,” p. 80; and Borrelli de Serres, Recherches, 2:514. Francois Maillard graciously pointed

out to me that in transcribing the names of the commissioners the copyist of this document from Mémorial A of the Chamber of Accounts misread what must have been “Jacobo Albi de

PROTEST AND NEGOTIATION 165 royal procurator of Macon. Named to head the commission was Guillaume de Gilly, canon of Autun and Langres and veteran royal financial agent, who

had served the king in the Lyonnais.” He was to be assisted by the bavi of Macon, Gilles de Maubuisson;’! Jacques Albi of Tournus, guardian of seals in Macon between 1303 and 1307; Girard de Chateauneuf, guardian of the bailage of Macon in 1312 and 1313;72 and Guillaume de Viry, who through his work in the Parlement had established contact with royal commissioners in Rouergue, who had worked in the Forez and who had served as guardian of Lyon.” In July 1310 the king took an aggressive stance regarding Alencon’s obligation for the marriage aid and demanded payment from all the county’s inhabitants. ‘The king’s mandate was in many respects similar to the agree-

ment of October 1309 concluded with royal vassals in Normandy; this is not surprising, since Norman custom was considered authoritative in Alencon.’* Strict application of the Norman compromise would, however, have brought the king little profit. In 1309 Philip the Fair had implicitly acknowledged that only those Normans holding immediately of him were bound to pay the aid, and few nobles of Alencon were in this position, since the county was part of the apanage of Philip the Fair’s brother Charles of Valois.”5 The decree of July 1310 thus asserted that all inhabitants of Alengon

were bound by reason of their fiefs and tenures to pay the aid. The king Terrenorchio” as “Jacobo Abbati de Terrenorchio.” For the abbots of Tournus of this period (none of whom was called Jacobus) see Gallia Christiana, 4:965, 972. I am grateful to Francois Maillard for information regarding the careers of Jacques Albi and the other commissioners, drawn from the Corpus Philippicum housed at the Archives nationales, now directed by RobertHenri Bautier and administered by Elisabeth Lalou. The mandate refers specifically to hearth taxes, the hundredth, the fiftieth, the twentieth, and Jewish property, as well as ordinary receipts.

Mignon, nos. 527, 779-800, 1447, 1467, and p. 79 n. 1; Les journaux ... Charles IV, ed. Viard, p. 251, n. 2. Guillaume had recently been involved in a settlement involving another marriage when, in 1308, as clerk of the duke of Burgundy, he helped assess lands transferred to Louis of Navarre and Marguerite of Burgundy: AD, Céte-d’Or, B 292; see below, pp. 182, 212 n. 107. "For his career, see HF, 24'!:176*-78"*. ”*Mignon, no. 74; HF, 24':177*-78". 73See above, p. 163.

See, for example, AN, J 227, no. 38 (16 July 1300), which shows that “la Coustume de Normendie en cas de Patrounage” was invoked in a suit in Alengon. 75See Pierre-Joseph Odolant Desnos, Mémozres historiques sur la ville dAlengon et sur ses seigneurs ... (Alengon, 1787), pp. 345-59, and Petit, Charles de Valois, p. 265 n. 2 (although note that Petit’s source [ibid., p. 357] is simply an inventory of Charles’s papers, prepared in 1328, which shows that the earliest surviving accounts for Alengon dated from 1291). The conditions on which Charles held Alengon are unknown, since Philip the Fair’s grant has not survived; the charter of 1293 testifying to Philip’s donation of Chartres to Charles simply announced the transfer and enjoined obedience to Charles, and the charter concerning Alengon may have been no more elaborate than this: AN, J 171A, no. 14.

166 CHAPTER V did not, as he had in Normandy, restrict his claim to direct tenants, although the remainder of the mandate followed the Norman model. Announcing that those liable for the aid had offered to pay the amounts which custom entitled them to levy from their subjects, the king declared that, in return, he was excusing them from contributing themselves and guaranteed that their act would not prejudice their rights.’ The authority on which Philip the Fair issued this pronouncement is not clear. He possessed only ultimate, not immediate rights of sovereignty, jurisdiction, and protection in Alencon,’’ and the right that he asserted jeopardized the authority of his brother, Charles of Valois. The declaration must

thus have been issued with Charles’s acquiescence.”* At this very time Charles was burdened with many debts and expenses, and one of his creditors was the king’s minister, Enguerran de Marigny, who in June 1310 attempted to secure for Charles (and indirectly for himself) money the king owed his brother.’? Marigny himself authorized the decree concerning collection of the aid in Alencgon, and he and the king may have held out to

| Charles the prospect of royal favor in return for compliance.®° Charles would 76Boutaric, ‘Notices et extraits,” pp. 205-6, no. 38; for the Norman decision, see AN, JJ 42B, fol. 68v, no. 136, in the Appendix, no. 41. For a different interpretation, see Perroy, “Une émeute fiscale,” p. 63. 7’The king’s rights in the county of Perche, also held by Charles of Valois, are described in one of the royal letters issued between 1301 and 1305 concerning a dispute between Charles and the priory of Nogent-le-Rotrou. In the letter, dated 18 January 1305, the king stated that

he was intervening in the dispute with the consent of the two parties and “ad Custodiam / superioritatis / Ressorti / & Garde locorum & Casuum de quibus est contentio inter partes”: AN, J 227, no. 44; see also ibid., nos. 41, 43, and esp. no. 52, for the ties between the priory and the county of Perche; ibid., no. 42, casts light on similar royal intervention in 1301 in the county of Valois. For different interpretations of these documents, see Lenoir’s analyses, AN, AB XIX, 3134 (104 Mi 29), pp. 437-48, and ibid., 3181 (104 Mi 76), p. 471. Charles could make no commitment concerning his vassals in the counties of Anjou and Maine, which he held as a result of his marriage to Marguerite, daughter of the king of Sicily, rather than as a gift from the king. Charles was still attempting to collect in these counties the aid for the marriage of his own daughter that he had imposed in 1301: see above, pp. 61-68. I have found no evidence that Charles collected this subsidy in Alengon, Perche, and Chartres, his other lands, although contributions there may have been offered without resistance.

, Pavier, Enguerran, pp. 100-102. ®6Charles received handsome favors from Philip the Fair on 2 August 1312. They were evidently granted on Charles’s petition: the two French letters that Philip sealed with his “plus secret seignet” were drawn up by Charles’s own secretary: AN, J 164A, nos. 25, 27. Stressing

Charles’s past services and the support he would give for the coming crusade, the letters announced that the king was canceling all Charles’s debts to him and was awarding him 100,000

l.t., to be paid in 1313 and 1314. On the same day: Pierre d’Etampes prepared more formal Latin versions of the letters, which were warranted by the king and sealed in white wax with the great seal: AN, J 377, nos. 7 and 7>* (an exemplification issued by Jean Ploiebaut on 1 May

1315), and J 164A, no. 26. These letters present a different version of the king’s motivations. The letter annulling Charles’s debts refers neither to Charles’s past services nor to the crusade

PROTEST AND NEGOTIATION 167 have been in no position to resist the king’s demands. If there was resistance

to the royal decree, no evidence of it has survived, and the landholders of Alengon may simply have obeyed, since they had to pay nothing. In Normandy, in contrast, principle had been protected at the expense of those who were rear-vassals of the king and who, subject to their overlords’ demands for money, found themselves obliged to contribute to the aid. The campaign to increase the flow of income to the royal treasury continued. A decree issued on 25 July 1310 made clear the king’s determination

to reform the mechanics of tax collection. The copy that survives is addressed to the seneschal of Poitou, but the letter may well have been sent to other parts of the kingdom as well. Frustrated by the dilatoriness of the commissioners who were collecting arrears of taxes, the king and his officials in the Chamber of Accounts decided to deal summarily with these agents. Since earlier efforts, including suspension of their commissions, had failed to produce any final accounts,*! the king peremptorily revoked their powers and commanded the seneschal to prohibit obedience to them until they had

answered for their activities. To this end they were to be ordered to send immediately to Paris all money they had gathered and were to be cited to appear before the Chamber of Accounts on 22 August. Those agents who had been dispatched “within the past year” to levy the marriage aid, fines for the acquisition of fiefs, and the ecclesiastical tenth that the king had been granted*® were evidently in better standing than the other commis-

sioners, for Philip specifically excepted them from the provisions of the , mandate and ordered the seneschal to give them any assistance they needed.*? The assiduous efforts of Hugues de la Celle in Poitou and Saintonge and

of the special commissioners assigned to Périgord and Rouergue go far to explain the king’s confidence in the recently empowered agents. Evidence concerning the activities of commissioners in other parts of the Midi is sparse, but sometime during 1310 a royal receiver in Toulouse, Master Jean Chaurel, is known to have traveled to court to make a report regarding the levy of the marriage aid in the seneschalsy of Toulouse.*

but rather stresses Philip’s affection for his brother. The donation of 100,000 Lt. states that , the king is acting to relieve Charles’s conscience, burdened by the weight of his heavy debts, to enable him more easily to embark on the crusade. For Philip’s use of his secret seal, see Robert-Henri Bautier, “Diplomatique et histoire politique: ce que la critique diplomatique nous apprend sur la personnalité de Philippe le Bel,” Revue historique 259 (1978), 13-15. 81See the royal mandate discussed above, p. 164; see also above, p. 93, and below, p. 274. ’*For the single tenth awarded by Clement V to Philip, which was collected in two installments in 1310, see Mignon, pp. 112-13. SAN, P 2290, pp. 33-36; BN, fr. 5290, fols. 6v-7v, in the Appendix, no. 42. ®*4BN, Languedoc-Bénédictins 159, fol. 9, and see ibid., fol. 12, for Jean’s later career as viguier of Toulouse. See also HZ, 9:340, and Strayer, “Consent to Taxation,” p. 80.

168 CHAPTER V The mandates of some of these commissioners had to be renewed, since Philip had exempted from the general revocation only those agents appointed during the previous year. On 28 September 1310 Philip thus reissued the commissions he had granted to Hugues de La Celle on 7 and 8 July 1309, | authorizing him to inquire into crimes and collect fines for the illegal acquisition of fiefs in Poitou and Saintonge.** He also ordered Hugues de La Celle to act with the seneschal of Saintonge in imposing and collecting the marriage aid in Saintonge; this mandate, apparently new, ratified the powers Hugues had been exercising for at least a year.*6 These moves were apparently part of a wider effort to ensure that active and responsible fiscal agents were in place throughout the kingdom. Earlier in the month, on 9 September 1310, Philip the Fair had appointed Pierre Fauvel, canon of Nevers, and Simon de Saint-Benoit, canon of Bourges, to investigate usurpation of royal property and the illegal acquisition of fiefs in the bailiage of Bourges.*’ The royal commissioners in Rouergue intensified their efforts in the late summer of 1310. In August and September the commissioners met with representatives of the leading communities to discuss the marriage aid and demand payment of fines for acquiring fiefs.§* Evidently upset by this activity, and perhaps inspired by the letter of justice obtained by Millau, the consuls of Najac sent an agent to Paris in September or October to discuss 85“Documents ... Saintonge,” ed. Guérin, pp. 66-71, nos. XXXIV-XXXV; Fawtier, Registres, \:nos. 1412, 1527. See above, p. 86, for a mandate issued in late October 1310 to agents working in the seneschalsy of Carcassonne.

, s6“Documents ... Saintonge,” ed. Guérin, pp. 69-70. 8’’For the mandate, see CR (1285-1314), 2:345-46; on p. 346 the phrase “Si qui non nobiscum” should read “Si qui vero nobiscum” and the words “parati efficaciter vobis nitendi” “pareri efficaciter vobis et intendi”: AN, K 38, no. 4?; see Jules Tardif, Monuments historiques (Paris, 1866), p. 367, no. 1072. These commissioners were active in 1310 and 1311; their account was audited in 1317, but some fines they had imposed were still being paid in 1317, and many were never tendered: CR (/285~—1314), 2:358-59. These men may have been involved

with the collection of the marriage aid, but Mignon’s inventory does not specify who levied it there: Mignon, no. 1562, and for the levy of the aid in the dazliage of Bourges in 1311, see Flamare, ‘“‘Quelques actes,” pp. 50, 55; Fawtier, Registres, 1:no. 798. In the undated list of commissioners prepared in 1309, Master Etienne Motel, royal clerk, was assigned to the district,

but I have found no evidence that he actually worked there. 88AD, Aveyron, 2 E.178.2, fol. 101, an entry dated 23 August 1310, which shows that two consuls of Najac spent two days in Villefranche discussing the subsidy with the king’s representatives (“ablos maestres per lo fah del subcidi que demandauo”). Another meeting with ‘the masters” was held at Saint-Antonin on 4 September; these two consuls and two colleagues again spent two days there: ibid., and see AC, Saint-Antonin, FF 2, a public instrument showing that two consuls of Saint-Antonin appeared before Philippe de Saint-Vérain at Peyrusse on 17 September 1310. On 18 November 1310 the consuls of Najac were again summoned to Ville-

franche to discuss with the commissioners various matters, including notaries and sergeants,

| and the two consuls returned to Villefranche on 30 November in response to a summons from the royal officials: AD, Aveyron, 2 E.178.2, fol. 101.

| PROTEST AND NEGOTIATION 169 the fines with royal officials.*® There is no evidence that he won a victory for his constituents on this issue, but the community’s dogged resistance did enable it to evade contributing to the marriage aid. At least some royal officials in the north were having success in collecting

the marriage aid. The local officials of Vermandois lacked the status possessed by the special commissioners, but as a result of their belligerence and the support the king gave them, they achieved substantial results. Their achievements were spectacular in the town of Saint-Quentin, which was obstinately resisting the attempts of the prévot of Saint-Quentin to collect the 4,000 I.t. demanded by the king on 31 April 1310. On 15 May the dazllz of Vermandois forwarded the royal orders to the prévét, and when the town refused payment, the prévét seized the property of various burgesses and sold it for 2,000 L.t. By early July 1310 the royal treasury had received the money, and on 15 July Philip declared immune from prosecution those who had purchased the confiscated goods.” The king did not allude to the additional 2,000 |. that the town still owed, perhaps because of the persuasive petition which the town laid before the royal treasury soon after the prévét’s high-handed action. Resignedly accepting the confiscation they had suffered, the inhabitants of Saint-Quentin eloquently attempted to persuade the government to take no more. As was usual in such circumstances, they painted a dismal picture of the town’s economic condition, in view of which, they argued, the government’s assessment was exorbitantly high. Responsibility for the town’s depressed state was naturally enough attributed to the king. Not only had the king failed to repay the many loans he had taken from the town, but he had also imposed particularly heavy war taxes and had forced the inhabitants to render armed service in Flanders on five occasions; during the campaign of Mons-en-Pévele in 1304 the town had supported two hundred sergeants for four months. Further, the town had suffered grievously from the king’s

capricious monetary mutations.*! The petitioners asserted that the town’s expenses on the king’s behalf amounted to 50,000 I.t. in good money; since taxes to cover this enormous sum would have driven all the inhabitants into bankruptcy, the town had been forced to incur heavy debts. Saint-Quentin still owed, and was paying interest on, 6,000 1.; it was liable for 4,000 1. in deposits or loans payable on demand” and for 1,000 1. in life rents. Increased 8°AD, Aveyron, 2 E.178.2, fols. 101v, 102v. The proctor was also to discuss tolls levied in the district, and on 30 October 1310 he secured a letter from the king regarding Nayac’s exemption from tolls: BN, n. a. f. 564, fols. 47v—48v. Lemaire, Saimt-Quentin, 1:194, no. 221; see Strayer, “Consent to Taxation,” p. 80. 91"... Monnoyes que li rois nos sires mua pour sa volenté”: Lemaire, Saimt-Quentin, 1:195, no. 222. *2On such deposits, which were generally interest-free, see Raymond de Roover, Money, Banking and Credit in Mediaeval Bruges (Cambridge, Mass., 1948), pp. 248-50.

170 CHAPTER V interest rates made the town’s plight even more grave: the rates were rising as high as thirty percent from the eight percent maximum that had formerly prevailed. To escape total ruin, the town humbly prayed the king’s officials to rest content with the 2,000 |. already taken, or at least to moderate their

demands. The royal treasury responded by promising to investigate the town’s numerous complaints, provided the 2,000 |. were handed over at once. As has been seen, this sum was deposited in Paris by the beginning of July. With money in hand, the treasury officials conveniently disregarded their pledge and, without any inquiry into the town’s finances, in ensuing months tried to force the town to pay an additional 2,000 1. The mayor and jurés of Saint-Quentin turned to the king, who successfully temporized by ordering his officials in the Chamber of Accounts to take some reasonable action if the town’s allegations were true.°* This vague mandate, issued on 18 December 1310, predictably produced no results. Additional complaints

may have followed, for on 10 January 1311 the king ordered the bali of Vermandois to investigate and forward his recommendations to the Chamber of Accounts. The town was to be spared any further demands until additional

instructions were issued.°* The outcome of the investigation is unknown, but Saint-Quentin probably avoided paying any more for the aid. No formal exemption has survived, and it seems likely that the king, in his usual fashion,

avoided any direct pronouncement on the issue. Formal petitions lodged through regular judicial channels prompted the king to make some more definite commitments. The hardships caused by rains and floods that swept the country in 1310% produced pleas for mercy, one of which reached the Parlement. In response the king granted at least two temporary remissions in the spring of 1311, despite the treasury’s need for funds.*” These orders, which specified no limit of time, were issued for Saint-Léonard-de-Noblat, a community in the Limousin within Hugues de 7 emaire, Saimt-Quentin, 1:195, no. 222. Tbid., 1:197-98, no. 224, issued on 18 December 1310 at Fontainebleau. sIbid., 1:211, no. 231. Vitae, ed. Baluze, 1:67-70. Toulouse, Albi, and Carcassonne were particularly hard hit, and in 1311 a serious epidemic swept Toulouse and the surrounding district. As the king’s mandates show, the north was also suffering in 1311. Announcing postponements of payment for the Limousin and Senlis, the king said he was taking action “attendentes sterilitatem temporis

presentis qua nostri subditi hiis diebus prochdolor multipliciter opprimuntur”: AN, JJ 42A, fol. 122, no. 138; Fawtier, Registres, 1:no. 886 (28 March 1311, at Paris). On 15 April 1311 the king peremptorily commanded the seneschal of Carcassonne to collect the fines imposed in the current session of the Parlement and send the money to the treasury in Paris as soon as possible: AN, JJ 59, fols. 208-10, no. 270; Fawtier, Registres, 2:no. 3091.

PROTEST AND NEGOTIATION 171 La Celle’s district, and for the dependents of the church of Saint-Denis living in Gouvieux, near Senlis.%

If the king granted temporary remissions in case of special need and tolerated reductions of payment, he did not compromise his ultimate right to the levy or put a general halt to collection. Despite the dearth suffered in some parts of the realm, levy of the aid began in the dazlliage of Orléans in mid-January 1311.9? Further, in the two letters of remission awarded in

the spring of 1311, the king emphasized the graciousness of his act and staunchly maintained his subjects’ liability for the aid. Similarly, orders regarding the aid that were sent to the bad/liage of Orléans on 6 October 1311 implicitly affirmed the duty of all barons, justiciars, and tenants of royal domain land to pay the aid. The letter made no explicit pronouncement on the ticklish question of the king’s rights over the subjects of these people. Nonetheless, the king clearly held that he possessed extensive authority, since the daz//z was told not only to take as much as possible from the royal tenants,'°° but also to collect from the barons’ and justiciars’ dependents the amounts paid when these lords levied marriage aids themselves.'®' Although, as in Normandy and Alencon, this arrangement probably resulted from negotiations between royal officials and the lords, the king did not state that

the lords had gained immunity for themselves by shifting the burden of payment to their subjects, and the mandate could have been interpreted as warrant for claiming aids directly from the subjects of the king’s tenants.!” Philip evidently wanted to protect the right he claimed to levy the aid from the free subjects of ecclesiastics; in this case as well he avoided any declarations that might compromise his long-term interests. On 15 April 1311 he diplomatically confirmed for churches of the diocese of Nevers the exemption of various sorts of ecclesiastical property from the aid. Royal subsidy collectors were to take nothing from churches and monasteries; they were to make no demands of lands and other domanial property held directly

by the establishments or exploited by any people, whether serfs or free, The letter for Saint-Léonard was issued on 28 March 1311: Fawtier, Regestres, 1:no. 886. The mandate for Gouvieux, identical with this letter, was issued in the Parlement on 15 May 1311: Olim, 2:514-15, no. VI; Boutaric, Actes, no. 3845. Mignon, no. 1560. The dad//i and receiver of Orléans, assisted by Jean de Amzeriis, directed collection. loo’ | | juxta incolarum ipsarum exigentiam facultatem”: Ordonnances, 11:423; Nicolas Brussel, Nouvel examen de lusage général des fiefs en France ... (Paris, 1727), 2:898; AN, P 2290, . 209.

/ 'o\See the sources cited in the preceding note. For comments on the significance of the decree, see Perroy, “Une émeute fiscale,” p. 64, whose interpretation differs from mine. 1022As in Alencon no distinction was drawn between direct and rear-vassals. In the Orléanais,

however, only the subjects of property-holders possessing judicial rights—not all propertyholders—were to be asked for contributions.

172 CHAPTER V who were tallageable at will and owed mainmorte to the establishments.'” No other categories of land or persons were excluded. The royal letter thus implied that the aid was owed by all holding lands rented out by the establishments and by all who were subject to the establishments on conditions other than those enumerated. In effect, then, the king was asserting in the diocese of Nevers virtually the same rights that the Parlement had confirmed for Normandy on 21 March 1310. In the diocese of Nevers, as in Normandy, the way was open for royal officials to collect the subsidy from subjects of ecclesiastics.

This issue affected all ecclesiastics of the kingdom, and in the fall of 1311 two of France’s most important establishments, the abbey of SaintDenis and the chapter of Notre-Dame of Paris, were taking steps to prove their subjects’ legal immunity from the aid. The temporary restraining order

that the king had issued for the abbey’s subjects in Gouvieux, far from satisfying the abbey, seems to have made the house eager to secure formal definition of its rights. Their initial success may indeed have encouraged the monks to attempt to obtain the most favorable possible interpretation of their liberties, for the abbey, and the chapter of Notre-Dame as well, apparently aimed to secure complete immunity for all their subjects, whether of free or of servile status.'!°* In November 1311 representatives of the _ abbey and chapter approached Guillaume de Nogaret, then with the king at Longchamp, to protest against the royal demands and to announce that they possessed and intended to exhibit privileges protecting their subjects from any contribution to the aid. On 20 November Nogaret approved a letter apprising royal officials of these claims and forbidding action until further notice.'° ‘This form letter was recorded in the registers of the Parlement, which indicates that the ecclesiastics intended to pursue their case in court. The prestige of these establishments and the royal privileges they possessed may possibly have convinced the king and his ministers of the wisdom of settling the issue extrajudicially.' There is no evidence that the suits were ever resolved before the Parlement, although, on the other hand, cases argued 'osFlamare, “Quelques actes,” pp. 50, 55. On the status of the dependents mentioned in the act, see Léo Verriest, Institutions médtévales. Introduction au ‘Corpus des records de coutumes

et des lois de chefs-lieux de Pancien comté de Hainaut’, 1 (Mons, 1946), 61-64, 204-9. '0"The Norman petition and subsequent decision applied to “‘liberas personas laycales dicti ducatus subjectas eisdem vel tenentes ab eis”: the clergy of Paris and Saint-Denis were claiming immunity, more generally, for “homines de terra ipsorum”: Olzm, 2:503, 515. See above, pp. 159, 171. 'SOfim, 2:515, no. VII; Boutaric, Actes, no. 3896. '0¢"The problem that Philip the Fair faced in dealing with churches subject to him was hardly unique. On 20 December 1317 Amauri, viscount of Narbonne, thanked the abbey of Fontfroide for permitting him to take a retrodecima from its dependents in two villages, despite the fact

that he had no legal right to collect any such tax when he married his daughters: BN, Doat 59, fols. 265-67.

PROTEST AND NEGOTIATION 173 in the royal court sometimes left no traces. La Rochelle, like the abbey of Saint-Denis and the cathedral chapter of Paris, attempted in 1311 to win exemption from the marriage aid before the Parlement, but its efforts are known only because the indefatigable Hugues de La Celle persuaded the town’s officials to come to terms with the king before their case was decided.

When La Rochelle commenced its litigation is not clear. The suit was clearly in progress when Hugues showed the officials of La Rochelle his royal mandates authorizing him to collect the marriage aid and fines for the acquisition of fiefs in Saintonge. Hugues demanded that the inhabitants either relinquish all noble property they held or pay appropriate fines; he asserted that they were all bound to contribute to the aid. The people of La Rochelle

firmly denied any liability for the aid and claimed to have presented their privileges, liberties, and defenses to the Parlement. Hugues was not deterred by these arguments, and in the end his tactics again proved effective. He somehow convinced the municipal officers that they would be well advised to avoid “the path of litigation with the king” and to attempt instead “to retain his good will.” They finally granted 4,500 |. of the money then in circulation.'°” In return, Hugues de La Celle promised that the king would confirm all acquisitions of noble fiefs and rear-fiefs which the townspeople had made before 12 February 1312, the date of the agreement. He also pledged that even if the Parlement held them liable for the aid, they would be quit of any additional obligation. The burgesses paid 1,000 1.t. at once, and, on Hugues’s instructions, the money was given to an agent of Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke, a creditor of the king.!°° The remainder of the 4,500 1. was to be paid at specified terms. Hugues promised that the king would confirm the agreement, sealing it with green wax to testify to its permanence; such a letter was in fact issued in May 1312.' The registers of the Parlement contain no record of the outcome of this case, but later events suggest that the suit was not settled, for the town was still attempting to establish its immunity from the customary aids in 1313 and 1318. Persistence finally triumphed, and the Parlement eventually pronounced 1n favor of La Rochelle, but repeated appearances in court were necessary to achieve this victory.!!° ov’... viam litigii adversus dominum regem evitare volentes et ipsius benivolenciam retinere desiderantes”: “Documents ... Saintonge,” ed. Guérin, p. 70. osIbid., p. 71, esp. n. 1. On Aymer, see Phillips, Aymer de Valence, passim, and esp. pp. 22-37, for Aymer’s relations with Edward I and Edward II from 1296 to June 1312; and Davies, Baronial Opposition, pp. 111-12. See Favier, Enguerran, pp. 122, 124, 148, for Aymer’s relations with Enguerran de Marigny in 1313; and also Charles-Victor Langlois, “Le fonds de V Ancient Correspondence au Public Record Office de Londres,” Journal des Savants (1904), 452.

os" Documents ... Saintonge,” ed. Guérin, pp. 69-71, no. XXXV; Fawtier, Registres, 1:no. 1527. For the significance of different colors of wax used for sealing royal acts, see Arthur Giry, Manuel de diplomatique (Paris, 1894), p. 643. '10In 1334 the Parlement declared La Rochelle exempt from the knighting aid then being

174 CHAPTER V The Parlement continued to hear cases connected with the marriage aid, although after 1313 the aid imposed for the knighting of Philip the Fair’s eldest son, Louis of Navarre, became the royal court’s primary concern. A case concerning the marriage aid that was still being fought in 1314 involved the same questions of clerical privilege raised by the ecclesiastics of Normandy and the diocese of Nevers, the abbey of Saint-Denis, and the chapter of Notre-Dame of Paris. In this instance, however, the king was not directly affected, since the parties to the dispute were the prior of Saint-Eloi of Paris

and the prévét of the water merchants of Paris. The prévét, one of the collectors of the aid, had taken pledges from the hospztes'"' of the lands of Saint-Eloi as a guarantee that they would pay their share of the subsidy. Like other ecclesiastics, the prior of Saint-Eloi claimed that these people were immune from any such levy. Presenting his privileges, he demanded that all property which had been taken in pledge be restored until the suit was settled. Despite the prévét’s counterarguments, the court decreed that

all such property should be returned to the prior, who was required to provide sufficient surety.!!2 Whether this procedural victory was followed by any further triumph is unknown, but it seems on the whole unlikely that any hospites of Saint-Eloi were forced to pay the aid. The merchants of Paris took to the Parlement their claim that Italian and Lombard merchants and changers residing in Paris should contribute to both the marriage and the knighting aids. Why the merchants believed in 1313 that these people should pay such levies is uncertain, for an earlier decision rendered by the Parisians themselves indicated that Lombards owed the marriage aid only if they had become burgesses of Paris before the aid was imposed.'!3 In 1313 and 1314, however, the Parisians maintained that all Lombard and Italian merchants owed the aids. The Italians countered that they had no such obligation, since their payment of a special commercial tax guaranteed them immunity from all other tallages, loans, and impositions except those imposed on real property. Although the prévét of the merchants cited royal and municipal judgments and decrees against various Italians, the Parlement finally recognized the validity of the royal privilege granted to the Italians and declared them exempt from the aid.'!* collected; its decision was said to be based on earlier arresta in favor of the town, which must mean that the suit initiated in 1318 was eventually successful: AN, X'! 7, fol. 11, no. C/XX, published in Brown, “Customary Aids,” pp. 252-53, and see also pp. 229-30. ''On this designation, see Verriest, Institutions, pp. 153-59; and Duby, L économie rurale, 1:154, 157 (Rural Economy, pp. 76, 78). '2Olim, 2:589, no. I; Boutaric, Actes, no. 4199 (14 January 1314). '13.e Roux de Lincy, Histotre de [’'Hotel de ville, pt. 2, Appendix, p. 171.

'4Olim, 2:607-8, no. XXI; Boutaric, Actes, no. 4258 (26 March 1314). For the tax of “denarius, obolus et picta de libra” that the Italians were paying, and for the privileges that the king granted them in return, see Ordonnances, 11:377-79, and John Bell Henneman, Jr., ‘Taxation of Italians by the French Crown (1311-1363),” Mediaeval Studies, 31 (1969), 21.

PROTEST AND NEGOTIATION 175 In 1320 another case involving the marriage aid was pending before the Parlement. The mayor and jurés of Noyon had sued various inhabitants of the town for contributions to the aid, but because of procedural defects, inquests were still being held to determine liability.!'* Once again, the final

outcome of the case is unknown, but such litigation as this goes far to explain why the accounts of the marriage aid remained unsettled for many years.

The zeal of the municipal officers to defend their towns’ interests. was matched by the determination of royal officers to see that the aid was paid. On 1 May 1313 the king appointed three commissioners to investigate and arrange fines for the illegal acquisition of fiefs and the usurpation of royal rights in the seneschalsies of Toulouse and Carcassonne. The commission was impressive, composed of three experienced royal servants: Alain de Lamballe, bishop of Saint-Brieuc; Jean de Blainville, seneschal of Toulouse; and Aimeri de Cros, seneschal of Carcassonne. Their mandate did not specifically mention collection of arrears of past taxes, but the commissioners, evidently aware of the king’s need, interpreted their mandate broadly.'!6 In January 1314 one of the commissioners rather modestly described their assignment as inquiry “into fiefs, rear-fiefs, royal rights, and other matters described in their commission,”!!” but a month earlier, in December 1313, the bishop of Saint-Brieuc had termed himself royal commissioner “for the reformation of the land and the correction of officials,”!!® and in March 1314 the commissioners referred to themselves grandiosely as “general commissioners appointed by his royal majesty to inquire into royal rights and SAN, X'* 5, fols. 18v-19v; Boutaric, Actes, no. 5977. ''6For the commission, see HL, 10:preuves, cols. $33-34; Fawtier, Registres, 1:no. 2189. The commissioners’ activities are described in HL, 9:340-41, where Vic and Vaissete wrongly indicate that they were empowered to deal with the marriage aid. For the fines they imposed

for the illegal acquisition of fiefs, see Mignon, nos. 1877 and 1880, and BN, LanguedocBénédictins 192, no. 66. In 1313 Jean de Blainville led troops to Flanders, and in July 1314 he permitted two royal notaries to atone for crimes of which they were accused by paying a fine of 100 1. These actions must have been taken by virtue of his authority as seneschal of Toulouse, since the royal commission of 1 May 1313 stipulated that the bishop of Saint-Brieuc must participate in all acts performed by virtue of the commission: BN, Languedoc-Bénédictins 159, fol. 10; Mignon, no. 1565; Fawtier, Registres, 2:no. 3043. In January and February 1314 the bishop of Saint-Brieuc and Aimeri de Cros negotiated financial settlements involving municipal privileges; in March they arranged the farming of the royal revenues of Carcassonne:

Fawtier, Registres, 1:nos. 2189, 2191; HZ, 10:preuves:534-35; AN, JJ 50, fols. 6-7, no. 3; Fawtier, Registres, 2:no. 162.

117° |, , ad partes senescallie Carcassone pro reformatione patrie et curialium correctione una cum domino senescallo Carcassone a magestate regia deputatus”: Le /rure de comptes de Jacme Olivier, ed. Blanc, p. 717.

lis’ |, . super feudis / et retrofeudis ac Iuribus regiis perquirendis / et aliis contentis in eorum potestate et commissione per dominum Regem eis factam’”’: AN, JJ 50, fol. 1.

176 CHAPTER V to reform the country.””!!® Failure to pay such a tax as the marriage aid could,

strictly speaking, be considered an attempt to usurp royal rights by withholding from the king money that was rightfully his, and the industrious and ambitious commissioners seem to have been prepared to view the offense in this light. The officials’ interest in the tax may be in part attributable to the failure of the original commissioners to press vigorously for collection of the aid in these seneschalsies.

The community of Lautrec, situated some fifty kilometers east of Toulouse, was particularly vulnerable. Lautrec had not contributed to the marriage aid; further, its rights of self-government were less than firmly established and therefore open to challenge. The commissioners determined to call the community to account on both issues. As a preliminary step, they suspended its prerogatives and took them into the king’s hand. Seeking a solution to their difficulties, the inhabitants of Lautrec approached the commissioners. At their request the bishop of Saint-Brieuc and the seneschal of Carcassonne on 24 January 1314 instructed the royal prévét of Réalmont to summon before 9 February an assembly of the inhabitants of Lautrec and the other communities within the town’s jurisdictional orbit. At the meeting proctors were to be named to appear before the commissioners in ‘Toulouse;

they were to be given power to discuss the marriage aid as well as the district’s governmental rights and, further, to conclude a binding financial settlement.!2° Four days later the prévot duly transmitted these orders to the sergeants of the court of Lautrec; he also sent three rolls listing communities that were to be ordered to name “six, eight, or four men, depending on the size of the community,” to appear in Lautrec on 5 February to implement the commissioners’ orders.'?! Summonses were issued, and the prévot was 119 | commissarii generales pro Iuribus Regiis perquirendis / et reformatione patrie a Regia magestate deputati”: AN, JJ 50, fol. 6. 120 |, ad Supplicationem ex parte Communitatis Lautrici, et Lautrigesii nobis factam vobis mandamus quathenus apud Lautricum trasferen. [szc] faciatis ibidem praeconisari publice quod omnes de dicto castro, et caeterae personae de singulis villis Lautrigesii, prout est in similibus consuetum certa die per vos. Infra octauam instantis festi Purificationis beatae mariae Virginis praefigenda, se congregent apud Lautricum, ad constituendum scindicum, seu Scindicos, aut propterea quot voluerint, ad veniendum, et comparendum coram nobis, et nobiscum nomine — domini Regis, de subsidio per nos ab eis petito ratione Maritagii filiae domini nostri Regis, et

de facto Consulatus Lautrici, et Lautrigesii, nunc in manu Regia existentis tractandum, et componendum finandum ac ipsos pro financia Regi Soluenda obligand. [sc] atque sua, cum stipulationibus, et renuntiationibus ad haec opportunis”: BN, Doat 248, fols. 44v-45, issued

at12Toulouse. , |, de Singulis villis Lautrigesii scriptis, et contentis, in tribus rotulis papiri, nostro

sigillo sigillatis sex, vel octo, vel quatuor homines probos viros cuiuslibet villae, prout quantitas dictae Villae requiret citetis, et peremptorie, vt die Martis proxima post instans festum Puri_ ficationis beatae Mariae, apud Lautricum personaliter compareant coram nobis super praedictis , contentis in dictis litteris dictorum dominorum tractaturi et facturi quod fuerit rationis”: ibid., fol. 46.

PROTEST AND NEGOTIATION 177 in Lautrec on the appointed day. There he met eighty-one deputies from twenty-six communities of the district and some two hundred inhabitants of Lautrec, who according to popular consensus (and probably in fact) constituted two-thirds of the community.'*? These people selected as the district’s syndics ten inhabitants of Lautrec and single representatives from each of the eleven communities dependent on Lautrec. As the commissioners had required, the proctors were given extensive authority. They were empowered to effect settlements and were also specifically granted the right to obligate the inhabitants of the communities and all their property.'?? Such a broad grant of authority was extraordinary; it suggests that the people of Lautrec were anxious to come to terms quickly with the king’s officials. The trust placed in the proctors may also reflect the constituents’ awareness that with negotiations to take place in the immediate neighborhood, they could supervise and, if necessary, direct their agents’ moves.'*+ The cir-

cumstances were quite different from those faced by the communities of Périgord and Quercy in 1309, and the proctors’ broad powers, the threat to Lautrec’s autonomy, and the absence of clear grounds for claiming immunity from the aid may well have produced prompt settlement of the issues—to the government’s distinct advantage. 3. THE YIELD OF THE MarRIAGE AID

Collection of the marriage aid dragged on for years. Even when collectors’ accounts were submitted promptly, arrears remained to be levied, and complex litigation often ensued. The accounts of the dbazlliages of Caen and Coutances were submitted on 21 December 1310, and something more than 300 |.t. was required to settle the collector’s account—although in his inventory of 1325-28 Mignon noted that the account did not seem correct. In the region of Paris an account rendered on 12 March 1311 showed that

at that point more than 4,000 |.par. remained to be levied in the city and '22]bid., fols. 47-50. Four of the dependent communities sent only a single deputy, despite the prévot’s command. The community of Laboulbéne alone sent as many as seven represen-

tatives. For evidence of the reliability of proportions of the total population given in such documents as this, see Monique Gramain, “La communauté de Puissalicon (1250-1350),” Fedération historique du Languedoc méditerranéen et du Roussillon, XLUIIe Congrés (Béziers, 30-

31 mai 1970), Beziers et le Biterrots (Montpellier, 1971), p. 171, esp. n. 43.

123 |. ad veniendum, et comparendum. Coram dictis Dominis Episcopo et Senescallo Carcassonae domini Regis, et cum ipsos nomine domini Regis de Subsidio per ipsos ab vniuersitate praedicta petito, ratione Maritagii filiae Domini nostri Regis, et cum ipsis domini [sic] de facto Consulatus Lautrici et Lautrigesii nunc in manu Regia existentis, tractandum et componendum, finandum, ac ipsos, vt Scindicos et dictam Vniuersitatem, pro finantia domino Regi Soluenda, obligand. [s#c] atque sua cum stipulationibus et renuntiationibus ad haec oportunis”: BN, Doat 248, fols. 50v—51. '24See Brown, “Representation,” pp. 351-53, 360-61.

178 CHAPTER V viscounty. Paris itself had paid approximately three-quarters of the 10,000 l.par. promised in 1308, with 2,643 |. 7 s.par. still outstanding.!*° Levying arrears was complicated when accounts were not audited until

years later. For the bai/liage of Tours, the account was approved on 22 August 1318, and at that time about 4,000 I.t. were still to be collected. If this was ever done, no record was readily available in the Chamber of Accounts before Mignon completed his inventory in 1328.'7° When the accounts of the baz/liage of Caux were rendered on 29 October 1333, more

than 1,500 It. were still due. On 11 March 1324 the full accounts of the bailliage of Orléans were audited, and although the collectors owed just 16 l.par. of good money to clear their account, only one of the original officials was still alive to pay the debt. One of the accounts of the bas//zage of Gisors was terminated on 23 June 1322, and of the sums imposed in the viscounty

of Verneuil over 1,200 I.t. remained unpaid; the general account of the bailliage was closed on 8 September 1326, and the receiver was declared quit, but many sums were said to be recoverable from the district.!2’ For nine bazlliages and seneschalsies, scrupulously named, Mignon listed

no accounts whatsoever. For nine other areas, the accounts were notably deficient.'!?8 Thomas de Marfontaines, for one, owed a final account and supporting schedules for Sens. As he noted of other regions, Mignon remarked of Sens that much was lacking that would be worth adding. The only areas, in fact, for which accounting seems to have been complete were the bailliage of Vermandois and the lands of the dowager queen, Marie of Brabant; only for her lands does Mignon indicate the total receipt.!° For many taxes Mignon’s inventory furnishes enough information to permit educated estimates concerning their profitability. As regards the mar-

riage aid, however, he gives only two sums as the total yields of districts. The first, 400 |.t., produced by the lands of Marie of Brabant, was received in the treasury in the All Saints’ term of 1311. The second sum, more than 19,000 1.t., proffered by Gérard Tronquiere, was the fruit of Hugues de La Celle’s work in Poitou, the Limousin, Saintonge, and the Angoumois. If the figures are accurate, Hugues’s receipts were strikingly impressive: the sum total is roughly forty percent of the amount paid by Poitou and Saintonge

'25Mignon, nos. 1566, 1555. , , 26Tbid., pp. xxui-iv, and no. 1563. '27Ibid., nos. 1565, 1560, 1567-68.

28Ibid., nos. 1556, 1576-83, the areas said to lack accounts: Senlis, Auvergne, Quercy, Toulouse, Rouergue, Carcassonne, Beaucaire, Périgord, and Lyon (concerning which Mignon remarked “Non erat regis, [ut] credo”). See ibid., nos. 1558-59, 1561-62, 1564, 1569-72, for

: the areas to whose accounts “many things were to be added”: Amiens, Sens, Macon, Bourges, Rouen, Troyes, Meaux, Vitry, and Chaumont. Cf. above, pp. 72-74 (Carcassonne), 92 n. 95, and 154 (Rouen).

12°For Sens, ibid., no. 1559; for Vermandois, no. 1557; for Marie’s lands, no. 1584. |

PROTEST AND NEGOTIATION 179 for the burdensome war tax of 1304.'° To be sure, the tax of 1304 was collected in currency worth much less than the money circulating in 1310, but Mignon’s figures nonetheless indicate that the yield of the marriage aid

was substantial. Some caution, however, is in order, since the sum may include other receipts. Mignon says that Gérard Tronqui¢re accounted for the money “per compotum suum superius,” and the compotus in question seems to be an account that included payments of the marriage aid as well as fines for the acquisition of fiefs, forfeitures, and other fines imposed by Hugues de La Celle and his associates.'3! This account was approved in October 1319, when Tronquiere was said to owe almost 12,800 l.t. in good money; many unpaid debts were also signaled. There is therefore no assurance that the total yield given by Mignon for Poitou, the Limousin, Saintonge, and the Angoumois consisted only of proceeds of the marriage aid. As this entry shows, less than a third of the receipts seem to have reached the treasury before 1320.!* Some of the revenue produced by the aid was assigned to other sources before it could reach the treasury. Officers of the king’s household recovered more than 16,500 |.t. from agents in the Paris region; those levying the aid in Paris itself made at least one loan of 1,000 I.t. from the money they had gathered and they disbursed other sums at the king’s command.'?? As has '°Tbid., nos. 1573-75; see Strayer, “Consent to Taxation,” p. 79. '31Mignon, p. 197 n. 1, and no. 1416. Tronquiére’s earlier account is included under Mignon’s listing of “Scripta centesime, mutuorum, quinquagesime, decimarum et aliarum subventionum pro subsidio regni que non potuerunt poni in locis propriis” (see ibid., p. 168). Immediately preceding the entry listing the various items for which Tronquiére accounted (ibid., no. 1416) is a description of an account of Hugues de La Celle (ibid., no. 1415) for various subsidies, inquests, and trips from 1309 to 1316 in the seneschalsy of Saintonge, the bailliage of Limousin, and elsewhere; the account was audited on 7 August 1319 and was approved six days later, when Hugues was said to be owed almost 1,000 I.t. in good money. Two later entries (ibid., nos. 1573-74) refer to three expense accounts of Hugues de La Celle and seven rolls of petty expenses incurred in connection with the aid; the three expense accounts, Mignon noted, were attached to “the said account” of Tronquiere. This account may well have been the one that he rendered for the war subsidy of 1315 levied in the districts of Saintonge, Limousin, Angouléme, and Brive: ibid., nos. 1672-78; see also p. 196 n. 6. 321 bid., no. 1416.

'33Mignon, no. 1555, recording payments of some 9,000 l.par. “et plus ... pro hospitio regis per cedulam Reginaldi de Royaco,” and of more than 4,000 L.par. “per cedulas magistri Anselli de Morgnevalle, et magistri Radulphi de Paredo et aliorum.” See ibid., no. 1986, for Renaud de Roye’s position as master of the royal hospitium, and see Les Journaux ... Philippe IV, ed. Viard, col. 843 n. 2, for his position as royal treasurer from November 1307 and for his death early in 1312. In 1308-9 Raoul de Paray was associated with the household of the king’s children, in 1312 with that of the king himself: CR (1285-1314), nos. 15515, 27862. In 1314, then chanter of Meaux, he was named an executor of the will of Blanche, great-aunt of

Philip the Fair: Henri-Frangois Delaborde, “Une oeuvre nouvelle de Guillaume de SaintPathus,” BEC 63 (1902), 263 n. 1. In 1312 Ansel de Morgnevalle was associated with the king’s

pantry: CR (1285-1314), no. 15514. The loan of 1,000 It. (Mignon, no. 1555) was made to

180 CHAPTER V been seen, Hugues de La Celle, doubtless in response to royal instructions, ordered 1,000 |. of the fine imposed on La Rochelle to be paid to an agent of Aymer de Valence.'* The fragmentary evidence that survives precludes any estimation of the total yield of the marriage aid. Whether contemporaries would have been better able to calculate the king’s profit from the aid is difficult to say. To judge from Mignon’s inventory, the balancing of accounts necessary for such calculation would have been arduous, and there is no indication that such steps were ever taken. The evidence nonetheless indicates that the aid

produced enough to justify the time and expense required to collect it. Leaving aside the sums totaling almost 12,330 I.t. that Mignon lists as debts collectible, his inventory shows that more than 17,500 |.t. had been gathered in the city and viscounty of Paris by the spring of 1311. Since at that juncture Paris had paid something more than 9,000 1.t., the viscounty had contributed over 8,000 L.t.!35 In addition, royal officials working in Rouen, Carcassonne,

Saint-Quentin, and La Rochelle had negotiated payments (including the cancellation of a large royal debt) that amounted to almost 40,000 L-t.

The aid produced substantial profit—far more than the insignificant amounts the kings of England could obtain from the carefully regulated aids they were limited to imposing in their lands. Advisers of Philip VI of Valois

later remarked that subsidies for wars, knightings, and marriages never yielded enough to cover the costs of the enterprises and ceremonies for which they were raised.'*¢ Still, they did not suggest that collection of such levies should be terminated. Any profit could be put to good use, and continued collection of the taxes emphasized the king’s right to exact them and his sovereign power over the realm. If Philip the Fair paid no dowry for his daughter, most of what he gathered represented clear gain. The moral theologians held that those who collected aids were bound to spend them for the ends for which they had been imposed, but these teachings did not move Philip to limit his demands for money or to restore any proceeds of the tax. They may, however, have curbed his desire to extend liability for

payment to all inhabitants of the realm. Whatever the initial hopes and expectations of the king and his advisers,

the levy of the marriage aid did not result in any grand extension of the prerogative. As had been the case in 1285, the king was able to secure grants

Pierre de Maumont, for whose relations with the king at this time see Fawtier, Regéstres, 1:nos. 867-69, 1915, 1955, 2041; Olam, 3:764, no. XLIX. — B4See above, p. 173.

'35Mignon, no. 1555.

Arthur de Boislisle, “Le budget et la population de la France sous Philippe de Valois,” ABSHF (1875), 93; Henri Moranvillé, ‘““Rapports 4 Philippe VI sur l’état de ses finances,” BEC

48 (1887), 380-81, 390-95.

PROTEST AND NEGOTIATION 181 from territories, communities, ecclesiastical establishments, and individuals directly subject to his authority, but the situation was different and more difficult when lands and subjects were separated from his immediate control by even one intermediate lord. In return for a generous settlement Philip the Fair eventually abandoned his position that all Normans owed the aid, although he succeeded in establishing his claim to payment from the free subjects of ecclesiastics, first in Normandy and then in other parts of the realm. Philip intimated that all property holders in Alengon were liable, but

the issue was not joined. No royal right was established, since in fact all such people were excused from paying the levy. In the dadliage of Orléans a different stand was taken. The royal decree concerning collection of the tax in the daz/liage implied that all those with judicial authority owed the aid, while leaving indefinite the liability of such lords’ dependents; the king’s instructions still called into question the lords’ right to act as intermediaries

, between the king and their own dependents. Philip’s victory over the ecclesiastics and this timid advance were all he and his advisers achieved in the realm of principle. They established no global rules applicable throughout the kingdom. Their failure to do so may have resulted from hesitancy to flaunt tradition or from pangs of conscience as well as from conviction that the government stood to gain most from a fluid policy permitting and encouraging such compromises as those arranged by Hugues de La Celle. Lands and people subject to the highest ranking lords of the kingdom generally escaped the aid. True, royal collectors gathered at least 400 I.t.

before the end of 1311 in the territory of the dowager queen, Marie of Brabant.'3’ Her situation was, however, exceptional. Although her dower lands formed a specially privileged enclave for which she owed no homage or fealty and over which she possessed extensive judicial rights,'** she was either unwilling or unable to resist the king’s demands; similarly, 1n earlier years royal commissioners had entered her lands to collect war taxes and to seize property belonging to the Jews.'?° Likewise, because of his strained

finances, Charles of Valois was unable to protect his county of Alengon from the king’s requirements, although the inhabitants of his other lands do not seem to have been forced to pay the aid. '37Mignon, no. 1584.

'38See above, p. 18 n. 27, for the rights of dowager queens over their dower lands. 439Mignon, nos. 1216, 2180. For the consent of Marie and her nobles to the tax of 1304 and the privileges they obtained in return, see Ordonnances, 1:412-13, and Fawtier, Registres, 1:no. 166. See Ordonnances, 3:677-78, for the similar terms on which Jeanne d’Evreux, widow of Charles IV, permitted John II to levy a war tax in 1353. For relations between Marie and

Philip the Fair, see Brown, “Prince Is Father,” pp. 301, 303, 321-26, 331, and Meredith Parsons Lillich, “European Stained Glass around 1300: The Introduction of Silver Stain,” Europdische Kunst um 1300. Akten des XXV. Internationaler Kongress fiir Kunstgeschichte. CIHA.

Wien 4.-10.9.1983 (Vienna, 1986), 6:47-48.

182 CHAPTER V The king’s personal relationships with his stepmother and his uncle made

them more vulnerable than others. Marie had never been on good terms with her stepson, and Charles was heavily dependent on his nephew for financial support and for assistance with his ambitious, extravagant schemes.

Other lords, of lesser status, were for various reasons able to protect their subjects from the royal collectors, accomplishing what the dowager queen and the count of Valois could not. As duke of Guyenne, Philip’s son-inlaw Edward, continuing his predecessors’ traditions, jealously defended his rights within the duchy. Alert to threats to the ducal prerogative, his officials successfully fended off the incursions of Hugues de La Celle and the sen-

eschal of Saintonge and prevented them from collecting the aid in ducal | lands in Saintonge. Philip the Fair may possibly have tried to raise the aid in Champagne, for Mignon’s inventory suggests that accounts from the area once existed.!*° This, however, is the only evidence that Philip advanced such demands in

the county that passed to Louis of Navarre in 1305.'*! Philip effectively controlled Champagne, but an aid for marrying the titular lord’s sister would have been difficult to defend there. '#? “Enquesteurs” working in 1309 near

Provins intervened in a dispute concerning a special tax being levied in Provins, but the tax had been imposed to provide a gift of 4,000 L.t. for Louis and his wife Marguerite of Burgundy,'*? not an aid for his sister’s marriage.

The county of Artois and the duchy of Burgundy were apparently altogether exempt from the aid. The inhabitants of those areas were already '0Mignon recorded for the bailliages of Champagne, “In his addenda sunt que deficiunt”’:

Mignon, nos. 1569-72. ,

'41When in January 1310 a settlement of Jeanne’s property was arranged between Louis and his two brothers, the brothers were required to do fealty and homage to Louis for the lands they received in the county: Fawtier, Regsstres, 1:no. 1451; Denis-Frangois Secousse, “Mémoire sur l’union de la Champagne et de la Brie a la couronne de France,” Mémoires de littérature tirés des registres de l’'Académie royale des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres depuis année

M.D.CCXLI, jusques et compris Pannée M.D.CCXLITI, 17 (1751), 296. Fines for the illegal acquisition of fiefs collected in Champagne in the fall of 1314 were levied in the name of the king of Navarre: BN, Champagne 25, fol. 139. See above, p. 91, and below, pp. 190-92. '42See above, p. 47 n. 47, and below, pp. 183-84.

, 18 Actes et comptes de Provins de l’an 1271 a Pan 1330, ed. Maurice Prou and Jules d’Auriac (Provins, 1933~35), 1:220. The tax seems to have been imposed in late August 1308, when Louis was in the area and when Provins obtained a confirmation of its charters (sealed in green wax on a silken cord and similar to confirmations obtained from the kings of France and Queen Jeanne): ibid., 1:214. The town itself seems to have profited handsomely from the gift, since

its accounts indicate that at least 8,800 |. were collected: 1:218, 232. Some of the surplus, however, went to pay for food, entertainment, and additional presents when Louis and his wife

_ visited Provins to accept the gift: 1:213-17. The imposition was controversial, and municipal officials had difficulty securing payment, particularly from those who sought or claimed immunity: tbid., 1:214, 216, 219-20.

PROTEST AND NEGOTIATION 183 paying marriage aids to their own lords, and demands for an additional royal

aid would have been particularly unpopular. The people of Artois were especially burdened. In 1307 they had paid an aid for the marriage of the eldest daughter of Mahaut of Artois to the king’s second son; the very next year they were called on to provide for the marriage of Mahaut’s second

daughter to Philip the Fair’s third son.'* , In the duchy of Burgundy, Hugues V was attempting to levy an aid for

his sister Blanche’s marriage from the whole duchy, a rash venture, especially since Blanche’s engagement had not occurred until eighteen months after the death of her father, Robert II, on 21 March 1306, and her marriage to the count of Savoy did not take place until 17 October 1307.'*5 Even though

he had no warrant for taking an aid for the marriage of a sister, Hugues V pressed ahead. Controversy predictably ensued, and in 1310 and 1311 a case involving the aid was argued before the Parlement of Paris. There the duke’s lawyer confronted royal advocates, who were collaborating with the abbot

of Cluny, the Cluniac prior of Fleurey-sur-Ouche, and the town of Fleurey.'*° Curiously, the old issue of jurisdiction eclipsed the more flagrant question of Blanche’s relationship to Hugues. The duke’s proctor argued that all inhabitants of the duchy owed an aid for the marriage of the duke’s eldest daughter. Aside from clerics and those with special exemptions, all those subject to the duke’s final jurisdictional authority, lordship, sovereignty, guard, protection, command, and high justice were liable for the tax. The claim was based on the prescriptive right which, he asserted, the peers of France had established through long usage; the lawyer remarked that the king’s right to levy the aid for Isabelle’s marriage was more solidly grounded in this prescriptive right than in any special royal prerogative.'*” He was evidently intent on buttressing the duke’s position against arguments based on the ancient custom denying the liability of any save those immediately subject to the duke’s high justice. He seems to have overlooked his argument’s clear and dangerous implication that the king of France possessed within his kingdom (and hence within the duchy of Burgundy) the prescriptive right to collect aids from all those living under his ultimate sovereignty. But this question evidently was not an issue in the duke’s case against Fleurey. Supporting the interests of their clients, the king’s counsel and the other lawyers for the defense rejected out of hand the contentions of the duke’s

lawyers, whether or not they realized their potential value as a means of expanding the king’s prerogative. Holding that the crucial issue was pos'#4See above, pp. 23-25.

‘Petit, Ducs de Bourgogne, 7:2, 5, and 461-63, nos. 6149-55, 6159-64. ‘Richard, “Droit d’indire,” passim, esp. pp. 179-81. '“7Ibid., pp. 179-80, esp. items 1, 3, 6-10, 16-18.

184 CHAPTER V session of immediate, not ultimate, rights of justice, they maintained that the king, as special guardian of the priory of Fleurey, had immediate authority over the inhabitants of Fleurey, who thus owed no aid to the duke. Counsel for the defense also argued that an aid for the marriage of the duke’s

sister was illicit unless levied with the willing consent of the taxpayers, which, as was commonly known, justified collection of any levy.'** However persuasive these arguments, the duke seems finally to have won

his case and taken the aid from Fleurey. Here again the duke’s victory produced no resolution of principle, since the case was apparently settled on a point of fact when the duke demonstrated that all inhabitants of Fleurey

were under his special guard, sovereignty, and supreme jurisdictional authority, and within his barony. Indeed, the outcome of the case implicitly afirmed the validity of the position taken by the royal lawyer and his colleagues. The duke, and by extension the king, could find here no grounds for extending demands for the traditional aids to all inhabitants of the territories under his rule. Nor did the arguments settle Hugues’s doubts regarding the aid’s legitimacy.'*?

| It is little wonder that by 1311 Philip the Fair seems to have abandoned hope of implementing any such sweeping principle as that advanced by the lawyers of the duke of Burgundy. His tentative attempt to promote such a doctrine in Normandy had come to nothing, and his statements regarding the county of Alencon and the baz/iage of Orléans were inconclusive. He did establish a legal right to payments from the free subjects of ecclesiastics, but all other contributions came from those who were under his immediate judicial authority, who were bound by custom to pay, or who were somehow

persuaded to offer voluntary contributions. Grounds for more extensive demands were weak, and the Parlement, probably purposely, left obscure its reasons for upholding the royal claims over the free subjects of ecclesiastics. In this case, as in that of the Norman vassals, the king would surely have preferred to avoid issues of principle, had the ecclesiastics only agreed to bargain with his agents. The success the government achieved in collecting the aid for Isabelle’s marriage is attributable to the skill of royal officials at negotiation and intimidation and to their ability to operate within yet subtly manipulate the boundaries of custom. A few moves suggested that the king and his officials would have liked to break with tradition and introduce rules grounded in

a novel theory of the king’s relationship to his realm, foreshadowed by pronouncements of Louis [X and Alfonse of Poitiers.'%° Philip the Fair could have found some warrant for a more aggressive policy in declarations sanc“8]bid., p. 181. ‘9Tbid., p. 177, esp. n. 2. See above, p. 46. ‘SoC f. Stephenson, Mediaeval Institutions, p. 36.

PROTEST AND NEGOTIATION 185 tioned by his venerated grandfather, but despite his deep admiration for Louis,'5! he and his ministers did not invoke those dicta. Rather, compromise

and respect for generally accepted custom characterized the campaign to collect the marriage aid. When necessary and unavoidable, privileges were reviewed and adjudicated in formal judicial proceedings. In general, however, the king and his officers promoted negotiation. Those who were willing to bargain and to offer donations were regarded with far greater favor than were those who insisted on seeing rights determined and ambiguities clarified.

The campaign produced revenue for the royal treasury, precedents for the future, and an occasion for the king’s subjects to acquire experience in the arts of representation and negotiation. The levy did not, however, produce any precise definition of royal rights to simplify the work of royal officials who would be charged with collecting future aids. Nor did the campaign, however moderate the king’s policies, win the king favor or make

the aid seem tolerable. According to one contemporary, the nobles who protested against Philip the Fair’s policies at the end of his reign decried the aid as an outrage against custom and charged that Philip’s predecessors had never levied such a scandalous tax from their subjects. They warned that the king could scarcely hope for salvation after inflicting such evil on the kingdom.'*? The tactics of the royal commissioners and perhaps the threats implicit in some of the royal declarations had made an indelible impression. The king’s subjects, never happy to part with their funds, were as ready as ever to resist the monarchy’s demands for the traditional aids. '51See Brown, “Prince is Father,” pp. 305-15, 326-28. ‘20a chronique ... Geffroy, ed. Diverrés, pp. 215-16, vv. 6603-8, 6615-18:

... Et por quoy aras tu meson En ciel, qui donnes achoison A tes genz, qui n’est de coutume? Toute France de ire alume. Roy, encores as tu eti, Au mains l’ont ta gent receti... De ta fille le mariage. Un tel ne semblablé outrage Onques mes nul temps ne leverent

Les roys qui avant toi regnerent.

BLANK PAGE

VI. Customary Aids and Royal Policy in the Later Fourteenth Century The lessons the government had learned, the experience the king’s subjects had acquired, and the resentment and suspicion created by the levy of the marriage aid were hardly forgotten when Philip the Fair imposed a knighting aid in 1313. Litigation over the marriage aid had continued, and payments

were still being collected. The situation was further complicated by the threat of war with Flanders and the imposition of a tax to support military operations in the north. The moment for demanding another customary aid was inappropriate, but the king had clear warrant for a levy. At Pentecost his three sons were knighted in a splendid ceremony in which the citizens of Paris enthusiastically participated.

The levy of the new aid was characterized by the same temporizing, negotiation, compromise, and conflict that had marked the earlier campaign. No more than the collection of the marriage aid did the levy of the knighting

aid result in a decisive declaration of the king’s rights and his subjects’ liability. The realm continued to resent and resist, the government to press for compromise in order to avoid recourse to the courts. Nothing changed after the death of Philip the Fair on 29 November 1314 or during the brief reign of his son Louis X, who died on 5 June 1316. When in 1318 Philip

the Fair’s second son and namesake, Philip V, claimed a marriage aid on the occasion of his own daughter’s wedding, the same tactics were employed. Resistance inevitably followed.

With the advent of the Valois line in 1328, change occurred in this as in other areas. Far from bringing peace, however, the new policy provoked resistance of an intensity that had not been encountered under the last direct Capetians. In 1332 the first of the Valois rulers, Philip VI, demanded two traditional aids from the entire kingdom, thus reviving the extensive claims that since the days of Louis IX had occasionally been implied or openly asserted in royal declarations. Discontent erupted. The king’s partial retreat did not quiet resistance. Finally, in 1333 and 1334 the Parlement issued

| two decrees defining and limiting the king’s right to collect traditional aids. Declaring that the king could collect the aids only from inhabitants of the domain who were directly subject to him and annulling all special privileges,

the court effectively undermined the position that Philip VI had adopted. Although foreshadowed by some of the more conciliatory statements made by his predecessors, the court’s decrees were inspired by a different attitude to royal power and the significance of custom. By sanctioning the collection 187

188 CHAPTER VI | of the aids, the court recognized the force of tradition; by defining and restricting the rights of the king and of those who were specially privileged, the court demonstrated its ability to demarcate the boundaries within which custom might run. In endorsing these principles, the Valois Parlement revealed a penchant for definition and clarification. Its decisions signaled the

end of a time in which the kings and their officials, employing threats, bravado, and compromise, had exploited vagueness and ambiguity to expand the monarchy’s power and income.

| As Philip the Fair and his ministers might have predicted, definition brought a narrowing of the prerogative, but the king’s own intervention vitiated the effectiveness of his court’s decrees. Owing to Philip VI’s voluntary cancellation of the aids and the nature of the next aid, imposed for the ransom of the captive John II, the victory of principle was short-lived, and in the 1350s the government was once again voicing and enforcing claims similar to the sweeping statements made under Louis LX. Nonetheless,

neither the theoretical importance of the decrees of 1333 and 1334 nor the practical significance of their ineffectiveness should be underestimated. ‘The rise in the monarchy’s prestige and power that had begun with Louis IX, the divergent pronouncements that he and his successors had made, the restiveness with which demands for aids were greeted, the increased authority of the realm’s highest court—all explain the positions adopted by Philip VI and the rationalizing decrees of the Parlement, as well as the final revival and ultimate demise of the patriarchal conception of the king’s authority that inspired the demand for universal payment of the traditional aids. 1. THE KNIGHTING AID oF 1313

The splendid knighting of Louis of Navarre in 1313 provided Philip the Fair unquestionable justification for the levy of an aid. Contrasting with Isabelle’s wedding, the knighting ceremonies were held in Paris with great pomp and splendor, which Isabelle’s wedding had lacked. At Philip the Fair’s

insistence, Isabelle and her husband Edward II crossed from England to participate in the festivities, and their presence in Paris added to the significance of the ceremony.' A week of celebration in Paris began on Saturday, 2 June 1313. On Pentecost Sunday came the knighting of Louis of Navarre, his brothers Philip and Charles, their cousin Philip of Valois, and 'For the ceremony and the negotiations between Edward and Philip while the English king was in France, see Elizabeth A. R. Brown, “Diplomacy, Adultery, and Domestic Politics at the

Court of Philip the Fair: Queen Isabelle’s Mission to France in 1314,” in Documenting the Past, pp. 53-83; eadem, Adultery, Charivart; eadem and Nancy Freeman Regalado, “La grant este: Philip the Fair’s Celebration of the Knighting of His Sons in Paris at Pentecost of 1313,” forthcoming in City and Spectacle in Medieval Europe, ed. Barbara Hanawalt and Kathryn Reyerson.

THE LATER FOURTEENTH CENTURY 189 almost two hundred other young men. Feast followed feast. A note of solemn

gravity was interjected on 6 June, when Philip the Fair, his three sons, and his son-in-law Edward II took the cross at the hands of Cardinal Nicolas de Fréauville, Philip’s former confessor. The next day all Paris joined in celebrating the occasion, as the burgesses of Paris, divided craft by craft, paraded from the Ile-Notre-Dame and past the new palace, where they were viewed by the three kings, Philip of France, Louis of Navarre, and Edward of England.” The cost of this display was enormous, and most of the expenses

were met by Philip the Fair, who spent almost 33,000 l.par. on the new knights’ horses and on reins and other miscellaneous items.? Philip the Fair might have imposed the knighting aid without delay, but, for good reason, his initial efforts were confined to one area of the kingdom. In early June 1313 the king anticipated war with the Flemings; by the end of the month likelihood had become certainty.* War taxation took priority

over the knighting aid, for, as Philip had discovered, collection of a traditional aid could be deferred until long after the occasion that had warranted it. This was not true of subsidies for military enterprises. Rulers admitted and subjects willingly accepted the principle that “when the cause ceases, so should the effect,” and the termination of hostilities thus put a halt to the collection of any war tax. From the government’s standpoint, speed in imposing and levying such a tax was essential.’ Accordingly, in July and August Philip the Fair dispatched commissioners to the central and southern parts of the kingdom to raise troops and arrange terms on which monetary payments could be substituted for army service. Although one contemporary wrote that the king ordered money collected ‘par tout son royaume,’® the efforts of the royal officials were far more ?The most detailed account of these festivities is found in the rhymed chronicle attributed to Geffroy of Paris; the author was evidently an eyewitness: La chronique ... Geffroy, ed. Diverrés, pp. 182-87; see also the description given by Jean of Saint-Victor (H/F, 21:657) and the account in Paul Lehugeur, Histoire de Philippe le Long, rot de France (1316-1322) (Paris, 1897-1931), 1:13-14. Queen Isabelle, Jeanne of Burgundy, and other ladies took the cross, but they seem to have acted under some compulsion and bound themselves to go on Crusade only in their husbands’ company: HF, 21:657 (Jean of Saint-Victor); PRO, E 30 (Diplomatic Documents Exchequer) 1422 (the pledge made by Isabelle on 9 June); AN, J 404A, nos. 23 - and 30 (the will and codicil of Jeanne of Burgundy, wife of Philip of Poitiers, dated, respectively, 27 August 1319 and 30 May 1325). See Brown and Regalado, “Za grant feste,” passim. On the clerical tenths to which the crusading ceremony gave Philip the Fair access, see Elizabeth A. R. Brown, “Royal Salvation and Needs of State in Early-Fourteenth-Century France,” in eadem, Monarchy, no. IV, pp. 18-20. *The household accounts for the period | January to 1 July 1313 listed the men who were knighted on Pentecost: Reliquiae manuscriptorum omnis aevi, ed. Johann von Ludewig (Frankfurt, 1720-41), 12:48-60; BN, Clairambault 832, pp. 269-92; CR (1285-1314), 3:cix—cx, no. 143, and 2:771-72; Brown and Regalado, “Za grant feste,” n. 26. *Brown, “Charters and Leagues,” pp. 124-25. ‘Brown, “Cessante Causa,” passim; Henneman, Royal Taxation: Development, pp. 24-25. ‘La chronique ... Geffroy, ed. Diverrés, p. 190, v. 5216.

190 CHAPTER VI intensive in the Midi than in the north and around Paris, probably because

subjects near the Flemish border were aware that a state of war did not actually exist but was simply anticipated.’ In contrast, the knighting aid was not levied in the south until Philip’s ministers had come to terms with the Flemings, collection of the war subsidy was halted, and the restitution of all tax payments was ordered. ‘These events occurred in late July and August, and only on 1 December 1313 did Philip the Fair command the seneschal _ of Saintonge to impose the aid.* In the north Paris had made its traditional offer of 10,000 l.par. for the knighting sometime in the fall, although preparations to gather the subsidy did not begin until 13 December 1313.° Champagne was the only area in which the levy of the knighting aid was set in motion immediately after the ceremonies. This was Louis of Navarre’s own county, and the king may have calculated that his son’s subjects would

willingly pay for their lord’s sumptuous festivities.!° In the bailliage of ’For the levy of the tax in Poitou and the area near Beaucaire, see Brown, “Charters and Leagues,” pp. 126-27. In Rouergue, a summons to arms was proclaimed in Najac on 24 July 1313, and repeated attempts to muster troops were made in August; if money in lieu of service was asked, no trace of such demands is found in the town accounts: AD, Aveyron, 2 E.178.2, fols. 114v-15v. The inhabitants of Millau (located south of Najac) were called to arms; they elected, however, to purchase exemption. News of peace reached the town on 16 August 1313, and toward the end of the month the town obtained a copy of a royal letter canceling payment of the subsidy: AC, Millau, CC 346, fols. 5-6v, and EE 118. The accounts of Martel contain no indication that either a war tax or the knighting subsidy was requested in 1313: AC, Martel, CC 2, fols. 100—2v.

‘Brown, “Cessante Causa,” pp. 576-77; eadem, “Taxation and Morality,” pp. 18-19; Ordonnances, 1:534; Le livre de la taille de Paris V’an de grace 1313, ed. Karl Michaélsson (Goteborg, 1951), pp. vi-vil, 1x.

°Le livre ... 1313, ed. Michaélsson, pp. ix, x, and 1-2 n. 3. See also Le Roux de Lincy, Histoire de ’'Hotel de ville, pt. 2, Appendix, p. 172; Essai de restitution, no. 322; and Michel Félibien, Histotre de la ville de Paris... , ed. Guy-Alexis Lobineau (Paris, 1725), 5:618-21, a list of the sums contributed by different parishes, totaling more than 13,000 |. Royal agents supported the efforts of the Parisians who were levying the aid, and collection was virtually completed by the end of August 1314: Le fure ... 1313, ed. Michaélsson, pp. xi, xxii. Between 1 July and 6 August 1314 almost 4,000 I.t. were deposited in the royal treasury: Les journaux ... Philippe IV, ed. Viard, nos. 6027, 6030, 6033-35. A curious roll of excerpts from treasury records dated 1312-17 contains a reference to the payment of 4,000 |. by Paris: BM, Rouen, ms. 3401 (Leber 5870, Menant 4), fol. 109; on the roll see Comptes du Trésor (1296, 1316, 1384, 1477), ed. Robert Fawtier (Paris, 1930), pp. xix—xxili, esp. p. xxiii n. 1. Although the sums attributed to the prévété and city of Paris in this roll do not duplicate sums recorded in any surviving accounts, those assigned to Crépy-en-Laonnois and Laneuvilleroy in the Beauvaisis are the same as those found in the treasury journal of 1313: Les journaux ... Philippe IV, ed. Viard, nos. 6017, 6021, 6031. See Strayer, “Consent to Taxation,” p. 81, for a different account of the process of collection in Paris.

‘Similar steps taken by Philip VI in 1332 produced resistance in Normandy: Brown, “Customary Aids,” pp. 196-97, and also p. 214 below. For background, see André Lefevre, “Les finances de la Champagne aux XIIle et XIVe siecles,” BEC, 4th ser., 4, vol. 19 (1858), 409-47, and 4th ser., 5, vol. 20 (1859), 40-80, and esp. (1858), pp. 419-20, for the admin-

istrative divisions of the county. ,

THE LATER FOURTEENTH CENTURY 191 Meaux, the district nearest Paris, collection began on 12 July 1313, and ten days later the royal court received 1,600 |. from the dailliage of Chaumont and a similar sum from the bad/liage of Vitry, although agents did not initiate intensive efforts to levy the tax there until August.'! Throughout the county the tax was gathered quickly; the collectors had apparently completed their

work by the end of 1314. Perhaps to facilitate collection, the king did not demand a war subsidy in Louis’s lands, although just a year later, in 1314, precisely such a tax was imposed in the county.'? The king had good reason for caution, since the situation in Champagne was complex and the rights possessed by his son and himself by no means clear. The counts of Champagne had never clearly established a right to levy aids from their subjects, although the counts had collected many extraordinary taxes in times of emergency and had occasionally imposed the customary aids.'* The knighting of the count was a special case, and there was precedent for levying an aid on this occasion. Nonetheless, the count’s right was debatable, and the fact that Philip the Fair had borne the expenses of the ceremony weakened Louis’s position.'° "Documents relatifs au comté de Champagne et de Brie, 1172-1361, ed. Auguste Longnon (Paris, 1901-14), 3:138(AB), 135(DE, J), 139(OR), 141(R)-142(A); see also Le livre ... 1313, ed. Michaélsson, p. ix, whose references to Borrelli are inaccurate. '2See the texts cited in the preceding note and also Actes ... Provins, ed. Prou and Auriac,

p. 240. , .

'3Presumably Philip the Fair secured authorization from Louis before this tax was imposed. See AN, J 384, no. 3 (a royal letter dated 13 July 1313), for the permission that Charles of Valois gave the king to levy a war tax in his lands; see also Wood, The French Apanages, pp. 137-40, and esp. p. 140 n. 28. In 1314 the dailiage of Troyes paid a little more than 1,700 l.par. for the war subsidy, less than half the sum collected there for the knighting aid; the bailliage of Meaux, excluding Provins, contributed the far larger sum of 8,988 I.t.: Documents, ed. Longnon, 3:147(G), 148(E); HF, 21:569-70; see also Mignon, nos. 1629-32. Within the bailliages the size of contributions varied markedly from prévété to prévété. In the bailliage of Troyes, the prévété of Nogent produced roughly the same amounts (80 |.par.) for the two taxes, whereas the prévoté of Troyes, which paid almost 2,000 L.par. for the aid, contributed something

less than 200 |. to the war effort: Documents, ed. Longnon, 3:135(H), 136(D), 147(CD). In Provins a sales tax was imposed for the war, and the town lent the king supplies: HF, 21:570; and Actes ... Provins, ed. Prou and Auriac, p. 241, which also shows that the town was visited by and presented gifts to three royal collectors of the subsidy, the dean of Soissons, Renaud Barbou, and the baz//z, Erart d’Alemant; see also Mignon, no. 1630 and p. 361. Renaud, deputed

by the king, had represented the interests of Charles of Valois in December 1301, when the count was attempting to collect a marriage aid in Maine and Anjou: see Coutumes, ed. Beautemps-

Beaupre, pt. 2, vol. 4, pp. 28-29; and above, pp. 63-66. '*Henri d’Arbois de Jubainville, Histotre des ducs et des comtes de Champagne (Paris, 1859-

69), 4:198-99 n. a, and 836-38; the aid granted to Thibaud V in 1255 (ibid., p. 838, no. 3086°s) may have been given for his marriage. 'SSee above, pp. 66-67, for Charles of Valois’s eventual abandonment of his claim that his vassals in Maine and Anjou owed him aids for his own as well as his eldest son’s knighting. In Poitou an aid was due for the knighting of the lord rather than the lord’s son in the castellanies of Poitiers, Niort, Saint-Maixent, and Montmorillon: Essai de restitution, p. 127, no. UI.

192 CHAPTER VI There may have been some suspicion, well founded, that the receipts would be channeled to Philip the Fair,'* for although the mandates concerning the subsidy seem to have been punctiliously issued in Louis’s name,'’ some of

the officials who were involved with the aid were linked to the central administration. !®

A number of individuals and communities paid the tax without difficulty. Provins apparently treated the aid as a gift rather than a tax, and the municipal

accounts suggest that the government, probably reluctant to issue an ultimatum, had simply requested a contribution from the town. During the summer of 1313 a delegation from Provins traveled to Meaux and there agreed to donate 1,600 1.'° As was often the case, the town stood to profit handsomely, since it collected twice as much as had been proffered.”° Perhaps

in part because of the sum being levied, opposition was encountered, and 12 |. had to be spent to hire sergeants to force the recalcitrant to cooperate.?!

Formal complaints and claims of immunity were lodged, and exemption from payment was granted to various categories of inhabitants—nobles, 'éMuch of the money collected for the aid was sent directly to Paris: Documents, ed. Longnon, 3:135(J), 138(D), 140(E), 141(R). Only one entry in the accounts connected with the levy of the aid in Champagne records the payment of money—and then only 160 |.—to Louis himself, although he may have received other sums: ibid., 3:138(GI). '"See Documents, ed. Longnon, 3:136(IJ), 140(IK) (and esp. I for an explicit reference to the king of France). Philip the Fair maintained careful oversight over the administration of Champagne, but the daz//is were appointed in Louis’s name: Mignon, no. 87. '8Ktienne de Borret, the subdean of Poitiers who had been scheduled to serve as royal reformer in Champagne in 1309, had some connection with the levy in the bas/liages of Meaux

and Troyes: see above, p. 91 n. 92; Actes ... Provins, ed. Prou and Auriac, pp. 237, 241; Documents, ed. Longnon, 3:136(HI). Joseph R. Strayer pointed out to me that Guillaume d’Arrenard, subsidy collector in the bailliage of Meaux, was indeed one of Philip’s clerks, but he became prominent in the central government as fiscal officer and member of the Parlement only after Louis of Navarre became king of France: HZ, 10:preuves, col. 403; Les journaux ... Philippe IV, ed. Viard, nos. 2243, 2803-5, 4474; Mignon, no. 1347; Documents, ed. Longnon, 3:138(F); Fawtier, Regéstres, 2:no. 1578; Charles H. Taylor, “Assemblies of Towns and War Subsidy, 1318-1319,” in Strayer and Taylor, Studies, p. 191; see also Lehugeur, Phzlippe le Long, 2:149, 202-3, 304. On the other hand, Guillaume’s colleague, Gilles de Sergines, was apparently Louis’s own officer and worked exclusively in the county of Champagne: Les jour-

naux ... Charles IV, ed. Viard, nos. 3539, 3541, 3744, and esp. col. 609 n. 1. ‘Actes ... Provins, ed. Prou and Auriac, p. 240. Not until the beginning of October did an agent of the town learn in Paris from Pierre de Grez, bishop of Auxerre, that the town might pay this sum in devalued, rather than hard currency, which meant a saving of twenty percent. The town had been treated courteously, but the government was insistent, and the royal and comital agents who visited Provins several times in 1313 and 1314 may well have raised the question of the subsidy that was being levied. The subsidy collectors in the baz/liage of Meaux (the bishop of Auxerre, the subdean of Poitiers, Guillaume d’Arrenard, and Jean Cayn) all appeared in Provins before the end of 1313, and the bishop and subdean returned in 1314: Actes ... Provins, ed. Prou and Auriac, pp. 237, 241. See above, p. 91 n. 92. 20Tbid., p. 239.

21Ibid., p. 240.

THE LATER FOURTEENTH CENTURY 193 clerks, moneyers, those with special franchises, those subject to the high justice of nobles and ecclesiastics, as well as all personnes de poste and all dependents of the abbey of Faremoutiers and the church of Saint-Martin of Tours.” In 1319, according to the municipal accounts, an attempt was made to force the town to pay again “le suside dou Roi Loys qui ja avoit esté paiez dou temps Pierre de Feligni.” Therefore in February 1320 the mayor led an impressive delegation to the king, who granted them the letters of protection they sought.” The exemptions granted in Provins were not exceptional. Perhaps as a result of general opposition in Champagne,” letters granting immunity or conferring special grace were issued throughout the county. The privilege awarded to Saint-Martin of Tours and to Faremoutiers was valid for all the establishments’ dependents in Champagne.” In the bazlliage of Troyes exemptions were granted to clerks who were merchants or who were serving as notaries at the fairs or acting as moneyers, as well as to Lombards and others frequenting the fairs.2° There and in the bai/liage of Chaumont individuals obtained reductions or cancellations of the sums for which they had been assessed,?’ and in the same daz/liage adjustments were made for various ecclesiastics. In one case, as the result of an investigation conducted by the dazli, the abbey of Luxeuil was given permission to receive half the money paid by the community of Soyers because of rights it possessed over the community.”® In another case the abbey of Morimond was freed from 2Ibid., p. 241. The accounts of Provins do not specify whether these were total exemptions or simply temporary stays of collection. The ecclesiastics of the town and prévété of Provins paid 500 I.par. to the collectors of the aid in the bailliage of Meaux, which indicates that the clerks of Provins gained immunity through a special agreement: Documents, ed. Longnon, 3:137(N).

?3Pierre had been mayor of Provins from the end of 1307 to the end of 1309, and in 1309, as has been seen, the town presented a gift of 4,000 |. to Louis and his wife Marguerite: see above, p. 182 n. 143. The “suside” in question must have been the knighting subsidy that Pierre collected in the bailliage of Vitry in 1313-14, when he was also involved in levying the tax in the bazlliage of Meaux: Documents, ed. Longnon, 3:141(N), 138()). 4A sergeant was employed to deal with rebels in the city of Troyes, and the chief collector in the badliage of Meaux had on his payroll several sergeants employed to deal with resisters: Documents, ed. Longnon, 3:136(K), 137(N)—138(AB). 25For general letters of temporary immunity granted on 3 February and 5 March 1314, see

ibid., 3:138(KO), and also Le dure ... 1313, ed. Michaélsson, p. viii. Their dependents in the bailliage of Meaux were accorded special treatment, and in the bailliage of Troyes the subjects of Saint-Martin of Tours living in the prévétés of Nogent-sur-Seine and Pont-sur-Seine were excused from payment: Documents, ed. Longnon, 3:136(IJ) and 138(NO). See ibid., 3:145(]M), for the dependents of the abbey of Faremoutiers living in the viscounty of Paris. eDocuments, ed. Longnon, 3:136(EG). "Two such favors were granted by the baz//i of Chaumont; one was issued by the subdean of Poitiers and one by Louis himself: Documents, ed. Longnon, 3:134(J)-135(A), 136(HI). *®Documents, ed. Longnon, 3:135(B). Since the community was located in the prévété of

194 CHAPTER VI payment when the Jaz/i established that the house was in the guard of the lord of Choiseul.?9

The accounts of the collectors of Chaumont do not indicate that they met great resistance there, but the situation was different in the bazliage of Vitry, where the agents raised almost twice as much money as in any other district of Champagne.*° Doubtless because of the agents’ efforts, determined Opposition was encountered, and the collector was forced to keep with him

one sergeant continually and several others sporadically “to constrain the rebels.”?! There were numerous appeals from this bazliage, and contributions were suspended or remitted on a far grander scale than in the other _ bailliages.** Both lay and ecclesiastical liberties were defended and endorsed.

The bail allowed two escuiers to collect half the aids paid by communities in which they had rights of pariage.*? A royal clerk won temporary immunity by claiming that the area in which he lived was under the guard of the king

Coiffy (Haute-Marne, ar. Langres), it seems likely that it should be identified as Soyers (c. Laferté-sur-Amance) rather than as Souhiére[s] (Haute-Sadne, ar. Lure, c. Mélisey), which Longnon suggests. For relations between the abbey of Luxeuil and the counts of Champagne, see Arbois de Jubainville, Hzistotre, 4:389-92. The account printed by Longnon refers to the head of the establishment as “li prieurs” (Documents, ed. Longnon, 3:135[B]), but it was the abbey rather than the priory of Luxeuil that in July 1258 granted the count of Champagne half its revenues in return for his promise to defend its possessions: Arbois de Jubainville, Hzstozre, 5:nos. 3138-39; see Cottineau, Répertozre, 1:1684-85. The abbey’s situation was not unusual: in 1255 the abbot of Montiéramey renounced to the countess of Champagne the right he claimed to half the aid paid by the community of Chaource: Arbois de Jubainville, Histozre, 5: no. 3086; Gallia Christiana, 12:Instrumenta, col. 292B, no. LXIII. 2°Documents, ed. Longnon, 3:135(MN).

°The bazlliage of Chaumont made the smallest contribution: ibid., 3:134(H) and 135(O); see Mignon, no. 1601, which seems to be Mignon’s computation of net profit. For Troyes, see Documents, ed. Longnon, 3:136(D); for Meaux, ibid., 3:137(N), 138(O); for Vitry, ibid., 3:139(N) and 142(H), and see also 137 n. |. Expenses associated with the levy were far higher in the badliage of Vitry than in the other administrative districts. 1 pour contraindre les rebelles”: Documents, ed. Longnon, 3:139(OP). The same phrase was used to describe the activities of officers working in the dai/tiage of Meaux: ibid., 3:138(AB).

See ibid., 3:139(O)-40(D), for the three other sergeants employed in the badlliage of Vitry, where the agents may have been exerting particularly strong pressure. The accounts for this area baldly state that the collectors required additional assistance because “the district was too large and money was badly needed for the king” (“pour ce que [la baillie] est trop granz et pour le besoi[n]g que on avoit d’avoir deniers pour le roy’’): ibid., 3:139(QR). The sum total of the assessments canceled by the collectors for reasons of poverty, death, and flight from the country was twice as large in this bai/liage than in any other: Documents, ed. Longnon, 3:135(C), 136(H), 140(DE). The accounts for the bazlliage of Meaux contain no such entries. 3See Documents, ed. Longnon, 3:141(B) and 141(LM), for the rights of Jean de Busancy over Braux-Sainte-Cohiére and for those of Henri de Baiselles over Somme-Yeévre. The bail also recognized the rights of a certain damoiselle over her “hommes de cors taillable haut et bas” in the community of Ventelay: ibid., 3:140(Q).

THE LATER FOURTEENTH CENTURY 195 of France and part of the bai//iage of Vermandois.’+ Considerable reductions

were granted to the communities of Fismes and Chateau-Thierry,’* and similar consideration was given to ecclesiastical establishments. One abbey and a priory gained reductions of their own assessments,’ but most ecclesiastics who lodged complaints were concerned for their subjects, for whom, in many cases, they obtained exemptions.?” The officials who were collecting the aid in Champagne were exercising extreme caution. Although they insisted on payment from communities held jointly by the count and other

lords, they agreed that the proceeds of the levies should be divided with the lords. They did not try to collect the aid from any save the count’s immediate subjects and they apparently went so far as to defer—as, in the past, Philip the Fair had not—to those ecclesiastics demanding exemption for all their subjects. Such tactics are not surprising, in view of the ambiguities resulting from Louis of Navarre’s lordship over Champagne. The mandate that Philip the *4Jean le Duc, clerk of the king of France, claimed that Tours-sur-Marne was in the guard

of the king of France and was attached to the bailliage of Vermandois for administrative purposes. Consequently, “le roys” (presumably Louis of Navarre) ordered that he not be disturbed until his assertions were investigated: Documents, ed. Longnon, 3:140(IJK). Jean also won immunity for his dependents in the neighboring communities of Plivot and Athis and in property dependent on Tours-sur-Marne, but the accounts do not indicate the basis for the exemption: ibid., 3:140(L). **The contribution of Fismes was reduced from 250 to 100 L.par.: Documents, ed. Longnon,

3:140(1). The inhabitants of Chateau-Thierry were authorized to deduct 200 |. from the 1000 1, the town owed for the subsidy: ibid., 3:141(E). ©The assessment of the abbey of Avenay seems to have been reduced from 200 to 140 l.par., although the account also indicates that the abbess paid the full sum: Documents, ed. Longnon, 3:140(N) and 139(D). The priory of Coincy was temporarily forgiven payment of 200 of the 500 1. for which it was originally assessed: ibid., 3:140(M) and see also 139(H),

for the payment of 300 1., equivalent to 240 1. of good money. : *7"The church of Saint-Pierre-aux-Monts of Chalons-sur-Marne secured only a temporary stay of collection for the communities of Saint-Quentin-les-Marais, Saint-Lumier-en-Champagne, and Rosay: Documents, ed. Longnon, 3:141(PR). Other establishments gained much more. The subjects of the abbey of Avenay in the daiMiage of Vitry, proved to be totally subject

to the nuns’ justice, were exempted from payment: ibid., 3:141(FH), for the communities of Avenay(-Val-d’Or), Mutigny, and Suippes. Inquests also established the immunity of the community of Condé, subject to Saint-Remi of Reims, and the community of Bouvancourt, over which the Hotel-Dieu of Notre-Dame of Reims possessed rights of high justice: ibid., 3:140(R)141(A), 141(1). Similar immunity was awarded to the neighboring community of Chalons-surVesle because of its dependency on the abbey of Saint-Thierry. The religious of Saint-Memmie of Chalons-sur-Marne also succeeded in obtaining exemption for their dependents in Sognyaux-Moulins and Mairy-sur-Marne: ibid., 3:141(K) and see 139(E), for the abbot’s payment of 50 1. Owing to the intervention of Louis of Navarre, the abbot of Orbais secured immunity for all subject to his high justice by paying the 50 |. that he owed: ibid., 3:140(Q), and see 139(G). See below, p. 199 n. 56, for the dependents of the priory of Choisy; these people lived in a community subject to the king, located in the viscounty of Paris; the priory itself paid 100 L.par. in the bailliage of Vitry: ibid., 3:139(G), 145(IJ).

196 CHAPTER VI Fair dispatched to the seneschal of Saintonge on 1 December 1313 did not suggest that the king would be equally lenient in those areas under his direct control. Announcing that he had had his son knighted, he proclaimed that “because of the knighting, the people of our realm are bound to give us certain aid.”** Raising the possibility that he might demand the aid from all his subjects, Philip blunted the force of the statement by adding that the seneschal should follow past usage in collecting the aid.*° These instructions gave the king’s agents wide latitude. Reading them as

a challenge to action, they tried to take the aid from as many people as possible. Outcry resulted, and in the spring and early summer of 1314, at

ministers. |

the same time as the people of Champagne were registering their complaints,

numerous protesters laid their similar grievances before the king and his

Discontent in the seneschalsy of Poitou led Philip the Fair’s son and namesake, since 1311 count of Poitiers,*° to present a formal plea for immunity on behalf of the inhabitants of the castellanies of Poitiers, Niort, Saint-Maixent, Montmorillon, Le Blanc, and Le Rochereau. ‘The count con-

tended that although most of the communities were obligated to pay four or five aids, they owed one only for the knighting of their own lord and not for that of his son.*! Thus, although in 1313 Philip of Poitiers could himself have claimed an aid for his own knighting, custom did not support the king’s right to take an aid for the knighting of Louis of Navarre. Despite the intervention of Philip of Poitiers and Enguerran de Marigny’s alleged support of the suit, royal officials at the treasury did not acknowledge the immunity of the people of Poitou, although they granted a delay until 15 November 1314, two weeks after All Saints’ Day.* As in the past, the king’s fiscal officers, including Enguerran de Marigny, were reluctant to counte-

nance any diminution of the royal prerogative.* | 3B pour cause de celle Chevalerie les gens de nostre Royaume soient tenus a nous faire certaine aide”: Ordonnances, 1:534. *9In the accounts for the prévété of Paris the knighting aid was in two cases explicitly said

to have been imposed only on that part of the community which was “acoustume a tailler’’: BN, Clairambault 228, pp. 929, 933. *Lehugeur, Philippe le Long, 1:12 and, for fuller information, see Brown, Adultery, Charivart. 41In this region custom was carefully defined. Aids were owed in many places for the lord’s

knighting, for the eldest daughter’s marriage, for redeeming the lord’s fief, and for the lord’s crusading ventures; in some cases payment was owed for ransoming the lord from the Saracens.

No aids at all, however, were owed in the castellanies of Le Blanc and Le Rochereau. The amount due from fief-holders was a third of the devoir or annual value of the fief; others paid multiples of the customary payments they owed. See Essaz de restitution, pp. 127-28, no. III; and, on the text, Favier, Enguerran, p. 107. “Essai de restitution, p. 128, no. III; the delay granted to the communities of Poitou and to Niort is also mentioned in the longer list of towns given respites, published in ibid., p. 128, no. IV; cf. Favier, Enguerran, p. 107. *3In view of the control that Enguerran exercised over fiscal affairs at this time, it seems

THE LATER FOURTEENTH CENTURY 197 The bishop of Poitiers also appealed to the king in hope of gaining exemption for his subjects. Like the ecclesiastics of Champagne, he based his claim on his rights of high justice, but the judgments already rendered in conjunction with the marriage aid suggested that his plea would be futile, and neither he nor the lay lords who were pressing similar suits obtained more than a stay until 15 November.* Important towns of the kingdom attempted to establish their immunity. Chateauroux, located in the bazlliage of Bourges, secured only a temporary delay,*> and La Rochelle gained no more, despite the remarkable persistence of its magistrates. Undaunted by the Parlement’s failure to pronounce on the claims to exemption advanced in connection with the marriage aid, the officials of La Rochelle determined to return to the fray. As before, they produced the town’s royal charters, all of which Philip the Fair had confirmed in 1286, and their plea laid special stress on the clause guaranteeing the town immunity from all tallages and exactions. The town’s position was strengthened when the treasury officials investigating their case discovered that although the town had paid 2,000 |. for the knighting aid of 1284, the money had been presented as a gift.** Nonetheless, the royal officers balked at making any final pronouncement and refused to do more than grant two respites to the town.*” Many years’ struggle would still be necessary before La Rochelle’s immunity was finally acknowledged. Complaints were also received from the bazliage of Sens, whose inhabitants may have been inspired by the success of their neighbors in Champagne. Exemptions were demanded on the basis of specific privileges or customary immunity,*® but the royal officials questioned the validity and

likely that, had he actively supported the stand taken by Philip of Poitiers, the people of Poitou would have been accorded a more favorable reception: see Favier, Enguerran, pp. 103-8. *Fssai de restitution, p. 129, no. IV. *5Tbid.

46Documents . . . Saintonge,” ed. Guérin, pp. 157-62, no. LX VIII; Fawtier, Regzstres, 2:no.

432. See also Essai de restitution, pp. 132-33, no. VII. *"F'ssat de restitution, p. 128, no. IV, for a delay until 15 November, and ibid., p. 133, no. VII, for a delay until the feast of Saint John. Two feast days (24 June and 29 August) honored John the Baptist, but the feast of 24 June was customarily used to designate the treasury’s accounting term, and it was presumably until this date that the respite was given. It is not clear, however, whether La Rochelle first obtained a delay until 15 November 1314 and then secured an extension until 24 June 1315 or whether, having appealed early in 1314, the magistrates’ first respite, until 24 June 1314, was later extended to 15 November. See above, p. 173, for La Rochelle’s eventual success in gaining the Parlement’s recognition of its immunity from the customary aids. 8’The officials of Sens cited the clause in the city’s charter guaranteeing freedom from all tailles and toltes, but more important to the treasury officers was the fact that the accounts of the bazllie of Sens revealed that in 1286 the city had paid only 27 |. when the subsidy for Philip the Fair’s knighting was being collected and that, although the city had paid 2,000 1. in both

198 CHAPTER VI relevance of some charters and established that despite their privileges, a number of the protesting communities had paid knighting aids in the past. Nonetheless, the final decision of the treasury disregarded the sums paid “because they were so small,”’*? described all the communities except one as “privilegiati,”*®° and treated all the plaintiffs similarly. The treasury’s lib-

eral interpretation of these points was not, however, reflected in the final decree, for Sens was unable to obtain any more than the other petitioners and had to rest content with a delay until 15 November.*! The purposeful activities of royal commissioners in the viscounty of Paris*? during the winter of 1313-14? were intensified in the spring of the

1269 and 1284, these had been voluntary donations. Further, since Sens’s charter applied only

to the city itself and since the richest citizens lived outside its boundaries, these wealthy individuals could still be taxed. The list of communities of the bailliage of Sens that were granted respites carefully specified that the “‘Communia Senonensis”’ was to receive the same

treatment: Essai de restitution, p. 128, no. IV; Prou, “Les coutumes de Lorris,” pp. 548-49. A number of communities possessed the privileges of Lorris-en-Gatinais, which included exemption from taz/les and tol/tes. The accounts of the bailliage revealed that Lorrez-le-Bocage, Dixmont, Voulx, Lixy, Dollot, and Thoury-Férottes had neither paid any previous knighting aid nor made a gift in any year when such aids were being collected: ibid., p. 549. Flagy, whose charter was like that of Thoury-Férottes, had paid 20 1. for the knighting aid of 1286, despite its liberties, and in the same year the privileged town of Chateau-Landon had also paid 32 1: ibid., pp. 549-50, corrected from AN, P 2289, p. 152. The situation of Villeneuve-sur-Yonne was curious. Although it enjoyed the customs of Lorris, its charter did not expressly mention

these privileges, as did the other communities’ charters. In addition, the town had paid a knighting aid of 24 |. in 1286; in 1269 it had made a gift of 600 L.; in 1284 it had given 1,200 |. to the king: Prou, “Les coutumes de Lorris,” pp. 550-51. Despite these payments, Villeneuvesur-Yonne, Sens, Flagy, and Chateau-Landon were given respites like the others: above, p. 57.

49“... car la somme que il ont paye est petite”: Prou, “Les coutumes de Lorris,” p. 550. soIsti fuerunt privilegiati nec inventum est quod alias solverint”: Essai de restitution, p. 128, no. IV, corrected from AN, P 2289, p. 170. Flagy alone was said to have been given a respite despite its past payment (“‘licet inventum sit quod alias solverit’’): ibid. *‘\By November 1316 at least 1,315 1. had been raised in the dazliage of Sens, but whether any of the protesting towns had contributed is unknown: Mignon, no. 1591. The terms vicomté, baillage, and prévoté were all applied to the large administrative district centered in Paris. Within this area lay a smaller unit, also called the prévété of Paris, which, despite its name, was the administrative counterpart of the various castellanies into which the viscounty was divided. See Frangois-Jean-Marie Olivier-Martin, Histoire de la coutume de la prévoté et vicomté de Paris (Paris, 1922-30), 1:37-50; Les journaux ... Philippe IV, ed. Viard, nos. 6013, 6026, 6070; BN, Clairambault 228, p. 971. *’Work was directed by Guillaume de Marcilly, who had also supervised collection of the marriage subsidy in the prévété of Paris. His account indicates that he worked a total of a hundred and twenty days; since part of the receipt of the castellany of Poissy, for which he was responsible, was delivered to the treasury at the Louvre on 23 March 1314 and since there is no evidence of his active involvement with collection after that date, I assume that his assignment began approximately four months before this date: BN, Clairambault 228, p. 967, and see Les journaux ... Philippe IV, ed. Viard, no. 6013. Early in the campaign Guillaume assigned Jean le Charron and Jean Dessus to collect the aid in the castellany of Corbeil, which

THE LATER FOURTEENTH CENTURY 199 year** and aroused opposition similar to the resistance in Poitou and in Sens.** Particularly vocal were ecclesiastics who, whatever the Parlement’s decrees regarding the marriage aid, wished to see their subjects protected from the knighting subsidy. In some cases their dependents may have paid,

in others they may have received full exemption, but a number of ecclesiastics lodged formal protests, and their subjects were classed as delinquents

when the claims were denied.** Throughout the viscounty the subjects of

was assessed for the large sum of 1,294 l.par. Jean le Charron acted as collector for three months: BN, Clairambault 228, p. 971. For Jean Dessus see the following note. ‘4By early March 1314 the king himself had named Jean Dessus and Robert Sanson collectors

general in the district. They began by visiting the collection centers at Corbeil, Chateaufort, Chevreuse, Montlhéry, Poissy, and Saint-Germain-en-Laye: BN, Clairambault 228, p. 949. In late May they collected sums due from the communities that customarily paid through Meaux: ibid., p. 951. The collectors’ first deposit was made at the Louvre on 22 May 1314, and in that year they collected more than half the 10,386 l.par. for which the district had been assessed:

ibid., p. 947, and see Mignon, no. 1585. *sBecause of the survival of a number of accounts, the actions of the royal commissioners in the Paris region can be closely followed. On these accounts and the places mentioned in them, see Francois Maillard, “L’extension de la prévété de Paris et des chatellenies de !’Ilede-France au XIVe siecle,” Actes du 100e Congrés national des Sociétés savantes. Paris 1975. Section de philologie et d’histotre jusqu’a 1610, 2: Etudes sur l'histoire de Paris et de l’Ile-de-France

(Paris, 1978), pp. 19-58. Although Fawtier indicates that the different accounts in BN, Clairambault 228 (pp. 943, 945, 947, 949, 953, 964, 969) are published in full in Documents, ed. Longnon, 3:144-46, this is not the case, since Longnon edited only the material that concerned Champagne: CR (1285-1314), 3:lxxi-11, no. 82. He omitted the original assessments of many communities of the viscounty of Paris, as well as the record of the sums that some of these communities later owed, and in addition the collectors’ record of their receipts and expenses: BN, Clairambault 228, pp. 929-41, 947-65. The list of original impositions is not complete. It begins in the middle of the listings for the prévété of Paris (ibid., pp. 929-33) and includes a complete record of the castellanies of Chevreuse (ibid., p. 935), Montmorency (ibid., pp. 935, 937, 939), Dammartin-en-Goéle (ibid., pp. 939, 941), and the communities accounting through Meaux (ibid., pp. 943, 945, 947). The account of arrears covers the castellanies of Corbeil (ibid., p. 953), Montlhéry (ibid., pp. 953, 956), Crécy-en-Brie (ibid., p. 953), Chilly (ibid., p. 954), Chateaufort (ibid., p. 953), Gonesse (ibid., pp. 953, 955), the prévété of Paris (ibid., pp. 955-63), and the castellanies of Montmorency (ibid., p. 963) and Dammartin (ibid., p. 965); it ends with the arrears of the communities accounting through Meaux (ibid., pp. 965, 969). Some portions of the accounts of Robert Sanson and Jean Dessus, Guillaume de Marcilly,

and Jean le Charron are edited in Le ure ... 1313, ed. Michaélsson, p. viii, and in Brown, “Charters and Leagues,” pp. 595-96 nn. 84-85, but the full accounts have never been published.

see BN, Clairambault 228, pp. 949-54, 956, 967, 971-72; and also Mignon, nos. 1585-87. ©The records for communities in the viscounty of Paris accounting through Meaux are far more detailed than those of other districts, since they often name the ecclesiastics and lay lords whose dependents were being taxed. Comparison of the list of assessments with the list of arrears reveals that the dependents of some ecclesiastics—the bishop and chapter of Meaux, the abbess of Faremoutiers, the prior of Choisy, the abbess of Chelles—either made the payments demanded or obtained immunity before the list of arrears was compiled: Documents, ed. Longnon, 3:144(H), 145(B, EF, HI, JM); for Choisy, see above, p. 195 n. 37. Subjects of the bishop

200 CHAPTER VI Saint-Denis resisted payment, and the collectors were unable to obtain contributions from them.*’ Similar, although less widespread, opposition was demonstrated by the subjects of the bishop of Paris in the prévété,** and the bishop himself appealed to the Chamber of Accounts against the aid. Like the plaintiffs from Poitou and Sens, the bishop cited in his defense a relevant clause of a royal charter.*® The king’s treasury officials were unable to prove that his subjects had ever paid such an aid, but nonetheless the bishop only secured a respite until St. John’s Day, probably 24 June 1314. The abbot of Saint-Maur-des-Fossés was awarded a similar stay of payment when he presented the king’s officials with charters of Louis the Pious and Louis VII explicitly exempting the communities subject to the abbey from royal levies.*! In these instances and in others as well, postponement may have

been a politically expedient substitute for forgiveness, since three communities of the prévoté of Paris that were subject to the bishop apparently managed to evade payment entirely.” Similarly inconclusive—but from the subjects’ standpoint equally efficacious—was the king’s response to the plea of the dean and chapter of NotreDame of Paris. As they had asserted in 1311 with regard to the marriage aid,*’ they once more maintained that their liberties, charters, and privileges

of Meaux in only four communities of the district appear on the list of delinquents, which indicates that they paid all but 30 s. of the money owed; this suggests that the chapter’s other dependents had paid their debts, for had the chapter obtained a general exemption for its subjects, the people of these four communities would have owed nothing: ibid., 3:145(BC, F) and 146(EF). Dependents of Saint-Germain-des-Prés living in Nogent-l’Artaud and those of Saint-Denis in Mareuil-lés-Meaux refused to pay any part of their assessments: ibid., 3:144(AB), 145(O), 144(I), 146(BC).

‘See the preceding note. Dependents of the abbey in the castellanies of Gonesse and Montmorency and in the prévété of Paris also seem to have escaped payment: BN, Clairambault

228, pp. 955-63. ‘SBN, Clairambault 228, p. 957.

9A charter of 1207 exempted the subjects of the bishop who lived outside the city from all exactions exceeding 60 l.par. and limited the circumstances under which this maximum fine could be imposed: Essai de restitution, pp. 131-32, no. VI, and, for the privileges and rights of the bishop, Louis Tanon, Histotre des justices des anciennes églises et communautés monastiques

de Paris (Paris, 1883), pp. 150-76.

See n. 47 above. °'The text of the earlier privilege as found in AN, P 2289, pp. 153-54, is preferable to the

version in Essai de restitution, p. 131, no. VI; see also the text in Gallia Christiana, 7:Instrumenta, cols. 7-8. On the abbot’s privileges, see Olivier-Martin, Hzstozre, 1:16 n. 3, and more generally Tanon, Hzstozre, pp. 11-12.

“BN, Clairambault 228, p. 957. In the castellany of Corbeil dependents of the bishop in Moissy refused to pay the 20 L.par. for which they were assessed, although other inhabitants obediently paid 8 |.par. The bishop’s dependents may eventually have liquidated their debt, but if so, they evaded payment for at least fifteen years: ibid., p. 971, and see below, p. 205 n. 86. 63See above, p. 172.

THE LATER FOURTEENTH CENTURY 201 | protected their dependents in Paris and throughout the realm from the aid. On 23 April 1314 Philip the Fair issued a letter rebuking the prévét of Paris and the subsidy collectors for exacting contributions from the cathedral’s subjects. Evidently the liability of these dependents had not been determined in 1311, for the king announced that he had instructed his officials to examine

the church’s liberties. Until a decision was reached, the levy was to cease and any confiscated property was to be restored.** Again, many subjects of the viscounty of Paris seem to have escaped payment altogether.** The good

fortune of these and other subjects of ecclesiastics who avoided the aid probably resulted in the first instance from their lords’ status and position at the royal court and later from simple administrative inefficiency. Royal officials’ successful demands for payment from people of similar condition show that the king had no intention of abandoning or modifying the policy

he had adopted in earlier years, which, as regarded the free subjects of ecclesiastics, the Parlement had upheld. Several communities that were dependent on influential nobles also secured at least temporary immunity. For many years nothing was contributed by Montreuil-sous-Bois, held by the king’s brother Louis of Evreux and by the powerful Jeanne, lady of Viarmes, widow of Philip the Fair’s principal chamberlain, Pierre de Chambly, and mother of the younger Pierre, also a royal chamberlain. Despite its lords’ standing, Montreuil eventually paid more than half of its assessment. The people of Luzarches, subjects of Pierre de Chambly,°’ like the parishioners of Champcueil, dependents of the marshal of France, Jean de Grez,® were also able to avoid immediate compliance with the royal collectors’ demands. “BN, S 282 (formerly L 459), no. 20, in the Appendix, no. 44. See Brown, “Charters and Leagues, pp. 594-95 n. 80. ‘Sums owed by the chapter’s dependents in many communities in the prévété of Paris and the castellany of Dammartin appear in the listing of arrears: BN, Clairambault 228, pp. 955, 957, 961, 965. The only recorded payment collected from any of the chapter’s subjects was 8 |. (less than a fourth of the assessment) obtained in Vitry: ibid., p. 955. 66“Monstereul pour Mons’ loys de france & pour Madame de Virmes”: BN, Clairambault 228, p. 961. On Jeanne de Machault, lady of Viarmes, and her husband, Pierre VI de Chambly,

see Paulin Paris and Gaston Paris, “Jehan Maillart, auteur du Roman du comte d’Anjou,” Histoire littératre de la France, 31 (1893), 319-20; J. Depoin, “La maison de Chambly sous les Capétiens directs,” BPH (1914), 133-35; Favier, Enguerran, pp. 75, 231. Testimony given by Jeanne in 1322 in connection with the baptism of Charles IV, Philip the Fair’s third son, shows that in 1294 she was close to Jeanne of Navarre, Charles’s mother; she testified that she had not attended the baptism because “se tenebat in Camera dicte domine Johanne Regine matris dicti domini Regis matris [s#c] tempore puerperii”: AN, J 682, no. 2, membrane 6. °7BN, Clairambault 228, p. 955. For the career of the younger Pierre, see Favier, Enguerran,

s.v. in index and esp. pp. 75, 201-2. BN, Clairambault 228, p. 971. For Jean’s career, Anselme, Histotre genealogique, 6:657. In the account Jean was termed “‘iadiz Mareschal de France,” since the document was not prepared until after his death in 1318: Lehugeur, Philippe le Long, 2:315, 320-21. Jean also

| 202 | CHAPTER VI Toward the end of Philip the Fair’s reign, Enguerran de Marigny was the chief royal minister, and in connection with the aid he used his influence

not only to intercede (ineffectively) for Philip of Poitiers but also (with greater success) to promote his own interests. In June 1312 Enguerran had gained possession of the castle and territory of Chilly, where he often resided. During 1313 he seems to have begun maneuvering to secure the extensive seigniorial and judicial rights that he finally obtained in January _ 1314.6 He himself assumed responsibility for levying the aid in the castellany of Chilly and in the process extended his power by having joined to Chilly for the purposes of the collection a number of important parishes and communities normally included in the castellany of Montlhéry.”° There is no evidence that this alteration resulted in personal gain for Enguerran, but the move ensured that he could supervise all activities of the government’s agents in a district where he possessed important interests.’!

Enguerran and his brother Philip, archbishop of Sens, intervened on behalf of the inhabitants of Chatres-sous-Montlhéry, who had been granted temporary immunity from the aid because of a privilege they possessed and

despite a donation they had made to the king in 1283.” In theory these people should have been required to pay their assessment after 24 June 1314, but the royal councilors’ intercession produced a prolonged period of amnesty for the parishes of Chatres, and nothing had been collected there by 1327.73 Why Enguerran and his brother took action in this case is not clear, although Enguerran’s holdings in the district north of Montlhéry may have had a part in motivating their intervention.

The inhabitants of Les Mureaux had no such powerful patrons as the Marigny brothers, but the community’s elaborate charter apparently won it

held land at Chateau-Landon, and as has been seen, this privileged community claimed exemption from the aid in 1314: Fawtier, Regestres, 1:no. 2135, and also above, p. 198 n. 48. oFavier, Enguerran, pp. 20, 38, and the maps on pp. 255-56. BN, Clairambault 228, pp. 954, 956, @ tergo accounts of Robert Sanson and Jean Dessus for the castellany of Montlhéry, which show that the following communities and parishes, owing 289 |. 14 d. for the aid, were separated from their district and attached to Chilly: the parishes of Villemoisson-sur-Orge, Epinay-sur-Orge, Savigny-sur-Orge, Longyumeau, and other parishes and communities extending as far northeast as Athis-Mons, as far west as Buressur-Yvette, and as far south as Marcoussis. ‘As the accounts described in the preceding note show, regular collectors were named, and a certain Erard de Breuil accounted to Robert Sanson on 3 July 1315 for money gathered

, in the parish of Longjumeau. Jean de Rageuse was ordered to collect arrears in the area in 1328, and he discovered that, in marked contrast with the situation in the parts of Montlhéry that had not passed under Enguerran’s supervision, little progress had been made toward levying the sums due.

Essai de restitution, p. 131, no. VI. }

BN, Clairambault 228, pp. 953, 956.

THE LATER FOURTEENTH CENTURY 203 temporary immunity.”* The stays of execution that these people and other protesters in the Paris region and elsewhere won through formal appeal were expensive and, in the end, totally inconclusive. Whether because they suspected the futility of such proceedings or because they were unable to afford the luxury of protest, the inhabitants of Corbeil avoided paying a good part of what they owed simply by procrastinating, and in 1328 they were formally excused the remainder of their debt.” The amount and intensity of resistance varied from castellany to castellany in the Paris region. In Corbeil the collectors raised most of the money due from the district without exerting pressure on the inhabitants, and by the end of 1314 royal agents had gathered more than half the total due from the viscounty.’° In the other castellanies, however, there was vigorous opposition, and in 1315 collectors’ receipts declined sharply.’ It is little wonder that in May 1315 one of the king’s chief agents traveled to Corbeil,

Montlhéry, and Chateaufort to see if collectors there had retained any funds.’* The accounts show that two mounted sergeants made repeated trips to various localities in the viscounty “because the lords often closed their hands to them.”’”?

Royal efforts north of Paris met with some success, and in the spring of 1314 the treasury received substantial payments from Noyon, Laon, and the “Essai de restitution, p. 132, no. VI. For the privileges, see Ordonnances, 3:303, and also Olivier-Martin, Histozre, 1:16 n. 3.

75Premierement pour deniers que les Collecteurs de corbeil en doiuent de la somme de iic Ib’ par’ en quoi la Ville de corbeil et les paroissess apparten’ a ycelle ville fu imposee zzz

xiii Lb’ xii 5”: BN, Clairambault 228, p. 971. The italicized portion is canceled, and the following, in a different hand, is inserted above it: “Rabatues pour iit v l vi s’ bourg’ viir™ v l xix d’ par’ forz paiez a Iehan dessus et renduz par lui en la Somme de clx I’ bourg’ la dessus. Residuum a tergo.” For payments made to Jean Dessus by the subsidy collectors in Corbeil,

the last of which was apparently made on 11 August 1314, see ibid., p. 972, the account a4 tergo mentioned above. 7See above, p. 199 n. 54. Robert Sanson’s account shows that he and Jean Dessus received

a total of 1,146 l.par. from the collectors in Corbeil, which had been assessed at 1,294 l.par. Of this Jean delivered more than 200 [.par. to Martin des Essarts when Martin was at Chateauneuf with the king: BN, Clairambault 228, p. 971. The collectors in Corbeil spent only 5 l.par. for sergeants to assist them. For the amount levied in the viscounty in 1314, see above, p. 199 n. 54. ”7BN, Clairambault 228, p. 947. Although the sum total of Robert Sanson’s account indicates that the collectors received only 212 |. 11 s. 4 d.par. in 1315, the deposits he and Dessus made at the treasury between 28 April 1315 and 18 December 1315 amounted to 1,135 1.t. or 908 l.par. If three canceled entries recording payments to the treasurer Gui Florent, made between 31 April and 16 June 1315 and totaling 540 1.t., are subtracted, the sum decreases to 595 Lt.

The treasury credited the collectors with a deposit of 540 1.t. on 21 August 1316: ibid., pp. 947, 949, *7BN, Clairambault 228, p. 951.

7"... pour la Main qui Nous Estoit Souuent Close des Seigneurs”: ibid.; see also Le Livre ... 1313, ed. Michaélsson, p. vil, and Brown, “Charters and Leagues,” pp. 595-96 n. 85.

204 CHAPTER VI neighboring community of Crépy-en-Laonnois, as well as from Montdidier and Laneuvilleroy.®° Royal agents in Vermandois secured partial payment of the sum due from Saint-Quentin, but its inhabitants were as reluctant as they had been in 1310 to pay all they owed, and the government continued negotiating with them after the death of Philip the Fair.*! Amiens avoided payment for a time, but a special commission issued by the king on 14 June

1314 resulted in prompt, if not willing, liquidation of their debt.*? The resistance encountered at Saint-Quentin and Amiens was not unusual. Nearer Paris, and perhaps inspired by the opposition in the city, the people of Pontoise attempted to establish their immunity by presenting at the treasury a privilege granted by Philip Augustus, which freed the parishes of Pontoise and Saint-Martin from all irrational and unjust exactions and confiscations. When the royal officers found that Pontoise had given the king

1,300 1. in 1269, they refused to grant the town a respite, despite their inability to demonstrate that the sum had been paid in connection with the aid that was levied in that year. To salve the plaintiffs’ feelings, the officials held out the possibility of an ultimately favorable decision by announcing that they would deliberate carefully concerning the town’s privileges.* Collection of the knighting aid continued long after the death of Philip the Fair in 1314, and until 1323 all profits of the aid were deposited with

802 es journaux ... Philippe IV, ed. Viard, nos. 6014-15, 6017, 6021-22, 6031. For Noyon’s difficulties in collecting contributions to the marriage aid, see above, p. 175. 81See above, pp. 169-70. On 21 January 1315 Philip’s successor, Louis X, awarded SaintQuentin a delay until 1 November 1315 to pay the 2,000 I.t. the town still owed: Lemaire, Saint-Quentin, 1:233, no. 242; see also n. 84 below. When Mignon compiled his inventory,

he found no trace of an account for the knighting aid in Vermandois, but as this evidence shows, it was in fact levied there: see Mignon, no. 1589. Cf. above, p. 178. On 14 June 1314 Philip the Fair ordered Nicolas de La Poterie, who had levied the marriage aid in the bazliage of Amiens, to collect there all sums still due for the knighting aid and all unpaid fines imposed by the Parlement. He was to deposit all he gathered in the treasury at the Louvre; since his commission was to terminate on 15 August 1314, speed was essential. To strengthen his hand, the king authorized him to have resisters imprisoned in the Chatelet in Paris. Nicolas apparently set to work immediately, and before his commission expired he

had collected 660 l.par. from Amiens alone—600 |. for the aid and a fine of 60 |. for an unsuccessful appeal from the guards of the fairs of Champagne. This payment was made before 10 August 1314, when the guardian of the baz/liage, Lienars le Sec, prepared an affidavit testifying

that Nicolas had received the money in full. The document appears in an exemplification of October 1331 issued by the bai//i of Amiens, Galeran de Vaux: BN, Picardie 280, no. 34, in the Appendix, no. 45; the royal mandate is found in Brown, “Charters and Leagues,” p. 896 n. 85. Mignon’s inventory shows that Nicolas submitted to the treasury an account of his operations, which was never audited: Mignon, no. 1590, and see ibid., no. 1558, for Nicolas’s work as a marriage aid commissioner. BE 'ssai de restitution, p. 132, no. VII. I have found no evidence regarding the outcome of this suit.

THE LATER FOURTEENTH CENTURY 205 his executors, who used them to pay his many bequests.** As part of his effort to rationalize the financial administration, in November 1323 Charles IV abolished the separate accounting procedures followed by the executors of his father’s and brothers’ wills,** and his officials apparently revived the investigation of claims to exemption that had been conducted by the treasury officials of Philip the Fair.8¢ After the accession of Philip VI of Valois in

1328, officers of the Chamber of Accounts appointed a commissioner to collect arrears of the aid in the viscounty of Paris.*” These efforts testify ®47n an agreement concluded in December 1314 between Louis X and his father’s executors,

it was decided that all debts owed to Philip the Fair except the arrears of the last war subsidy would be paid to his executors, who agreed to relinquish a third of the debts to Louis to help alleviate the kingdom’s financial distress. See Elizabeth A. R. Brown, “Royal Salvation and Needs of State in Late Capetian France,” in Order and Innovation in the Medieval West: Essays in Honor of Joseph R. Strayer, ed. William C. Jordan, Bruce McNab, and Teofilo F. Ruiz

(Princeton, 1976), p. 376, as revised in eadem, Monarchy, p. 31. The executors received payments from collectors of the knighting aid in the viscounty of Paris during the Ascension, Saint John, and All Saints terms of 1315, and the Ascension and All Saints terms of 1316: BN, Clairambault 228, pp. 953-55 and 971. For Jean Dessus’s accounting with the executors in

the Ascension term of 1316, see ibid., p. 971 and also p. 953, for the auditing of Robert Sanson’s account on 21 August 1316. Thus, when Louis X wished to permit Saint-Quentin to defer payment of the 2,000 |. due for the subsidy, he secured the consent of his father’s executors: Lemaire, Saint-Quentin, 1:233, no. 242. *SOrdonnances, 1:777, and Borrelli de Serres, Recherches, 2:234-35. ’6Prou did not believe that this investigation was renewed under Charles IV, but if he were correct, it would be difficult to explain why the claims made by the delinquents were re-copied

during Charles’s reign: Prou, “Les coutumes de Lorris,” p. 548 n. 1 (continued from p. 547), and see p. 548. Prou was unaware of additional evidence which indicates that the subsidy was still being collected under Charles IV. In the spring of 1326 the Chamber of Accounts was reviewing the subsidy accounts, and by 27 March Jean le Charron had completed a final audit of his records for the castellany of Corbeil: BN, Clairambault 228, p. 971. The masters were still dealing with his records at the end of January 1328, and corrections, including notations concerning the work of Jean de Rageuse, were entered on 18 September 1328: ibid. Guillaume de Marcilly rendered his accounts for the castellany of Poissy on 30 March 1326 and received final clearance on 20 June: ibid., p. 967. More than a year later, in November 1327, Guillaume and the subsidy collector for the castellany of Montlhéry submitted to the Chamber a list of parishes still owing money: ibid., p. 953. Finally, notations in the subsidy accounts indicate that Jean de Saint-Sauveur may have collected overdue payments in the Paris region before 1328: ibid., pp. 957 and 961. The notations, appended to the entries for Saint-Germain-enLaye and Ferriéres-en-Brie, suggest that Jean was working after 1316 and before the accounts were prepared for Jean de Rageuse; since, however, the payments are recorded in two different

hands, the entries relating to his work may have been made at a later date. Jean de SaintSauveur acted as a collector of royal revenue in Auvergne in 1327 and 1328; he was active in the province of Sens in 1324 and 1325: Mignon, p. 375, no. XXIX; p. 377, no. LU; and nos. 562 and 844; Les journaux ... Charles IV, ed. Viard, col. 350 n. 2. 87On 13 May 1328 Jean de Rageuse was commissioned to collect all sums still owed for the aid by the communities of the viscounty of Paris and by the original collectors in the region: BN, Clairambault 228, p. 956. He was provided with a list of the sums due from the different castellanies of the viscounty (the records for Corbeil, Montlhéry, Crécy, Chateaufort,

206 CHAPTER VI to the tenacity and dedication with which an increasingly efficient royal bureaucracy was insisting on the king’s rights. The surviving evidence does not, however, suggest that they produced much profit for the treasury.

The numerous outstanding claims against delinquents resulted in part from the crudeness of the Capetians’ fiscal mechanisms and in part from the government’s failure to insist on immediate payment. In 1314 Philip the Fair had decreed and attempted to levy a subsidy for a campaign against the Flemings,®* and owing to the necessity of collecting the tax as quickly as possible, the drive to collect the knighting aid was not pressed as vigorously as might otherwise have been the case. Because of the government’s restraint, the leagues formed to protest royal policies in 1314 decried the war tax but registered no special complaints against the aid.* The attitude of Philip the Fair and his officials toward the knighting aid was doubtless influenced by their experiences in dealing with the marriage aid. In the final stages of that campaign, the king, whether voluntarily or as a matter of expediency, had refrained from advancing the sweeping claims he had sometimes sanctioned and had relied instead on negotiation. Thus _ was avoided the litigation that might have threatened the government’s po-

sition. [hese tactics did not make payment of the aid any more popular, but it enabled the government to maneuver freely. In the case of the knighting aid, the king’s original instructions to his

| agents suggested that he had some hope of collecting the knighting aid from all his subjects. Nonetheless, the stance he and his officials finally adopted was similar to the position they had taken on the marriage aid. A flood of protests still followed—perhaps because the aid was imposed while resentment over the marriage aid was deeply felt, perhaps because the levy of war taxes aroused general wariness of royal fiscality. Protesters followed the same routes as had those who opposed the marriage aid, and their complaints were apparently accorded more careful hearing than had been true in 1309. Appeals were directed to the royal treasury, where the king’s officials appeared willing to consider seriously privileges granted by the king and his predecessors. The amount of litigation before the Parlement was minimal. ‘The deliberate procedures benefited the king rather than the protesters, who gained only respites rather than the clear pronouncements that would and Gonesse survive) and also with a detailed supplementary list of delinquent communities and parishes in the castellany of Montlhéry: ibid., pp. 953-65, and esp. pp. 954 and 956. By the end of July he was working in the castellany of Corbeil, where he received 70 |. 13 s.par. from the original collectors and succeeded in exacting other sums from delinquents: ibid., pp.

953, 971-72. See also Mignon, no. 1587, and Le fre ... 1313, ed. Michaélsson, p. viii; for Jean’s collection of other debts and taxes due to the king, see Mignon, nos. 843, 2002. *sBrown, “Charters and Leagues,” pp. 128-36; eadem, “Reform and Resistance,” p. 112; Favier, Enguerran, pp. 177-78; Funck-Brentano, Les origines, pp. 641-45.

Brown, “Charters and Leagues,” pp. 102-6.

THE LATER FOURTEENTH CENTURY 207 have protected them against future demands. In a few instances, Philip the Fair, Louis of Navarre, and their agents admitted that those subject to the high justice and jurisdiction of immediate royal vassals were not liable for

the levy, but those who escaped payment generally did so as a result of administrative inertia or strategic restraint. Once again the monarchy’s prerogative emerged undefined and hence expandable. 2. THe Arps oF THE Last Direct CaPETIANS During his short and troubled reign Louis X had no opportunity to impose

and collect any of the traditional aids on his own behalf. Forced to deal with hostile leagues of his own subjects and with bellicose Flemings, whose conduct necessitated the levy of yet another war subsidy, he did not complete collection of the aid for his own knighting before he died on 5 June 1316.%° The accession of Louis’s brother, Philip of Poitiers, raised the prospect of new aids, and before his coronation Philip V negotiated an agreement that provided him grounds for imposing an aid and afforded the government an occasion for testing the administrative rulings of his father’s officials and

the decrees of his father’s court. ,

Philip V’s right to the throne was questionable, and, in order to gain the support of one of the most influential nobles in the kingdom, Duke Eudes IV of Burgundy, Philip offered him the hand of his daughter Jeanne, then only nine years old. At the end of September 1316 the marriage contract was sealed, and the portion of 20,000 |. that Eudes promised Jeanne was fully appropriate, equal to the sum that Edward II had assigned to Isabelle in 1308.9! Philip V’s bargaining position was far less favorable than his father’s had been when Isabelle’s settlement was arranged, and the contract required him to provide Jeanne with the substantial portion of 100,000 L-t., a sum similar to those that Philip the Fair had obtained for his prospective

: daughters-in-law.*? Further, 25,000 |.t. were to be Eudes’s at once and were to remain his even if, after the marriage, Jeanne died childless.*? Before any *lbid., pp. 178-80, 184-89, and for Louis’s death and his brother Philip’s seizure of the throne, see Elizabeth A. R. Brown, “The Ceremonial of Royal Succession in Capetian France:

The Double Funeral of Louis X,” Traditio 34 (1978), 227-71 (rpt. in eadem, Monarchy, no. VII).

*'For the marriage contract, see Petit, Ducs de Bourgogne, 8:217-18, no. 6648, dated at Nogent-sur-Seine on 29 September 1316: see also ibid., 7:51-52, and Lehugeur, Philippe le Long, 1:44 n. 5. Jeanne was to receive 4,000 |. a year until the death of the dowager duchess Agnes of Burgundy, when she would receive the full assignment. *2See above, pp. 23-25.

*3Plancher and Merle, Histoire ... Bourgogne, 2:preuves, pp. clxiv-xv, no. CCXVI; AN, J 408, nos. 21-25. Eudes of Burgundy had many tactical advantages. Before the marriage, he exacted as the price of his agreement to abandon the nobles of Champagne who were promoting the claims to the throne of Louis X’s daughter Jeanne the promise that after the death of Mahaut

of Artois and her daughter, Philip’s wife Jeanne, the counties of Artois and Burgundy would pass to his prospective bride: Lehugeur, PAzlippe le Long, 1:102-3.

208 CHAPTER VI expenses for the wedding were incurred, Philip possessed evident and sufficient warrant for requiring an aid from his subjects. Political necessities overbalanced Jeanne’s tender age, and the marriage took place on 18 June 1318. To provide for his daughter’s trousseau, Philip called on his veteran financial minister Giraut Gayte for 9,000 1.t.°* Soon after the wedding, perhaps on 10 August 1318,°* Philip V dispatched commissioners experienced in fiscal negotiations to levy the marriage aid.*° Since

the king was attempting to secure pledges of support for an anticipated campaign against the Flemings,” a conciliatory approach to the aid was, as *AN, JJ 60, fol. 32v, no. 66; Fawtier, Registres, 2:no. 3436. The letter shows that the money was delivered to a certain Master Brice by Geffroy de Fleury, the royal argentier. This Brice is doubtless the Magister Bricctus Guidi, clerk of the royal household’s Chambre aux deniers, to whom Philip the Fair left a pension of 100 I.t. in his codicil of 28 November 1314: Boutaric, “Notices et extraits,” p. 232. Bricius was listed as a clerk of the Chambre aux deniers in December 1315 and as “Mestre Brice le Breton” in July 1316: CR (1314-1328), no. 13556; AN, JJ 57 (AE II 327), fol. 42v. On Geffroy de Fleury see Les journaux ... Charles IV, ed. Viard, col. 106 n. 1; see also Lehugeur, Philippe le Long, 2:68; Mignon, nos. 1668, 2037; Brown,

“Double Funeral,” pp. 227-28; eadem, “The Ceremonial of Royal Succession in Capetian France: The Funeral of Philip V,” Speculum 55 (1980), 267-68 (rpt. in eadem, Monarchy, no. VIII). For Geffroy’s accounts from July 1316 through July 1322, see CR (1314-1328), 1:xlix1. In 1319 and 1320 Gayte was asked for additional loans for the marriage of the king’s daughter Marguerite: AN, JJ 60, fol. 33, no. 66. Gayte’s activities are discussed in Marcellin Boudet, “Etude sur les sociétés marchandes et financitres au Moyen Age. Les Gayte et les Chauchat de Clermont,” Revue d’Auvergne 28 (1911), 390-410; see also Jan Rogozinski, ““Ennoblement by the Crown and Social Stratification in France 1285-1322: A Prosopographical Survey,” in Order and Innovation, ed. Jordan et al., p. 284 and n. 97; and ibid., p. 285 and n. 99, on Geffroy

de Fleury. Henri de Sully took jewels from the Louvre on 20 May 1318 for the king to give to his daughter Jeanne before her wedding: Michel de Marolles, Inventaire des titres de Nevers

..., ed. le Comte de Soultrait (Nevers, 1873), pp. 624-25. °°An entry in a sixteenth-century collection of extracts from acts of the Chamber of Accounts

states that the commissioners for the viscounty of Paris received their mandate on 10 August 1318: BN, fr. 2838, fol. 75, copied from fol. 66v of the original register. *For the commissioners, see Mignon, nos. 1694-1721; no names are listed for the Norman and the eastern and southerly baz//iages or for the seneschalsies. The officials whose names are preserved had considerable experience in negotiating taxes. Nicolas de La Poterie, who was to collect the aid in the viscounty of Paris with Jean Payen, had levied both the marriage and the knighting aids in the bazliage of Amiens: Mignon, nos. 1558, 1590, 1694, and see also

above, p. 204 n. 82. In 1319 Jean would work as collector of a war subsidy in the viscounty with Robert Sanson, the general collector of the knighting aid: ibid., no. 1643 and p. 362. As bailli of Senlis, Simon de Billy, former dai//i of Amiens, was responsible for the marriage aid in the bailliage of Senlis; concurrently, he carried on negotiations concerning a war subsidy in Amiens: ibid., nos. 71, 76, 1617, 1644, 1695, and p. 364; Les journaux ... Charles IV, ed. Viard,

col. 225 n. 4; Recueil... tiers état, ed. Thierry, 1:360-64, no. CXLI; see also Charles-Victor Langlois, “Registres perdus des archives de la Chambre des Comptes de Paris,” NE 40 (1917), 255. Jean de Bardilly, a veteran financial agent, had gathered war subsidies in Orléans in 1314 and 1315, and he levied both the marriage aid and a war tax there in 1318: Mignon, nos. 73, 1111, 1113, 1619, 1651, 1699, 2133. 7See Taylor, “Assemblies of Towns,” pp. 109-200, esp. pp. 116-34.

THE LATER FOURTEENTH CENTURY — 209 in 1313, evidently advisable. Nonetheless, whatever the king’s instructions to his agents, they were as zealous as ever, and in some parts of the kingdom they sought payments from lands and subjects of the king’s direct vassals

to which the king had no legal right. The special arrangements that had enabled Philip the Fair to collect the marriage aid from those who were not under his direct authority may have fired the enthusiasm of royal officials and encouraged them to insist on such payments as the king’s due. Complaints quickly reached the Chamber of Accounts. No more than three months after the aid was proclaimed, Philip V issued a restraining order to Simon de Billy, baz/li of Senlis, and his associates. At the end of October 1318, following discussion in the Chamber, these men were commanded not to levy the aid in the territories and from the subjects of barons and other nobles who were themselves entitled to collect similar aids from such lands and subjects; more specifically, they were to return without delay any property they had seized from subjects of the bishop of Beauvais who were customarily exempt from such levies as the king’s.** In view of the difficulties encountered when similar demands were advanced in connection with Philip the Fair’s aids, the king would have been wise to prohibit them explicitly and emphatically in his original mandates. Still, the declaration of 31 October, consistent as it was with principles eventually endorsed by Philip the Fair, may have served to allay suspicions of the king, if not of his officials.

However great the dedication and enthusiasm of some of the king’s officers, efforts to levy the aid were less intense than usual, particularly in the Midi. The accounts of Martel, Millau, and Najac, communities of Quercy and Rouergue that had suffered in the past from demands for the aids, contain no evidence that any attempt was made to levy the aid for Jeanne’s marriage. On the other hand, Paris, which had always proved cooperative, responded

with customary alacrity to the king’s request for funds and offered the traditional sum of 10,000 l.par. Payments there were made regularly during 1319 and early 1320, and by the spring of 1321 at least 9,700 Lt. had been deposited in the treasury.» In Simon de Billy’s datlliage of Senlis the inos* ,,. ab exactione et levatione dicti subsidii in terris et subditis Baronum et aliorum Nobilium in et a quibus subsidium in casu consimili habere noscuntur. supersederi et cessari ad presens. quo usque aliud super hiis duximus ordinandum. volentes mandamus vobis et vestrum

cuilibet quatinus a dilecti et fidelis nostri Episcopi Belvacensis subditis. a quibus dictum subsidium levari non consueuit. dictum subsidium exigere aut quomodo libet levare nullatenus

presumatis. bona ipsorum si que proinde ceperitis aut capi feceritis indilate et ad plenum liberantes eisdem”: BN, Moreau 222, fol. 247. Following the date, these notations appear: “in Camera Computorum. iustit’ D’ Grenier.” The register of common receipts of the treasury for 1320-21 records that by 1 October 1320 the city had paid 9,671 1. 19 s. 6 d.t., by 8 April 1321 an additional 66 1. 13 s. 4 d.par.: BN, lat. 9787, fols. 214 and 239; see also a later copy, BN, n. a. f. 21857, fols. 122, 147.

210 CHAPTER VI habitants of Compiégne and other communities paid the amounts they owed during 1318 and 1319,! Farther south in the Auvergne, royal agents tried to exact an inordinately large contribution from Montferrand, which had

evaded paying the aid for Isabelle’s wedding. Unable to claim complete immunity from the aid, the consuls nevertheless approached the royal court

with privileges in hand and succeeded in gaining a declaration that they owed no more than 300 I.t. for each of the two marriage aids; by the spring of 1319 they had delivered 600 l|.t. to the treasury in Paris.!°!

Montferrand’s obligations were clearly defined in its charter, and the king’s court had no alternative except to enforce its terms. As had happened

in previous years, other communities with far vaguer privileges tried to prove that they were not liable for the aid. When asked to pay Jeanne’s marriage aid, they took their pleas before the Parlement. Owing to the nature

of their claims and their lack of solid or persuasive evidence, they were treated far differently from the proctors of Montferrand. The complaint lodged by the citizens of Bourges is particularly interesting, since almost fifty years earlier the Parlement had declared the city liable for both marriage and knighting aids.' Although the city probably paid the 2,000 |.t. for which the Parlement assessed it in 1271, it may have avoided contributing to the aids later levied by the monarchy. In 1319, however, royal collectors were particularly insistent, and the town was par-

’ ticularly hard pressed for funds because of a recent famine and because of

During 1319 and early 1320 payments were made regularly to Giraut Gayte, who received the money in compensation for sums he had lent to the king. In May 1319 he received 2,100 1, 63 s. 4 d.t.; in June 3,300 1. 28 s. 9 d.t.; in December 3,227 |. 7 s. 6 d.t.; on 19 February 1320 1,040 l.t.: AN, JJ 60, fol. 33, no. 66; see also Fawtier, Registres, 2:no. 3436. There is a discrepancy of only | d.t. between these sums and the amount with which Paris was credited _ at the treasury on | October 1320. For a decision of the Parlement concerning the levy of the aid in Paris, rendered on 15 March 1320, see Boutaric, Actes, no. 6016. looCompiegne, which made a generous pledge of military support, offered 375 Lt. for the aid: Taylor, “Assemblies of Towns,” pp. 117-19, 183-85; see also CR (13/4/1328), 2:no. 12464, for the payment of 300 l.par. During 1319 Béthisy contributed 71 |.t., Verberie 60 1.t., Pont-Sainte-Maxence 14 1. 10 s.t., and La Croix-Saint-Ouen 13 |. 6 s. 8 dt: see CR (13/4 1328), 2:33, nos. 12464-70. The contributions of Compiégne and these communities, totaling almost 550 |.t., were relinquished, presumably on the king’s orders, to Oudart du Creux, royal master of the forests in Normandy from 1315 to 1321: ibid., pp. 24-41, esp. p. 33. 101 AM, Clermont-Ferrand, Montferrand CC 1, no. 3. The charter given to Montferrand by its former lord, Louis of Beaujeu, required the payment of 300 l.t. for such aids and also stipulated that the town should pay a golden mark each year on the feast of the Purification of the Virgin: ibid., no. 4. Consequently, on 17 May 1319, a week after acknowledging Montferrand’s payment of 600 1.t., the king commanded the dai//i of Auvergne to help Montferrand raise the gold mark as well as another annual payment owed to the king; force could be used to compel all to pay their shares. '02See above, p. 55.

THE LATER FOURTEENTH CENTURY 211 the support they claimed to have offered voluntarily to the king.'! The magistrates of Bourges, perhaps oblivious of the decree of 1271, perhaps hopeful that the royal court might have forgotten it, perhaps desiring to see the decree reversed, contested the royal demands. The charter that had been declared irrelevant in 1271 guaranteed the city immunity from to/te, tazlle, and two other specific impositions, and the municipal officials may have learned that the government was treating such privileges with increasing respect. The officials of the Parlement who heard their plea had apparently totally lost sight of the decision of 1271, and therefore the city’s complaints were not dismissed out of hand. As reluctant as the treasury officials of Philip the Fair to issue a definitive pronouncement, the judges of the Parlement simply postponed Bourges’s case from year to year.!% The magistrates of La Rochelle were far more accustomed than those of Bourges to the intricacies of protest and appeal. True to form, when the town was asked to pay Jeanne’s marriage aid, they initiated proceedings before the Parlement. They thus reverted to the tactics that they had used in connection with the aid for Isabelle’s marriage and rejected the pleading before the treasury that had won them only temporary stays of payment of the knighting aid of 1313.!°* However, no more than in Bourges’s case was the Parlement prepared to make a final pronouncement, and La Rochelle’s suit was still being deferred in 1323, although it was eventually settled in the town’s favor.'!© 10'T’oubeau de Maisonneuve, “Aides royales,” p. 143.

'¢For the wording of the city’s charter, see Boutaric, Actes, 1:320, no. 68", and also Olim, 1:848. The case was first heard in the Parlement in 1319; on 22 February 1320 the suit was postponed for a year, and when the municipality’s proctors appeared in 1321, the case was again deferred until the next session of the Parlement: Boutaric, Actes, nos. 5985, 6314; AN, X'= 8844, fols. 30v, 81v. Whether the case was ever terminated is unclear, but in 1319 Bourges was able to use the suit to counter the demands for war subsidy made by the king’s commissioners: [’oubeau de Maisonneuve, “Aides royales,” pp. 142-44. The royal officers—Pierre de Prunet, canon of Bourges and a royal clerk; Pierre, lord of Fontenay; and the bai//i of Bourges—

had received their commission on 5 January 1319. See Recueil ... Poitou, ed. Guérin (1881), pp. 190-94, no. LXXXVI; Fawtier, Registres, 2:no. 1576; Taylor, “Assemblies of Towns,” pp. 132-34. 105See above, p. 173.

'6See above, p. 197. On 26 June 1320 the town’s suit was deferred for a year: Boutaric, Actes, no. 6119. In 1321 La Rochelle’s lawyers appeared with an elaborate brief defending the town’s possessory and proprietary rights to freedom from the aid, but since the royal procurator was not prepared to answer, on 15 May 1321 the Parlement gave him a year to formulate his response: AN, X'? 8844, fol. 87v; see Boutaric, Actes, no. 6408. After a year had passed, the

court duly reviewed the town’s memorandum and privileges. Whether the royal procurator gave a formal response is not clear. In any case the court did not have time for full discussion of the issues, and therefore the suit was once again postponed; “quia dicte raciones & priuilegia ac negocium non sunt ad plenum discusse est ex officio nostro continuatum et positum in statu quo est vsque ad diem Senescallie Xanct’ futuri proximo parlamenti”: AN, X'? 8844, fol. 131v;

212 CHAPTER VI The resolution of La Rochelle’s case witnesses the ultimate futility of the government’s strategy. Still, procrastination won the monarchy time and perhaps some additional revenue, whereas a more aggressive approach might

| have provoked increased hostility and resistance. There is remarkably little evidence of opposition to Philip V’s demands, and the tactics that kept discontent at a minimum also enabled the government to avoid restrictive declarations of principle. The royal policy does not seem to have produced much actual profit, however, and Philip’s inability to discharge his debts to

the duke of Burgundy and furnish his daughter with the portion he had promised as quickly as the duke wished!” may in part have resulted from

the general unproductiveness of the marriage aid. | However disappointing the aid’s yield, those subjects who were liable for the customary aids were becoming increasingly restive under the burdensome succession of impositions. In 1321 and 1324 two disgruntled couples living in Soissons paid the town various sums to be quit “of all charges, contributions, subsidies, subventions due to the king or anyone else for army service, military expeditions, the marriage and knighting of the king’s children or anyone else” and of all other municipal obligations.!® As far as the royal aids were concerned, these couples’ investment proved to have no see Boutaric, Actes, no. 6822. Another year passed, but on 7 June 1323 the court’s pronouncement was precisely the same as it had been a year earlier: AN, X'* 8844, fol. 176v; see Boutaric,

Actes, no. 7253. By 1334 the Parlement had handed down arresta relating to La Rochelle’s liability, but precisely when the decision was reached is unknown. See Brown, “Customary Aids,” p. 229. 'o7In 1321 the duke’s officials repeatedly requested payment of the money that was owed, and Philip V finally sent his minister Henri de Sully to the Chamber of Accounts to order the treasurer, in the presence of the duke’s agents, to pay them what was due for his daughter’s marriage. [he treasurer diplomatically replied that he would determine how much the duke had received and how much remained to be paid and would see that the king’s debt was discharged as quickly as possible. The duke’s demands had clearly angered the king, for Sully next instructed the masters of the Chamber of Accounts to determine how much the duke owed the king and collect it immediately. These orders emanated from the king, who had issued them himself the previous day in the duke’s presence: Langlois, “Registres perdus,” pp. 252-53. Chamber officials claimed that the duke still owed an enormous sum of money for the dowry of Marguerite, the first wife of Louis X. In 1323 the duke filed a formal reply, answering the royal charges in detail: AN, J 1036, no. 12; see above, p. 24 n. 47. los... franc et quitte plainement / et exempt de toutes tailles / tant du temps passe comme du temps auenir de toutes charges contributions de touz subsides subuentions apenre ou aleuer depar le roy nos’ ou de par autre personne quelle que elle soit / de oz / de cheuauchiees / de mariaiges de cheualeries de enfanz du roy nos’ ou dautres quel que il soient de toutes debtes / et obligacions / quelles quele soient faites ou afaire en la dite commune pour quelle cause que ce soit et de toutes autres choses quelles que elles soient qui toichent [sc] ou peuent toucher fait de commune ou de communaute en quelconques lieu que iceli Jehan et Jehanne demeurent”’:

AN, JJ 60, fol. 21, no. 47; see Fawtier, Registres, 2:no. 3416; dated 20 February 1321. For a similarly detailed letter of exemption, issued to a couple on 21 March 1324, see AN, JJ 62, fol. 63, no. 106. See AN, JJ 59, fol. 175, no. 330 (Fawtier, Regzstres, 2:no. 3051), for a less

THE LATER FOURTEENTH CENTURY 213 immediate value, since the dynastic tragedies that plagued the sons of Philip

the Fair meant that after 1318 the people of France were spared royal demands for knighting and marriage aids for many years. Charles IV, Philip V’s brother and successor, may have tried to collect a crusading aid in 1323. After a stirring assembly in Paris at which prelates and barons pledged money and support for expeditions scheduled to depart in May and August, the king ordered local meetings to be held in the different dioceses of the realm to secure the financial assistance of all his subjects, lay and ecclesiastical.!°? The king’s grounds for demanding an aid were, however, weak. Since he was not committing himself to participate per_ sonally in the effort, he could not require an aid and had to rest content with soliciting his subjects’ contributions.'!° There is no indication that his appeal for funds was successful, and an undated petition prepared by the inhabitants of Riom provides the only evidence that local meetings were actually held. If the document was drawn up in 1323,!!! it can hardly have reassured the king. Although the people of Riom acknowledged the urgent need for action, they protested that they were legally exempt from payment and maintained that their poverty—resulting from crop failure, monetary

mutations, their contributions to the king’s wars, and their loans to the king’s father—prevented them from offering any more than 500 1.!! 3. THE Arps OF THE VALois KINGS

Not until 1332 was another attempt made to levy an aid from the realm of France. The spectacular campaign launched in that year by Philip VI of elaborate letter dated 3 July 1319; and AN, JJ 62, fol. 63v, no. 108, for one issued on 7 February 1324.

'°Ordonnances, 1:811~12; Tyerman, “Sed Nihil Fecit?” pp. 176-81; idem, “Marino Sanudo Torsello and the Lost Crusade: Lobbying in the Fourteenth Century,” Transactions of the Royal , Historical Society, 5th ser., 32 (1982), 61-64; see also Gottfried Diirrholder, Die Kreuzzugspolitik unter Papst Johann XXII. (1316-1334) (Strasbourg, 1913), p. 37. 0D irrholder, Die Kreuzzugspolittk, pp. 32-57; Henri Lot, “Projets de croisade sous Charles le Bel et sous Philippe de Valois,” BEC 20 (1858-59), 503-9; and idem, “Essai d’intervention de Charles le Bel en faveur des chrétiens d’Orient tenté avec le concours du pape Jean XXII,” BEC 36 (1875), 588-600. ‘NAC, Riom, CC 7, no. 969. This document 1s puzzling. Since it refers to the Hospitalers’ possession of all Templar holdings, it was clearly drawn up after the transfer of property had taken place. The reference to the loans made to the king’s father suggests that it was prepared before the death of the last of Philip the Fair’s sons, Charles IV, early in 1328. Further, there

is no evidence that a crusading subsidy was requested during this period in any year except 1323. On the other hand, the petition’s reference to the campaigns against Flanders and the provision of arms for the war effort are inconsistent with its having been drafted in 1323, since no war subsidy had been levied since 1319. It would be easiest to account for the complaints found in the document had it been drafted in the 1330s, which would be possible only if the loans had been made to Charles of Valois. N2AC, Riom, CC 7, no. 969.

214 CHAPTER VI Valois dwarfed the efforts of his predecessors. The king imposed two aids—

one for the marriage of his daughter Marie and another for the knighting of his son John—and he hinted that he might soon demand a third aid for crusading.'!> From the outset Philip clearly indicated that he intended to abandon the moderate policy implemented by the last direct Capetians. In his mandates the king did not make any explicit legal claims or allude to his prerogative or the general custom of the realm, as had been done under Saint Louis and Philip the Fair. His letters nonetheless suggested that the aids might be required of all inhabitants of the realm. Ominously, they contained no reference to customary exemption or traditional privilege. The king’s officials implemented his commands speedily, precisely, and efficiently. Resistance immediately appeared, first in Normandy, which Phil-

ip’s son John held in apanage, and then in other northern regions. When opposition mounted, the king hesitated. Modifying his original orders but nonetheless proclaiming defensively that the Normans owed the aid to his son if not to him, he commanded his officials in Normandy to confine their efforts to ducal lands and to levy the aids in other localities only if they had been paid in the past. As in the days of Philip the Fair and his sons, protests and complaints were to be heard and determined in the Chamber of Accounts in Paris. These orders were soon generalized, and the king also indicated that his officials might negotiate if it seemed advisable. Like his predecessors, he decreed that the subjects of his immediate vassals would be immune from

payment. These restraining orders may have applied only to Normandy; they did not halt opposition. In the Midi complaints were voiced to local officials, and representatives of eight important communities in the seneschalsy of Carcassonne sent a delegation to Paris, as did the consuls of Périgueux. Defiance continued, even when Philip suspended the marriage aid following the death of his daughter Marie in September 1333. December 1333 saw the final defeat of the king’s attempt to enforce the sweeping principle enunciated at the beginning of the campaign to levy the aids. ‘The Parlement, manifesting unprecedented decisiveness, declared that all people immediately subject to the king were bound to pay the knighting '3For the following, see Brown, “Customary Aids,” passim. To the bibliography in this article on John’s levy of a marriage aid for his daughter in Normandy before his accession to the throne should be added Frangois de Beaurepaire, “Le compte du subside levé en 1349 dans le vicomté de Coutances pour le mariage de Jeanne de France avec le comte de Luxembourg,” Revue de la Société d'archéologie et a’histotre du département de la Manche, St-Lé 5 (1963), 151-

54, on which see the comments of Jean Favier, “L’histoire administrative et financiére du Moyen Age occidental depuis dix ans,” BEC 126 (1968), 438. Additional evidence concerning the carefully limited terms on which support was offered for Philip VI’s crusade is found in Elie Berger, Notice sur divers manuscrits de la Bibliothéque Vaticane. Richard le Poitevin, moine de Cluny, historien et poéte (Paris, 1879), pp. 2-4. On the crusade, see Christopher J. Tyerman,

‘Philip VI and the Recovery of the Holy Land,” FHR 100 (1985), 25-52.

THE LATER FOURTEENTH CENTURY 215 aid. All others were exempt. This proclamation resulted from proceedings initiated by communities of the seneschalsy of Carcassonne and Béziers, for although their representatives first appeared, as the king had ordered, before the Chamber of Accounts, they soon initiated formal action in the Parlement. There the relevance of the privileges they displayed was hotly disputed. The king’s procurator produced records proving that many of the communities had paid similar aids in the past and presented arguments defending the king’s right to collect the aid from all his immediate subjects. Confirming the king’s stand, the Parlement declared that all his direct subjects were liable for payment. This decree marked a clear departure from previous royal policy. Not only did the officials of the Parlement finally decide to define and limit royal right, they did so in terms demonstrating their intention to reject exemptions based on custom or special royal grace. These novel principles threatened

the cherished rights of many of the king’s subjects, and communities throughout the realm sent proctors to Paris to protest. In the face of this opposition the Parlement retreated at the end of July 1334 and ordered all

protesters to reconvene on | December to hear its final decision. In the interim, the court announced, it would receive any briefs the plaintiffs and the royal procurator wished to present. The majority of the protesters were from the Midi. The seneschalsies of Beaucaire, Bigorre, Carcassonne, Périgord and Quercy, Rouergue, and Toulouse were all represented. Among the southern towns which joined the appeal were Cahors and Figeac, leading members of the coalition of 1309; their allies included Carcassonne, Millau, and Riom, long involved in controversy with the government over the customary aids. The consuls of Nimes submitted a particularly strong brief. Opposition was not confined to the south, and other parties to the suit came from Champagne, the Orléanais, and Burgundy. Some localities lay within the royal domain and were

immediately subject, wholly or in part, to the king; others, outside the domain, were nonetheless under the king’s jurisdiction because of pariages or associations concluded between their lords and the king; still others were subject to lords other than the king and were neither within the royal domain nor under the king’s jurisdiction. All presented to the Parlement privileges that, they asserted, ensured them immunity from the aid. The court received their documents and heard their pleas; these were weighed against the case

presented by the king’s advocates, who continued to maintain that the plaintiffs should pay the subsidy. Finally, on 20 December 1334 the Parlement decreed that all inhabitants of lands within the royal domain and totally and

directly under royal jurisdiction were liable for the aid. Those living in territories only partly within the domain, who were still directly under the king’s jurisdiction, were to pay a percentage of the aid, presumably proportionate to the amount of territory lying within the domain. All others

216 CHAPTER VI gained total immunity: those subject to the king’s jurisdiction through pariage or association but inhabiting land completely outside the royal domain, as well as those neither living on domain lands nor jurisdictionally dependent on the king. Even more decisively than the pronouncement of December 1333, this decree flatly denied the relevance and significance of traditional exemptions and special privileges. Liberties and rights long valued by the king’s subjects were summarily rejected, as the court demonstrated its intention to nullify favors graciously granted by the king. These principles violated deep-rooted assumptions concerning the sanctity of custom and long usage as well as the king’s right to dispense. Nonetheless, implementation of the decision immediately commenced. The clear and authoritative statement, devoid of the ambiguities of the decree of 1333, left little room for debate. La Rochelle, like one community of the Orléanais, finally received a special exemption, but in these cases the Parlement’s decision was based neither on privilege nor on custom but rather on the judgments the court had rendered in similar cases in the past. Other communities, whose positions were far weaker, tried to escape the provisions of the decree through contrived and elaborate argumentation, but the clarity and precision of the court’s decision rendered their efforts fruitless.

The attempts of royal officials to collect the aid were frustrated, the theoretical importance of the decree was obscured, and its practical significance for the future was threatened when Philip VI canceled the knighting

aid. Shaken by the grave illness of his only son, Philip VI annulled the subsidy in July 1335, after John had miraculously regained his health. The king carefully emphasized his right to the traditional aids. Nonetheless, by

ordering restitution of all sums his subjects had paid for the knighting subsidy, he suggested his own doubts concerning the aid’s legitimacy. Before this, at the beginning of 1335, Philip VI had proclaimed the levy of an aid for the crusade that he was planning to direct, but in this case as well the decision of the Parlement remained a dead letter. The king took no concrete steps to prepare for the expedition, nor did he give any indication that he intended to participate personally in the voyage. Thus, as in 1323, the government was forced to solicit voluntary support rather than being able to demand an aid from those who were lawfully bound to pay. The few pledges that were made were conditional upon the actual departure

of the king and his army for the Holy Land. |

Whether applied or not, the principles formulated by the Parlement in

December 1334 were significant. Acceptance of the decision by the king and his subjects signaled the end of an age that had permitted the king and his ministers to attempt sporadically to exact payment from all inhabitants of the realm. The ruling confirmed statements and hesitant admissions that the government had made since the early years of Philip the Fair’s reign,

THE LATER FOURTEENTH CENTURY _ 217 when the king, grudgingly retreating in the face of resistance to demands for payment from mesne as well as direct subjects, had acknowledged that only those immediately subject to him were liable for the aids. The decree of 1334 went further, for it denied the admissibility of the privileges and customary exemptions that the government had tolerated, and accepted and emphasized the restricted, essentially domanial and proprietary nature of the aids. By making the criterion for liability inclusion within the boundaries of the royal domain, the decision lumped the aids with the king’s

other seigniorial profits and divorced them from their earlier association with the obligation of loyalty and support owed by vassals and subjects to their lords. Establishing as the basis for the traditional aids the concrete warrant of a precise legal decree and rejecting the fluid authority of custom, the court testified to the obsoleteness of the customary aids and barred the way to future attempts to convert them into taxes due generally from the entire realm. Protests that the king’s subjects had voiced against the aids were vindicated, but just as the decision limited the king’s freedom of action — and the extent of his subjects’ obligations, so it also restricted his subjects’

ability to protect themselves by relying on precedent and the monarchy’s dispensing power. Traditional patterns of action die hard, and without the monarchy’s support and endorsement the decision of the Parlement would have no effect.

The decision may have deterred John I from levying an aid for his son’s knighting,''* but in 1360, when a huge ransom had to be raised to gain the king’s release from English hands, the pressure of emergency and financial necessity led the government to demand an aid from all people in the kingdom, whatever their territorial or jurisdictional relationship with the king. Impressed by the gravity of the crisis and moved by sentiments of loyalty, the king’s subjects paid the tax and thus implicitly endorsed the government’s rejection of the principles of 1334 and its reassertion of the claims voiced by Louis [X. Disregarded were the compromises forced on the government in the early years of the century; overlooked were the principles defined in the decision of 1334.!!5 The monarchy’s ability in times of necessity to bend the limitations established by long usage or in the courts and the ultimate

loyalty of the French to their king were in the end stronger than the new rationalism given momentary expression in 1334 by the Parlement of the Valois kings. In 1396 a royal marriage aid was once again imposed. As in the case of the ransom aid, this aid had an aura of necessity and general benefit, for the '14Philippe Contamine, “Points de vue sur la chevalerie en France 4 la fin du Moyen Age,” Francia 4 (1976), 265. ''sSimilarly, a century earlier fiscal immunities enjoyed by various groups in Provence were not invoked when a ransom was raised for Count Charles I: Baratier, Démographie, pp. 13, 19.

218 CHAPTER VI marriage of Charles VI’s daughter, another Isabelle, and Richard II of England was expected, once again, to bring peace to the two kingdoms after more than half a century of conflict.!!6 In linking collection of the marriage aid to the levy of an aid for the support of the Christian faith and the union of the Church, the king may have hoped to emphasize the marriage’s contribution to the general welfare of the kingdom.''’ Like his predecessors, Charles attempted to levy the tax from the entire kingdom. Once again, the issue was joined on the time-honored issues of necessity, exemption, and rivilege.!'!® The decision of 1334 was once again overlooked, a solution too radical, too distant from entrenched habits of thought and action, to be accepted by the king or utilized by his subjects. Custom was once again victorious. Yet the days of its triumph were numbered, for the fifteenth century saw the gradual eclipse of the customary aids’ importance as a source of royal and seigniorial revenue. Aids were occasionally demanded, but, discouraged by the opposition that such demands inevitably aroused, lords of every rank looked to other, more trustworthy expedients to secure the funds they needed.'!°

privileg | € ag 3

''eOn the marriage, see Mirot, “Isabelle de France” (1904), pp. 550-73, (1905), pp. 6095, 161-91, 481-522, and idem, “Un trousseau royal 4 la fin du XIVe siécle,” Mémoires de la Société de l'histoire de Paris et de (Ile-de-France 29 (1902), 125-58. On Isabelle’s dowry, see Maurice Rey, Les finances royales sous Charles VI. Les causes du déficit, 1388-1413 (Paris, 1965),

pp. 340 n. 1, 341-42, 477-78, 578. WAN, K 54, no. 55 (January 1399). On the aids, see Maurice Rey, Le domaine du roi et les finances extraordinaires sous Charles VI, 1388-1413 (Paris, 1965), pp. 326-27, 333, 340, 392.

''8Proceedings involving the communities of Saint-André and Villeneuve-les-Avignon in , 1397 and 1405 are particularly interesting: AC, VIlleneuve-les-Avignon, AA 1, nos. 1, 31. ‘19 ontamine, “Chevalerie,” pp. 265-68; see also Gilles André de La Roque, sieur de La Lontiere, Traité de la Noblesse et de toutes ses differentes especes ... (Rouen, 1734), 1:288-89. The compromise reached on 10 December 1341 between the people of Aire-sur-la-Lys and the duke of Burgundy and count of Artois over the aid which he was demanding for his son’s knighting shows that the problems confronted (and solutions reached) by those attempting to collect the customary aids had not changed: AD, Pas-de-Calais, A 79, no. 10. For aids levied by the kings of France in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, see “A Discourse of Tenures,” written between 1610 and 1620, probably by Sir Roger Owen, in Sir Walter Ralegh, The Works ... (Oxford, 1829), 8:603; Ernest A. Strathman, “Ralegh’s Discourse of Tenures and Sir Roger Owen,” Huntington Library Quarterly 20 (1957), 219-33.

Conclusion When Philip the Fair’s daughter Isabelle married Edward II of England, tradition afforded the king an opportunity to levy an aid from his subjects. His expenses for the marriage were relatively modest, but he needed funds for a variety of purposes, and he imposed the aid as one of a number of measures designed to produce income. Although opinion was divided, respected legal theorists and moral theologians defended the legitimacy of such levies, and Philip the Fair’s predecessors, including Louis IX, had imposed them. Under both Louis IX and Philip Ill, the government had suggested that the king could lawfully take the customary aids from all his subjects and that a general custom of the realm sanctioned their levy. These principles were implemented during the first years of Philip the Fair’s reign, when some of his officials demanded from his mesne as well as direct subjects the traditional knighting aid that his father, Philip III, had imposed shortly before his death. Philip the Fair eventually moderated the determination of his agents by declaring that only those who were under his immediate authority were bound to pay. In general the approach taken by the king, his officials, and his courts was conservative. Negotiation was employed to elicit

voluntary donations, and broad claims and issues of ultimate right were avoided.

Arguments justifying more sweeping demands were formulated in the early fourteenth century by lawyers of Charles of Valois, seeking a marriage aid in his counties of Maine and Anjou. Invoking the territory’s status as a conquered region seized from England, the count’s lawyers maintained that all inhabitants owed the aid; had these arguments been generally accepted,

Philip the Fair could have imposed similar requirements on the lands his ancestors had acquired by conquest. Whatever the plausibility of his advocates’ arguments, Charles of Valois did not exploit them. ‘The theoretical issues remained unresolved, for the case was finally settled by negotiation, when the nobles of the two counties agreed to channel to Charles all they collected from their subjects. Both the lawyers’ assertions and the manner in which settlement was achieved seem to have affected Philip the Fair and his advisers when a marriage aid was imposed in 1308. The drive to collect the aid began slowly. An agreement was reached with Carcassonne in the spring of 1308, and during the following summer Paris offered the king a handsome sum. In most parts of the realm, however,

the king’s officials were hesitant to demand payment, and many of those who acted encountered opposition. In Normandy resistance was determined. There the king, perhaps influenced by the principles advanced on behalf of 219

220 CONCLUSION Charles of Valois, demanded the aid from all inhabitants of the duchy. The king’s position was contestable, but there was no immediate outcry, perhaps because postponements of payment were authorized.

In the spring of 1309 the tempo of the king’s campaign accelerated, probably because of the kingdom’s deteriorating financial condition. Many commissioners were appointed; they were given a variety of duties. These included general reform and the collection of fines for the illegal acquisition of fiefs as well as the levy of the marriage aid. All these activities promised to produce revenue for the government, and the commissioners set to work at once. [he sums demanded were small, but many of Philip’s subjects held that they were not liable for the aid. Complaints soon reached the king.

In the seneschalsies of Saintonge and of Périgord and Quercy nobles, communities, and religious establishments organized a protest against the royal commissioners, who had fixed the date of 1 November 1309 as the deadline for paying the marriage aid. In Saintonge the nobles led the opposition; they chose three of their number to represent them. Of these three two were also empowered to represent the leading communities of the seneschalsy. In Périgord and Quercy, however, the situation was different, owing first to the region’s proud traditions of autonomous governmental activity and second to its long experience of individual and cooperative representation. Between the end of August and the end of September numerous secular communities and ecclesiastical establishments joined in ad hoc alliances and appointed a number of proctors, who were authorized to appear before the king. Fourteen of these agents and four abbots of the region finally departed for Paris in late September. The proctors had been given elaborate documents specifying their authority. These procurations show that most communities hoped that the king would speedily admit the justice of their pleas and grant their agents letters acknowledging the communities’ immunity or exemption from the aid. Judicial action was also authorized, but only two agents were given power to negotiate financial settlements and thus to bind their constituents’ property. However much they trusted their representatives, who were legally learned men with experience in local government, the communities wished to retain close control

over the arrangement of any such compromises, should they prove unavoidable.

In Paris the agents from the Midi discovered that the king was not prepared to abandon his claims without a struggle. The agents were apparently persuaded of the wisdom of compromise, in all likelihood by Guillaume de Nogaret, the king’s chief minister. The king himself proposed negotiation, while also offering the representatives the option of seeking grace or justice. Under the circumstances, negotiation must have seemed the most promising route to follow. The agents requested a delay to consult their constituents, since as a body they had not been empowered to enter into

CONCLUSION 221 negotiations that might result in financial commitments. Philip the Fair acceded to their petition, and the chancery issued letters transmitting the king’s decision to his officials in the south. Postponement of payment was granted, and the royal officials were instructed to negotiate. A number of these letters were drafted, so that each proctor could exhibit to his constituents the fruit of his efforts. As the king evidently intended, subsequent discussions were largely confined to the Midi. Formal protest against the royal commissioners’ demands for fines for the acquisition of fiefs reached the king’s court, but inconclusive letters of justice were the most the plaintiffs secured. The king’s Norman vassals, roused to action by the government’s attempts to collect the aid, appeared in Paris at the same time as the agents from the Midi. Their arguments and the compromise they themselves proposed persuaded the king to retreat from the position he had taken in the fall of 1308. The offer the king accepted was strikingly similar to the solution Charles of Valois had reached with his subjects in Anjou and Maine. Philip the Fair acknowledged that his immediate vassals alone owed him the aid. In return, the vassals promised to relinquish to him all their subjects paid them, on condition that they would themselves be asked for no contributions. How much they actually collected and paid is unfortunately unknown. Philip and his ministers, convinced of the virtues of negotiation, pressed

for compromise. However, those who insisted on legal determination of claims connected with the aid, like those protesting the fines for the acquisition of fiefs, were heard before the Parlement. There Norman ecclesiastics were brusquely informed that their free subjects were liable for the aid. The few other cases that reached the court also seem to have resulted in victory for the king, and this outcome may have discouraged other potential plaintiffs. Bargaining was the order of the day, as the king exploited a variety of strategies to obtain contributions. Money was secured, and the king was enabled to avoid issuing or accepting pronouncements threatening his prerogative. Potential conflict was circumvented when, in a season of crop failure and famine, the king issued reductions and temporary stays of payment to many who petitioned for relief. Litigation over issues connected with the aid continued for some years, as did efforts to collect arrears. After 1313, however, attention was focused

on the aid for the knighting of Louis of Navarre that was decreed in that year. In 1313 and 1314 the king’s claims were pressed. The opposition that was provoked was stronger and more widespread than had been the case when Isabelle’s marriage aid was levied, as a number of aggrieved communities and religious establishments sought formal determination of their rights. The government remained reluctant to see issue joined on questions of principle. To satisfy the protesters and deter them from pursuing their cases, the king granted postponements, exemptions, and reductions. Ne-

222 CONCLUSION gotiation and compromise once again prevailed, and disputes over questions of principle were deferred. Philip V adopted similar strategies in 1318, and, owing to the moderation of his policies, his officers encountered no major resistance. The advent of Philip VI of Valois brought a change of attitude and tactics.

An effort was made to levy the arrears of the knighting aid of 1313, and when Philip VI married his daughter and knighted his son in 1332, two aids were demanded from all the king’s subjects. Opposition developed, and it did not diminish when the king urged compromise and restricted collection to domanial lands and territories where payment was customary. Those subjects who had formerly been dissuaded from pressing their claims at the highest level were now less hesitant. Formal suits in the Parlement resulted in decisions that finally defined the limits of the king’s authority and restricted the levy of the traditional aids to inhabitants of domanial lands who

were immediately subject to royal jurisdiction. Within these boundaries customary exemption and royal privileges were declared invalid. Owing, first, to Philip VI’s cancellation of the knighting aid and, second,

to the special nature of the next customary aid to be levied, an aid for ransoming John II, the decree of the Parlement never gained authoritative status. The decision demonstrated, however, that the tempers of both ruler and ruled had altered since 1308—at least partly as a result of the experience acquired when Isabelle’s marriage aid was collected. Philip the Fair’s at-

tempts in 1308 and 1309 to extend his rights beyond the limits clearly warranted by custom attracted wide attention. If apprehensions were allayed by retreat, obfuscation, and appeasement, the royal claims nonetheless alerted

his subjects to a grave potential threat to their rights and privileges. Fears and doubts, revived in 1313, were again assuaged by withdrawal and special favors, but the way was prepared for the resistance which was manifested when Philip VI proclaimed that the entire realm must pay two aids. Thanks to the skills and knowledge his subjects had gained in former years, the king was prevented from exploiting the tactics of withdrawal and compromise that had enabled Philip the Fair to manipulate the boundaries of tradition and leave open possibilities for future expansion of the prerogative. In 1334, by decree of the Parlement, simple, general principle governing the traditional aids replaced the varied rule of custom and privilege, which had formerly been accepted. The pronouncement testified to a subtle but fundamental change in the conception of the king’s proper relationship with his subjects. Clearly distinguishing between the lordly and the royal capacities of the king, the decision reflected an alteration in attitude to the mingled attributes and powers long characteristic of the monarchy. Definition and the imposition of uniformity meant restriction: of cherished privileges for many subjects, of actual and potential income for the king, of ability to maneuver for both. In the end the rationality of the doctrine of 1334 proved

CONCLUSION 223 premature. Later monarchs disregarded it and reverted to earlier strategies to expand collection; for their part, their subjects did not invoke the decision

of 1334 as a basis for contesting the royal demands. Neither rulers nor subjects were quite ready to abandon a custom which expressed the idea that personal, familial relationships linked lords and dependents, mutually obligated as head to members and members to head. Before and after 1334 custom was accepted as an important and reliable standard of conduct by and for rulers and subjects alike. Lords could exploit tradition, since its boundaries were far more readily manipulated than restrictions contained in written law and recorded privileges. They could not and did not expect, however, to see long usage automatically and universally accepted as warrant for questionable rules and policies. “Evil” customs, acknowledged to exist, were condemned.! They were believed to taint those who relied upon them, and the eradication of such practices was considered a mark of good government; this duty was particularly incumbent on the king, the realm’s chief lord. Yet the boundary between good and evil was not clear, even to moralists whose careers were devoted to making such distinctions. Custom had special utility in justifying practices and sources of revenue that could not easily be defended on such rational grounds as evident necessity and pressing emergency. The warrant of custom was the primary justification for the traditional aids. In and of themselves they were neither clearly laudable nor evidently reprehensible, as the arguments of legal theorists and moral theologians demonstrated. But long usage had to be proven, and attempts to assert that

custom existed when in fact it did not were dangerous and, in the end, futile. Louis IX, his successors, and other lords may have proclaimed that a “general custom” required the payment of certain aids by all subjects. Those who had never paid the aids surely recognized these declarations for what they were—efforts to extend liability for taxes whose collection could not otherwise be justified, or in some instances to utilize past generosity as the basis for establishing legal obligation. Such assertions were dangerously insubstantial, and written privileges as well as inquiry into precedent could prove them true or false. Louis IX’s efforts to extend obligation for the traditional aids to the entire realm were more aggressive, more ambitious, and more dedicated than Philip the Fair’s. Louis IX, seeing himself as royal patriarch, may have believed in the ultimate truth of the pronouncements issued in his name. A conscientious king would not ask for funds except for justifiable ends; therefore a general custom must enable him to receive the funds he needed should such ends 'Francois-Jean-Marie Olivier-Martin, “Le roi de France et les mauvaises coutumes au Moyen Age,” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fiir Rechtsgeschichte, Germanistische Abteilung 58

(1938), 108-37.

224 CONCLUSION exist. The sweeping claims were doubtless the product of the king’s deepseated conviction of the inherent legitimacy of his demands for support. In contrast to the grandfather whom he venerated, Philip the Fair seems to have had a tenderer conscience and to have been more vulnerable to the caveats of the moral theologians, to have had a more scrupulous regard for fact, and to have possessed a shrewder sense of political realities. To be sure, he tolerated and perhaps initiated attempts made at the beginning of his reign and when he first demanded the marriage aid to assert that the whole kingdom owed the traditional aids. However, he soon abandoned this position, doubtless realizing that unfounded and overambitious claims were valueless. He and his advisers must have concluded that such demands provoked disrespect for and even hostility toward the authorities which enunciated them or sanctioned their proclamation. Philip the Fair seems always to have wished to expand the prerogative and increase his revenues by imposing the aids generally throughout the kingdom. Still, by insisting only on payments authorized by specific custom, by respecting established privileges and immunities, and by expressing his willingness to compromise, the king avoided conflict and fortified the image of the monarch as fount of justice, grace, equity, and reasonableness. In

| adopting this position, he probably forfeited little revenue. The weight of custom and the respect accorded special privilege would in any case have prevented him from establishing a right to universal liability for the aids. From a practical standpoint, his local agents often succeeded where he could not—in advancing claims too grandiose for the government officially to endorse, in challenging privileges with an abandon that the monarchy could not countenance, and in pressing for payment with a zeal that the king could not endorse. His agents’ exuberance left the king free to restrain and discipline his agents when necessary and to profit from their activities when he could. Invocation of custom, attempts to establish precedents and special privilege, and the government’s encouragement of compromise resulted in cumbersome and delicate encounters whenever aids were imposed. These deal-

ings were necessarily complex and were variable in their outcomes, particularly since the king’s local and regional officials rarely responded similarly to royal mandates. Some outdid the central government in their efforts to expand the prerogative; others were difhdent in the face of op-

position. |

The history of the collection of any aid is, thus, complex, not only because of the actions of the central government and its deputies, but also because the reactions of the king’s subjects were diverse. Aggressive officials provoked resistance in some places, acquiescence in others. Deep-rooted habits of action, varying from region to region, determined the attitudes that were exhibited and the stands that were taken. Some individuals, communities,

CONCLUSION 225 and districts, long jealous of their rights, possessed hard evidence of their privileges and of the payments they had made or denied. The care with which records were preserved provides a useful indicator of the tenacity and determination with which rights were defended. Even without documentary safeguards, capitulation was not the only alternative open to subjects. Those who were creative devised pleas persuasive enough to elicit special favor and exemption. Lords who were concerned more to protect and fortify their own coffers than to guard their position as intermediaries between the king and their subjects agreed to relinquish to the government the contributions of their dependents in return for a share of the profits or personal immunity. Such arrangements had the disadvantage of furnishing grounds, however slim, for future demands for payment from subjects as well as lords. Other lords—warier, perhaps, or more determined, or closer to the king—succeeded not only in evading payment themselves but also in protecting their subjects, thus strengthening their own autonomy and authority. Communities and confederations that negotiated directly with the king

responded diversely to royal demands. In some regions groups were accustomed to acting independently, were expert in adapting strategy to circumstance, and were familiar with relevant legal principles; in others they were not. This does not mean that precedents were routinely and slavishly followed or that anger and resentment could not provoke the sudden organization of opposition and the spontaneous creation of mechanisms of resistance that had never before been utilized. In the Midi the coalitions fashioned in Quercy in 1309 were not exact replicas of the alliances that had been created there in previous years, nor did their shape determine the modes of association that would be employed in later years. The coalitions of 1309 were affected by past practice and also by immediate circumstances—

feelings of community pride and desire for independent action, as well as cravings to avoid expense. Similarly, the powers they accorded mandataries varied with the needs, desires, and experience of the constituents. In nearby Saintonge, strong traditions of cooperation among communities were absent,

and resistance took a different form. The nobility assumed the leadership of an alliance that was far less elaborate and apparently created with far less ceremony. In Périgord the state of relations between the king and the leading

city of the region, Périgueux, meant that no widespread or coordinated resistance was manifested. Distinctive habits of thought and action affected these and other regions’ reactions to royal policy, as did a variety of im-

, mediate circumstances. The approach taken by Philip the Fair and his sons to the traditional aids was flexible and pragmatic. Aware of their responsibilities as rulers, unwilling to reject or flout tradition, sensitive to moral issues, the last direct Capetians were also fully cognizant of their financial needs and dedicated

226 CONCLUSION to maintaining and, when possible, extending their power. Ready to secure what they could through negotiation and insistence on established right, they stopped short of forcing issues that could lead to angered resistance or even to the imposition of judicial limitations on the exercise of their prerogative. Due process was observed, sometimes tediously, but when occasion demanded, with dispatch. Protesters who made their way to the royal court were treated courteously and were given prompt and ceremonious attention, if not full satisfaction. Ruffled feelings were avoided, tempers were calmed, and final decisions were postponed. Calculated or not, this strategy effectively forestalled the coalescence and spread of resistance. The wisdom of these tactics—the avoidance of hostile confrontation, the conservation of custom, the advocacy of compromise—was demonstrated in later years. The first Valois king pursued a different strategy, and the decision the Parlement eventually promulgated was not advantageous to the monarchy. The decree circumscribed the king’s freedom of action and disregarded the fundamental loyalty that still informed subjects’ feelings for their kings. These subjects were not prepared to leave their monarchs undefended and unsupported in times of clearly demonstrated need. When the English captured King John II, they rallied to gain his release. By the end of the fourteenth century the government was thus, once again, exploiting the ambiguities and intricacies that had distinguished the campaigns of the last Capetians to levy the traditional aids. The cautious tactics employed by the monarchs of fourteenth-century France in imposing and collecting the traditional aids resulted in no expansion of the royal prerogative. This aspect of their governance appears at variance with the style of governance long associated with Philip the Fair. Yet it may be more typical of his rule than has been assumed.’ Its virtues should not be underestimated. Reverence for the past, tolerance of divergent traditions, and readiness to negotiate never produce dynamic innovation and dramatic expansion of power, yet in these characteristics lies an important key to the centuries-long endurance of the French monarchy. To Philip the Fair belongs much of the credit for establishing these traits as fundamental principles of French kingship. Striking parallels are found in the history of Philip the Fair’s policies regarding amortissement, fines for lands alienated to the church: Gérard Sautel, “Note sur la formation du droit royal d’amortissement (XIIIe-XIVe siécles),” in Etudes @histoire du droit canonique dédiées a Gabriel Le Bras (Paris, 1965), 1:689-704.

Appendix DOCUMENTS I A protest prepared for proctors of nobles and ecclesiastics of Rouergue to present to the king and his court, setting forth objections to the knighting aid imposed in the district. A. Original lost. B. BN, Doat 176, fols. 250-53, a collated copy, taken from “une copie trouuéé entre les papiers mesles et non Inuentories du tresor des titres des archiues de Sa Maiesté en la ville de Rodes de la quelle copie auec dautres titres aussi trouués entre lesdits papiers mesleés. Il a esté faict vne liasse enla quelle ladite copie est cotéé de letre V. 18,” by Gratian Capot in the presence and on the orders of Jean Doat at Rodez on 1 August 1667, and signed by both men. The copy is heavily corrected. See above, pp. 59-60.

Requeste de Leueque et du Comte de Rodes et autres prelats et Barons de la Senechaucée dudit Pais au Roy de france sur la pretention quils auoient d’estre exempts du subside pour l’entretien de la milice quil auoit en leurs terres. Coram Regia Magestate et eius curia veneranda proponunt procuratores Episcopi et Comitis Ruthenae, et aliorum praelatorum, et Baronum Senescalliae Ruthensis pro ipsis Baronibus, et hominibus et subditis eorundem ad deffensionem ipsorum super eo quod Dominus noster Rex occasione suae militiae in terra et hominibus ac subditis dictorum praelatorum et Baronum subuentionem requirit, quod non est dicta subuentio de ratione aliquatenus exigenda pro eo scilicet quia, aut petitur dicta subuentio de Jure scripto, aut de jure non scripto, scilicet consuetudine. Si autem de iure scripto petatur in dicta Ruthenae senescallia quae regitur Jure scripto hoc de ture non pro-

cedit: sed eius contrarium scilicet quod de iure Commun scripto libertas cuique praesumitur attributa, nisj rure aliquo specialj seruitutis subiectio ostendatur. praeterea leges et Canones prohibent nouos census, noua vectigalia, nouas pentiones, nouas exactiones fierj seu imponj in nulla etiam parte iuris reperitur quod praetextu nouae militiae homines seu subditj dare aliquid suo domino teneantur. Multominus ergo subditj subditorum. Cum subditus mej subditj non sit mihj subditus regulariter nec vassallus vassallj mej meus est vassallus, nec seruus liber} mej meus est seruus, et 1ura testantur, et hoc etiam notatur per Dominum Iohannem de Blanasco in Summa Sua vbj tractat de homagio et hoc idem notatur in Summa de Feudis. Sed sj diceretur quod ranfredus in suo commento innuit quod pro noua militia vassallus Domino seruire teneatur hoc non derogat subditis subditorum cum de illis non loquatur, nec esse praeiudicat immediate subiectis pro eo scilicet quia ipse Rafredus habet, et approbat aliqua lege seu Canone, nec enim poterat cum non sint' canon vel lex aliqua quae haec dicat. Sj enim esset super hoc lex vel canon non est verj simile quod ea inducere omisisset, nec etiam erat ipse Ranfredus legis lator vel Princeps, qui posset 1S7c.

227

228 APPENDIX condere iura; sed habuit Respectum solum modo ad ius non scriptum consuetudinarium italiae, vbj talia obseruantur vt frequenter in suo tractatu potest viderj qui approbat aliqua et plura per Lombardam? qui est liber Localis, et ita ad loca alia non trahendus.

Si autem de Jure non scripto scilicet consuetudinario dicta subuentio exigatur, non praeiudicat cum contrarium sit verum, scilicet quod dict Barones, et praelatj et homines suj, et antecessores ipsorum fuerunt semper liberj et immunes a praestatione dictae subuentionis, et ita quod in contrarium memoria non existit, licet Reges franciae et Comites Tholosan) quibus Comitibus dicta senescallia pro maior) parte consueuit esse subiecta fact) fuerint olim milites, et filij eorumdem, et ita esse esto sine praeiudicio quod dicta subuentio siue iure scripto siue non scripto deberetur, quod tamen aliter est praescriptum esset ill) praestationy per .. .? vastissimam antiquitatem

temporis cuius contrarij non extat memoria quae obtinet vicem legis. _ Nec obstat sj dicatur quod non debet esse deterioris conditionis Rex in terra illa, quam alij Barones qui pro militia dictam subuentionem a subditis suis habent pro eo scilicet, quia non omnes Barones occasione talj a subditis suis aliquid exigunt, et ill) etiam qui haec exhigunt non exhigunt haec a subditis subditorum, nec etiam ab aliqua militar) nobiliue persona, nec vilo tempore fuit hoc exactum in dicta senescallia.

Item sj forte aliqui Baronum ex praescriptione, vel consuetudine dictam subuentionem haberent. Illa praescriptio vel consuetudo de Jure Dominum Regem vel alios non Juuaret, qui talibus subuentionibus vsj non fuissent. Item dicunt et expresse negant esse ius Commune pro Domino Rege, vel etiam consuetudinem vel praescriptionem. Imo dicunt expresse dictos praelatos, et Barones, et subditos eorumdem esse a dicta subuentione et consilio de Jure communy liberos et Immunes.

Item asserunt dict) procuratores vltra dictas deffensiones pro dicto Episcopo Ruthenae, quod nec ipse Episcopus nec aliquis antecessorum suorum nullo vnquam tempore recognitionem feudalem, homagium, fidelitatem Domino Regi fecerunt, nec Comitj Tholosano, nec aliquibus antecessoribus eorumdem, nec alicui ality saeculary Ecclesiasticaeue personae. Item asserunt pro Abbate Monasterij Conchensis dictae Senescalliae, quod inclitae recordationis Dominus Pipinus Rex franciae qui dictum fundauit Monasterium ab omnibus exactionibus, et etiam ab omnj Jure fiscalj voluit et concessit ex pura Elemosina dictum Monasterium cum rebus, et hominibus suis esse liberum, et Immune prout in priuilegio per eundem Dominum Pipinum eidem Monasterio concesso ple-

nius continetur...................4* Nanthen’’ dictae senescalliae, quod nec ipse nec aliquis antecessorum suorum vilo vnquam tempore. .....° feudalem, homagium, fidelitatem Domino Regi fecerunt de villa Nanthensj, nec Comity Tholosano, nec aliquibus antecessorum eorundem, sed dictam villam tenet dictus Abbas a Romana

Ecclesia sub annua pensione. , Ste. >A blank space of approximately five letters’ length. *A blank space of a line’s length, or approximately forty letters. 5Stc.

°A blank space of approximately thirteen letters’ length.

DOCUMENTS 229 Item dicunt et protestantur dict) procuratores, quod sj forte procuratores Baronum, vel praelatorum aliarum senescalliarum aliqua proposuerunt seu dixerunt, quae _ possent esse contraria intentionj dictorum procuratorum senescalliae Ruthenensis ea pro se non approbant, nec acceptant, sed ea tantum quae facerent pro eisdem. Offerentes se praedicta probare quathenus circa factum erunt necessaria; sj et prout venerabil) consilio videbitur faciendum. Suplicant Igitur Regiae Celsitudinj quod a dictae subuentionis exactione cessare dignetur, nec velit terram illam contra statum antiquum tantae subiicere seruitutj; sed more praedecessorum suorum eam in suis libertatibus conseruare. Rationes reddite parisis ...” per lohannem et Rigaldum Radisse super subuentione militar) petita Rege franciae® ratione militiae suae. 7A space of approximately five letters’ length. ®Szc.

2 A copy of an exemplification issued by Gui de Pree, guardian of the seal of Charles of Valois in the city of Le Mans, on 29 May 1301 at Le Mans, of several compromises proposed to Charles of Valois by seven lords of the counties of Anjou and Maine concerning the aids he is demanding. The copy is found in a roll of documents, all copied in the same hand, relating to Charles’s struggles with his lords over the aids. Preceding the exemplification 1s a copy of the summons issued by the bishop of Sotssons, the chanter of Paris, and Gautier de Alterchiaco to the nobles, ecclesiastics, and townspeople of Anjou and Maine from whom an

aid was being sought to appear before them at Le Mans on Tuesday after the feast of Saint Andrew (5 December); the summons is dated at Senlis on Saturday after All Saints Day (4 November) 1301, and it contains an exemplification of the royal commission issued to them at Senlis on Friday before All Saints Day (27 October) 1301. A. AN, J 178B (Anjou), no. 61, pts. 1 and 2, first membrane. The roll consists of seven membranes of parchment, sewn together with beige thread. The first membrane, stylus-lined, measures 238/243 mm. wide by 450 mm. long, folded back 8 mm. for sewing to the second membrane. The roll is twice endorsed, once in fourteenth-century Gothic script and again in contemporary bastard chancery script, “le proces contre les appellans daniou & du Mans”, a latefourteenth- or early-fifteenth-century hand added the number “‘iiij* xv.” ‘On the document, see Archives d’Anjou, ed. Marchegay, 2:188-89. The third part (sections four through six in Marchegay’s analysis) is published in Coutumes, ed. Beautemps-Beaupré,

-pt. 2, vol. 4, pp. 27-38; the fifth portion (entitled “Isti sunt Barones Cenom’ & eorum subiecti qui coram commissariis domini Regis diebus Iouis & veneris post festum beati nicolai yemalis Cenom’ personaliter comparuerunt”’) is utilized in Lestang, “Noms et qualités,” pp. 507-22; cf. ibid., p. 507 n. 1, for the title of the section, and note that the document on which his alphabetized, analytical list is based is AN, J 179B, no. 107. The fourth portion of the roll is entitled “Ce sont les Barons et les subiez Mons’ le conte daniou & dumaine qui furent appelez deuant les commissaires et se defaillirent & furent appelez a la Requeste des genz mons’ leconte

230 APPENDIX See above, pp. 62-63.

..G. miseracione diuina suessionensis Episcopus .. P. Cantor parisiensis / ac Galterus de alterchiaco serenissimi principis domini philippi dei gratia Illustris Regis — franc’ consiliarii & quantum ad ea que sequntur speciales commissarii Balliuo Comitatuum Andeg’ et Cenom’ necnon vniuersis & singulis dictarum Comitatuum subailliuis prepositis aliis que seruientibus & tusticiariis salutem. Noueritis nos recepisse litteras prefati domini Regis formam que sequitur continentes. Philippus. dei gracia franc’ Rex. Dilectis & fidelibus nostris .. G. episcopo suessionensi & Cantori parisiensi ac Galtero de alterchiaco militi nostro salutem. & dilectionem. Cum orta sit Materia questionis inter Carissimum Germanum & fidelem nostrum karolum Comitem Andegauen’ & Cenomon” ex vna parte & subditos suos Andeuen’? & Cenom’ ex altera super quibusdam auxiliis que idem Germanus noster ab eisdem sibi asserit deberi & iam pro matrimonio ysabellidis filie sue super quibusdam personis ecclesiasticis ac super quibusdam nobilibus in suis retrofeodis existentibus facere leuari inceperit / propter que quidem ex ipsis ad nos appellasse dicuntur. Tandem pro bono pacis inter Gentes predicti Germani nostri & dictos subditos coram nobis fuit sub forma que sequitur concordatum. Videlicet quod nos de gentibus nostris aliquos Cenomon’ mitteremus qui ibidem coram se omnes & singulos barones Cenom’ & andeg’ / Necnon abbates & priores ac capitula colegiatarum ecclesiarum. Ceterasque ecclesiasticas personas quas negocium tangit / ac omnes & singulos nobiles & alios feoda possidentes in retrofeodis dicti Germani nostri dictorum comitatum. ac insuper Ciues dictarum ciuitatum Cenom’ & andeg’ & quarundam aliarum uillarum a quibus petuntur dicta auxilia ad certam diem facerent conuocari. Et ibidem presentibus gentibus dicti germani nostri diligenter inquirerent a quibus dicta auxilia deberentur / Et sub

qua forma ac per cuius seu quorum manus sunt leuanda / Et si de premissis certitudinem inuenire possent Gentes dicti germani nostri auxilia modo debito leuare permittant / Impedimentum quodlibet amouendo. Si uero certitudinem de premissis inuenire non possent statum negocii / et illa que dubia inuenerint nobis referent ut ex hiis ordinemus secundum quod nobis videbitur faciendum Quare uobis mandamus quatinus ad predictum locum citius quam comode poteritis personaliter accedentes / premissa & omnia singula diligenter adimplere curetis / Et si uobis constiterit aliquos de subditis predictis ad nos appellasse / Et post appellacionem interpositam aliqua de bonis ipsorum occasione dictorum auxiliorum per Gentes dicti Germani nostri leuata fuisse / vel alia attemptata in preiudicium appellacionis predicte vobis contiterit* ipsis appellantibus restitui faciatis & at-

pour ce que generalment les commissaires auoient fet faire leur Semonse.” The list consists of the names of nobles, divided by geographical areas, followed by towns and by ecclesiatics; finally are listed “les barons qui se presenterent & ne voudrent obeir ne demourer alaiornement que les commissaires auoient fet de par le Roy se la gent Monseigneur ne lour feissent demande par plet ordene qui point ni estoient tenuz segont la commission du Roy.” ?S1c. >Ste. *S1C.

DOCUMENTS 231 temptata ad statum debitum reduci. $i autem ad h[ec] insimul non concurreritis duo uestrum ea nichilominus exequantur. Actum siluanect’ die ueneris ante festum Omnium sanctorum / Anno domini Me. CCC». primo. Quarum auctoritate nobis districte precipiendo mandamus quatinus omnes & singulos barones Cenom’ & andeg’ Comitatuum Necnon abbates priores Capitula Colegiatarum ecclesiarum / ceteras que ecclesiasticas personas quas negocium tangit ac omnes & singulos nobiles & alios feoda possidentes in retrofeodo*’ dictorum Comitatuum ac insuper ciues ciuitatum andeg’ & Cenom’ / Et ciues etiam illarum uillarum a quibus petuntur auxilia in dicta commissione contenta / Necnon gentes nobilis viri domini karoli dictorum comitatuum comitis publice ac sollempniter in assisiis uestris dictorum comitatuum si eas interim teneri contingerit / Necnon in placitis subbailliuiarum ac in mercatis sollempnibus & aliis locis ubicumque videritis expedire. Taliter quod ad illorum noticiam quos tangit negocium perueniat ista citacio citare seu conuocare curetis ut coram nobis ad diem martis post festum beati andree apostoli Cenom’ personaliter compareant uel per procuratores sufficientes® instructos in dicto _ negocio secundum tenorem commissionis ut iustum fuerit processuri. Eisdem uniuersis & singulis intimantes quod sive uenerint siue non Nos tamen in dicto negocio

prout de iure fuerit procedemus. jpsorum absencia non obstante / Et quod inde feceritis nobis ad dictos diem & locum per uestras patentes litteras rescribatis. Actum siluan’ die sabbati post festum omnium sanctorum Anno domini Me. CCC». primo. A Touz ceus qui verront ces presentes lettres / Guy de pree Garde du seel Mons’ / Mons’ challes en sa cite du mans salut. Sachent tuit / Nous lan de grace Mil. CCC |

& vn. le lundi empres la trinite auoir veu & leu vne lettre contenante plusieurs articles / Contenante la fourme qui sensuit o garnissement de plusieurs seaus de barons dedenz contenuz / Ce sont les Raisons / les voies & les offres que le seignor de laual / Le seignor de Craon / Le seignor de maene le Conte de vendosme / le seignor de lacay / Le seignor de sillie & le seignor de matefelon / offrent & baillent au baillif daniou & dumaine / en non & en lieu de nostre sire le conte dangou’ & du maine pour samour & sa grace auoir & pour son contenz eschiuer pour les amendes

des aides iugies que il leur faisoit en non du dit Conte aauoir & aleuer par les mesurages & par les arpentages. Premierement eus offrent aaler a cest parlement a paris ou a lautre prochain ensiuant a certain iour eus fondez par procur’ souffisaument & conuenablement par eus en tant comme il leur apartient & pour leur vauasseurs / & nostre sires le Conte face faire ses demandes par persone conuenable & il feront

proposer leur deffenses & leur raisons en contre a celui iour / sanz fuite / sanz eslongne & sanz Tour de conseil & sanz nulle fuite ne autre dilacion requerre / Et leur raisons oies il entendront & acompliront ceu que len en iugera en la court nostre sires le Roy de france par droit sanz venir en contre / Et se ceste uoie ne plaisoit

a nostre sires le Conte il offrent que il paieront & enformeront & conselleront a leur vauasseurs en bonne foy sanz riens metre du leur & sanz eus obligier & le leur fere faire que leur vauasseurs cuidront & leueront de leur subgez de degre en degre la taille en la fourme & en la maniere que les vauasseurs ont acoustume aleuer de *Sze.

Ste. Ste.

232 APPENDIX leur subiez / en Cas que la taille 1ugie est deue aus barons & leuee pour eus & sera

rendue a nostre sires le Conte par la main des barons. sanz ce que eus ne leur vauasseurs® en retiengnent Rien / & se aucuns des barons auoit aloigne ou amenuisie

a aucuns de leur hommes la dite taille a mains poier & rendre que il ne deust ou eust acoustume a paier anciennement & se fust obligie a la deffendre & garantir vers son desuserain celui baron seroit tenuz a parfaire du sien le dit amenuisement / ou se ceste voie ne plaisoit a nostre sires le conte ou a aucun des vauasseurs / Les diz

barons voelent que nostre sires le conte face lamende a ceus qui le contrediront de la taille leuer par les masurages / & li cesseront les diz barons les droiz & les accions

que il auront de demander la dite taille a ceus uauasseurs a leurs sougiez qui le contraindroient sauue & retenue aus diz barons leur foy & leur loyaute enuers leur hommes & amende en forfecture de foy ou de moeble’ se il auenoit en celui cas ainsi touteuois que les diz barons voelent & otroient que se leur uauasseurs & leurs sougiez fesoient amende par raison diceles demandes que ce que le connestable de france en ordeneroit de cele amende pour auoir moeble nostre sire le conte auroit cele amende sauue & retenu lamende en la forfecture du fie & de la foy de tout le moeble aus diz barons si comme est dit dessus / Et ceste chose en la maniere dessus dite vout & otroia le seignor de silly pour lui & pour le seignor dauerton & sobliga pour lui que il aura ferme & estable les choses dessus dites. En tesmoing de ce que nous auons veu / Nous auons mis en ces presentes lettres le seel dessus dit donc!® Nous sommes gardes. Donnees au mans le lundi empres la trinite / Lan de grace

| Mil. CCC. & vn.

8MS vauauasseurs.

°Here and below moebl’.

Sze. 3

A letter addressed to the king, dated at Cahors on 19 June 1307 and drawn up by the notary Etienne Delgua, in which the consuls of thirty-one communities of the seneschalsy of Périgord and Quercy inform the king that they have empowered five men to seek letters from the king and his court concerning the assessment of income-producing property which has recently been carried out in the seneschalsy.

A. AM, Cahors, BB 6, formerly no. 10. Parchment; badly water-damaged; 643/ 632 mm. x 173/175 mm. with a fold-up of 36 mm.; plummet lined, with lines 9 mm. apart; holes are cut for seals, and the brown cords by which twentyseven of the seals were appended are intact, as are fragments of the seals (in natural wax) of Montcug and of Saint-Etienne-de-Tulmont. The names of the towns given in the procuration are listed above the holes cut for sealing, with the name of Gramat between those of Montalzat and Lapenche and that of Saint-Cirg between those of Puy-l’Evéque and Beauregard. On the dorse is found in fifteenth-century script “proqurasios de comunas,” and in eighteenth-century script “1307. N. 10. Du Lundy avant La feste saint Jean Baptiste 1307. Procuration de Mrs’ Les Consuls De La Ville de Caors Et Des

DOCUMENTS 233 aultres villes Du quercy faite a arnaud Rotland et bernard fabri pour aller Deuers sa Majesté pour obtenir Moderation Des ‘Taxes jmposées sur Le quercy Et sur le perigord auec Les sceaux Et armes desd’ Villes.” “1307” is written

in eighteenth-century script on the face of the document, at the top. See above, pp. 30-31 n. 79, 101-2, 104, 110-11. SErenissimo! principi Karissimo domino suo / domino philippo dei gracia francorum Regi. sui fideles / Consules. Ciuitatis caturci / De figiaco / de Monte albano de Moysiaco. de lauserta / de Monte cuco / De castro nouo raterij? de vallibus /

De ruppe Amatoria / de Luzegio. de sarlato. de podio ruppis / de caslucio / de septem fontibus / de Bello forti / de Monte alzato / de la penche / de Monte pensato.

de Byole / de castro franco / de castro podij domini Episcopi caturcensis’ / de Belloregardo / de podio garde / de calciata / de alto monte / de Mirabello / de Monricors.* / de thulmone’ / de fontibus. de Bruniquello. de sancto Cyrico de popia / et de Gramato / salutem / et se pronos ad pedes Regie magestatis / cum subiectionis et reuerentie assiduo famulatu. Excellentis Regie magestatis Nouerit celsitudo / quod Nos Consules predicti. pro nobis et nomine consulatuum et vniuersitatum nostrarum facimus constituimus ac etiam ordinamus / procuratores syndicos. vel actores nostros / Arnaldum rotlandi. Bernardum fabri Burgenses ciuitatis caturci. et Magistros Hugonem fabri fort / lohannem de albugia / Et stephanum delgua. clericos / et eorum quemlibet in solidum Ita quod non sit melior condicio occupantis / ad supplicandum. Impetrandum / et obtinendum / a predicta Magestate Regia / et e1us curia / quascumque litteras / simplices. et legendas graciam. Benignitatem. et iusticiam continentes / Et specialiter super negocio taxationum nuper factarum. in Senescallia Pe-

tragoricensi et caturcensi de et super Rebus rendabilibus / et ipsum negocium tangentibus. Dantes et concedentes dictis procuratoribus syndicis. uel actoribus nos-

tris / et cuilibet eorum in solidum / plenam et liberam. potestatem / et speciale mandatum / predicta faciendi / Et alia que circa premissa / et ea tangencia / necessaria

fuerint / ac etiam oportuna / Ratum et gratum perpetuo habituri. quicquid super premissis. et ea tangentibus. per dictos procuratores. syndicos. uel actores nostros. uel eorum alterum / actum fuerit / seu etiam procuratum. Et hec magestati Regie significamus per has presentes litteras. sigillis nostris sigillatas / in fidem et testimonium omnium premissorum. Actum et datum caturci. die Lune. Ante festum Natiuitatis beati Iohannis Babtiste. Anno domini / Millesimo. trecentesimo / septimo——

Sze.

?Designated simply as de castro nouo for sealing. ’Designated as de podio episcopi for sealing. *Sic

‘Designated as de tulmone for sealing.

4 A procuration issued by the consuls of Najac at Najac on 13 July 1308, revoking

the powers of the town’s former proctors and authorizing seventeen men to present the town’s claims to exemption from the marriage aid.

234 APPENDIX A. AD, Aveyron, 2 E. 178. 12. Parchment, 234 mm. X 146 mm., with a foldup of 14 mm.; a fragment of the consular seal, in green wax, is appended on a twisted white cord; the notary’s sign manual appears at the end of the final line of the act. The following notations: (1) in fourteenth-century script, “la causa de la procuracio”’; (2) in sixteenth-century script, “1308. Dels XX lz ....CCT”; (3) in seventeenth-century script, “H. de Najac. Procuration des consuls de Najac pour se deffendre de payer aucun droit pour le mariage d’une

fille de France. N° 72. ne varietur. Sarrus procureur et juge. ne varietur. Delpech procureur du Roy.”! B. BN, Doat 146, fols. 64-65v, a copy of the document made and collated by Gratian Capot on the orders and in the presence of Jean Doat from “la grosse originalle escrite en parchemin trouuée aux Archiues des titres de lhostel de Ville de Najac au dioceze de Rodez”; done at Foix on 10 November 1667 and signed by Doat and Capot. See above, pp. 75-76.

NOUERINT UNIVERSI presentes pariter et Futuri. Quod Anno domini millesimo. trecentesimo. octauo. Videlicet .xiyj*. die mensis Tulij. Domino philippo / franc’ rege regnante. Magister Poncius carr’ lurisperitus. Hugo detrebessaco. Petrus depeberaco / Marinus? debarrio Consules castri denaiaco qui sunt presentes pro se et. Deodato debrossaco. Ramundo Audeguerij’ conconsulibus dicti castri / absentibus pro se et nomine vniuersitatis dicti castr} / Reuocauerunt quoscumque procuratores factos per eorum predecessores olim consules dicti castri jn curia domini nostri regis parisiensi uel alia quacumque curia et specialiter dominum. Ramundum* decombellis et magistrum. Bernardum deseirinhaco. et Hugonem decombellis et quemcumque alium olim factum ad procedendum jn quacumque curia / uolentes expresse ea que ex nunc fierent per aliquem de dictis procuratoribus nullam habeant roboris firmitatem. Volentes etiam quod presens reuocatio cum hoc presenti publico instrumento in quacumque curia possit manifestarj. et dictis procuratoribus uel eorum alterj intimarj.* Deinde constituerunt procuratores suos Ahenricum dominum de castro marino. Guilhelmum® de barreria. Ramundum de riperia domicellos. P. maiorelli. Jacobum tarralh.’ G. affichati. lohannem marcha faua. P. guarinj. Ademarium esquilati. R. demosieis. P. demosieis. Guillelmum et .P. toirenxs® fratres. Hugonem ademarijj. stephanum depeberaco.’? Bernardum demureto domicellum. Iohannem rocha seruientem et eorum quemlibet insolidum Ita quod non sit melior conditio occupantis. Dantes potestatem agendi petendi supplicandi judicis ofiicitum requirend) coram quibuscumque [judicibus]'° Et specialiter proponendi / Excusationes pro dictis vniuer'T am grateful to Claire Delmas, Conservateur des Antiquités et Objets d’Art de l’Aveyron, for verifying my measurements of this act and for transcribing the notations on the dorse. 2Sic; Martinus in Doat 146, fol. 64. "Bernardo Andegueueryj in Doat 146, fol. 64. *Raimundum here and below in Doat 146.

’¢ follows this word, at the end of the seventh line; et is added in Doat 146, fol. 64v. SGuillelmum in Doat 146, fol. 64v. ’Carrailh in Doat 146, fol. 64v ’Torrenys (literally Torre’ys) in Doat 146, fol. 65.

°de Peberto in Doat 146, fol. 65. , ‘This word is marked for insertion and added at the end of the document.

DOCUMENTS 235 sitate & consulibus de!! non soluendo nouo subcidio quod per dominum regem petitur ratione filie sue vxoris magnifici principis regis Anglie jnpetrandj etiam litteras jn curia domini nostri regis franc’ graciam uel iusticiam continentes. Et releuauerunt dictos procuratores et eorum quemlibet ab omni honore satisdandi. Obligantes omnia bona sua nomine fideiussorio ac etiam principali. Ratum et gratum perpetuo habituri quicquid per dictos procuratores uel eorum alteri!* circa premissa & in premissis actum fuerit stue gestum.'? Horum omnium sunt testes vocati et rogati. Durandus depodio dozo. Ramundus dalba roca. Deodatus depodio dozo senior. R. deromegos. P. decandore. B. riperie.'* Et ego Guirbertus cubrieire publicus naiaci notarius qui de uoluntate et consensu dictorum constituencium hanc cartam scripsi et meum apposui sequens signum. Actum naiaci anno et die quibus supra. Et nos dicti Consules ad maioris roboris firmitatem et fidem premissorum sigillum nostri consulatus huic presenti publico instrumento duximus apponendum. "et in Doat 146, fol. 65. 12Sic; in Doat 146, fol. 65, alterum.

13¢ follows this word, at the end of the fifteenth line; et is added in Doat 146, fol. 65. \4Ripperie in Doat 146, fol. 65v.

5

A mandate of Philip the Fair to the bailli of Rouen, ordering him to proceed against all holders of wardships who are abusing rights granted them by the king, dated 5 September 1308 at Neuf-Marché.

A. Original lost. ,

B. AN, JJ 42A, fol. 100, no. iiij* (80). See Fawtier, Registres, 1:no. 827, and above, pp. 79-80.

Mandatum bailliuo Rothomagensi quod se Informet de vsurpantibus Ius quod debet habere in bonis Minorum nobilium regni! Philippus dei gracia franc’ Rex .. Balliuo Rothomagensi Salutem Relatu multorum & experimento didicimus quod dum alioquociens terras nobilium Minorum quorum custodia ad nos iure nostro / causa defectus etatis ipsorum pertinet ad manum nostram deuenisse contigerit. Nosque huiusmodi terras eisdem minoribus seu illis de genere ipsorum / uel aliis per quos racione propinquitatis uel status illorum personas & terras illas utilius & prouidius gubernari / debere speramus / frequenter ad certam firmam nobis soluendam duxerimus liberandas / aliquibus insuper ex dictis Minoribus seu personis Sibi coniunctis fructus seu leueyas annuales terrarum suarum ad nos racione garde pertinentes / concesserimus de gracia speciali / firmarij ipsi seu predicti quibus concessiones predictas fecimus patronatus ecclesiarum / & beneficiorum licet lure nostro ad nos racione custodie huiusmodi pertinent usurpare & explectare nituntur? illicite & indebite / Cum in talibus firmis seu graciis nequeat comprehendi nec cadere in eosdem. Preterea feoda ex hereditatibus minorum ipsorum mouencia / Cum foeda ipsa in gardam? similem veniunt substrahere nisi sunt / & nituntur sibi

*MS mittuntur. |

'The rubric is added in a hand different from that of the text.

>MS gardem.

236 APPENDIX cum illorum iuribus seu fructibus* applicare / & retinere in fraudem iuris nostri & non modicam lesionem / super quibus uolentes remedium adhibere. mandamus tibi quatinus / de omnibus et Singulis minoribus / & terris suis tue balliuie / quorum custodiam sue Minoritatis tempore tenuerimus / ac quorum terras ad firmam cuicumque postmodum tradiderimus ac’ de predictis usurpacionibus in nostri preiudicium attemptatis / te diligenter informes & eciam super hloc] inquiras vocatis qui vocari debuerint diligencius veritatem / que sic usurpata clara inueneris facias ad manum nostram retrahi celeriter que ad statum debitum reduci. et nobis fructus restitui / ac dampna restaurari / ac emendari quicquid super premissis in pretudici1um nostrum fuerit usurpatum / ad hoc detentores seu usurpatores quoslibet per ipsorum / ac terrarum capcionem / & explectacionem / ut opus fuerit compellendo. Ea uero que dubia uel obscura emerserint relaturus / cum pleniori instruccione nobis fideliter facienda. Preterea / cum propter subsidium nobis debitum racione maritagij Carissime primogenite nostre .Y[sabelle]. Regine anglie. nonnulli prout accepimus dictas firmas tenentes / aut quibus fructus seu leueyas terrarum® talium Minorum ad nos pertinentes ex causa garde de gracia concessimus subsidium quod a subiectis suis dictis minoribus propter h[oc] deberetur si non fuissent in garda / sed perfecte etatis leuare sibique usurpare nituntur. Cum tamen nullatenus uenire tale subsidium debeat in firmam uel concessiones predictas. quare mandamus tibi / quatinus h[oc] fieri in tua balliuia nullomodo permittas / aut quod taliter attemptatum repereris reuoces & adnulles / ac nobis talem usurpacionem facias insuper emendari. Actum apud nouum mercatum. die .v*. Septembris Anno domini Me CCC:. Octauo..

4*MS fructus. ,

‘MS ad. Sipsarum, following, canceled.

6 A mandate of Philip the Fair to officials of the Exchequer of Rouen and to all baillis of Normandy, confirming his right to the marriage aid and ordering postponement of the levy, dated 6 September 1308 at Neuf-Marché. A. Original lost. B. AN, JJ 42A, fol. 101v, no. iiij* 11) (83). See Fawtier, Registres, 1:no. 830; Ordonnances, 1:453; and above, pp. 78-80.

Sufferencia de leuando subsidium Requisitum in Normania causa Maritagi). Y[sabelle]. angl’ Regine!

Philippus dei gracia franc’ Rex .. dilectis & fidelibus gentibus nostris Scacari Rothomagensis / ac omnibus Balliuis in ducatu Normannie Constitutis Salutem. Cum

nuper mandauerimus leuari subsidium a subditis nostris racione maritagii Carissime filie nostre .Y[sabelle]. anglie Regine. Nonnulli de partibus Normannie nobiles & ignobiles nostram adiere presenciam in dubium Reuocantes. vtrum nobis liceret sine juris iniuria / & absque indebita nouitate leuare dictum subsidium in toto ducatu Normannie / tam a subditis nostris inmediate quam a subditis subditorum nostrorum. 'The rubric is added in a contemporary hand different from that of the text.

DOCUMENTS 237 Nos igitur visis registris consuetudinum Normannie ac diligenter inspectis Registris

insuper nostris parisius habita deliberacione super his pleniori / decreuimus & declaramus nobis deberi dictum subsidium in ducatu predicto tam a nostris inmediate subditis / quam a subditorum nostrorum subiectis / ac leuari precipimus subsidium memoratum. .Verum cum prout accepimus in aliquibus partibus Normannie fructus in magna parte / tempestate perierunt ac preterea ininstanti? soluere nobis fogagium solitum in Normannia subditi teneantur Compacientes eisdem exactionem predicti subsidij racione maritagii dicte filie nostre debiti ponimus insufferencia’ generaliter

in ducatu predicto / usque ad instans proxime Carnipriuium / illis autem quorum fructus nuper tempestate prout supra tactum est perierunt / usque ad festum assumpcionis beate Marie virginis proximo futurum concedimus dilacionem soluendi subsidium memoratum / volentes & uobis presentibus iniungentes / ut si quid captum / vel leuatum est per quoscumque a nostris mediate uel inmediate subditis / id sine difficultate liberetis eisdem usque ad tempora gracie supradicte Que omnia per uos gentes nostras in instanti scacario / per vos insuper Balliuos in vestris assisijs publicari et ad perpetuam memoriam registrari precipimus / necnon per uos Balliuos dictis temporibus debite execucioni mandari. Actum apud nouum Mercatum .die. vj’. Septembris Anno domini .M°. .CCC. Octauo. Sub ista forma quinque fuerunt misse in ducatu* Normannie Ste. 3Stc.

4MS ducu.

7 A procuration issued on 14 July 1309 by the priors of Saint-Privat and Monsempron, vicars general of the abbot of Aurillac, appointing three proctors to act on behalf of the priory of Satnt-Cirgues.

A. AN, J 356, no. 131% Parchment; 298/296 mm. X 204/189 mm.; lined in plummet; with a seal in natural wax appended on a tongue folded back and inserted through two slits. Endorsed in fourteenth-century chancery script “procur’ pro Abbate Monasterii Aureliacensis Me CCC? ix°.”, Numbered xj and 3.

See above, pp. 98 n. 3, 113, 137 n. 108. , Nos Gualhardus de Castronouo / et Guillelmus Durandi de sancto priuato. et de Monte sompronio prioratuum priores vicarii que generales Reuerendi patris in christo domini Dragonis dei gratia abbatis Monasterii aurel[iacensis] in remotis agen-

tis / Notum facimus vniuersis presentibus et futuris / quod Nos vice et auctoritate dicti domini abbatis nostros facimus et constituimus procuratores generales et speciales videlicet discretos viros dominum Guillelmum ysnardi rectorem ecclesie beate _ Marie. aurel[iacensis] Magistrum philippum othonis lurisperitum et Humbertum Iaucelin et quemlibet eorum in solidum ita quod non sit melior conditio occupantis in omnibus et singulis causis et negociis quas et que habemus uel habitur1 sumus facere uel expedire agendo uel deffendendo ratione prioratus sancti cirici dyocesis caturcensis. mense dicti domini abbatis auctoritate apostolica deputati / contra quas-

238 APPENDIX cumque personas ecclesiasticas uel etiam seculares / coram excellentissimo principe domino Rege franc’ uel ei1us commissariis Iudicibus Senescallis Balliuis / seu eorum loca tenentibus uel coram aliis quibuscumque Iudicibus seu personis publicis uel

priuatis. Dantes et concedentes dictis procuratoribus nostris et cuilibet eorum in solidum plenam et liberam potestatem. et speciale mandatum / agendi et deffendendi requestas & supplicationes faciendi / Tud[icis] offictum inplorandi / et subeundi culuslibet liciti generis Iuramentum appellandi appellationem innouandi et etiam prosequendi vnum uel plures procuratores loco sui substituendi eum uel eos reuocandi quando Sibi uel eorum alteri visum fuerit faciendum presente procuratorio in suo robore nichilominus duraturo! / et omnia alia vniuersa et singula faciendi que veri et legitimi procuratores facere possunt et debent. Ratum et gratum habentes et perpetuo habituri quicquid per dictos procuratores nostros & eorum quemlibet uel per

substitutum seu substitutos ab ipsis uel eorum altero super premissis et quolibet premissorum actum fuerit seu etiam procuratum. promitentes sub ypotheca bonorum prioratus predicti pro ipsis procuratoribus nostris et eorum quolibet et pro substituto

uel substitutis ab ipsis uel eorum altero / omnibus quorum interest uel interesse potest Iudicatum solui cum omnibus suis clausulis si neccesse fuerit. Releuantes ipsos et eorum quemlibet sub dicta ypotheca ab omni honere satisdandi. Et h[ec] omnibus quorum interest uel interesse poterit significamus per has presentes litteras quibus sigillum dicti domini abbatis deputatum ad causas fecimus apponi in testimonium premissorum. Datum die sabbati ante festum Magdalene. anno domini. Me. CCC>.

nono. Sic.

8 A procuration drawn up at Anglars on 24 August 1309 by the notary Hugues de Cazals for forty-seven men of the parish of Anglars who, acting for themselves

and their adherents, name one another and twenty-one individuals (twenty clerks—eight masters and twelve lawyers—and one donzel) as proctors to pursue an appeal already lodged by Géraud d’Anglars. A. AN, J 356, no. 13!2. Parchment; 320/319 mm. X 290 mm.; lined in plummet; validated by the notary’s sign manual, for which see the plate facing p. 1 (a). Endorsed in two fourteenth-century bastard chancery scripts “procur’ danglars” and “procuratio hominum danglars et dominorum.” Numbered 3. See above, pp. 9 n. 9, 113, 116, 137 n. 110.

IN nomine domini amen) Et anno incarnacionis eiusdem .M°. CCC». Nono. videlicet Mense augustj. octaua die excitus dicti mensis. Regnante domino philippo dej gracia franc’ rege illustrissimo? Nouerint vniuersi & singuli presentes pariter et futur} hoc presens publicum jnstrumentum visurj ac etiam auditurj quod in presencia mej Notarii infra scripti testium que sub scriptorum personaliter costitutj. Dominus Guilhelmus aldemarii miles danglars. Nec non. et Nobilis vir sancho de cornu domicellus dominus ut dicitur in parte sua reparii predicti danglars. Huguo arnaldi. Iohannes de gauriac)} Geraldus Vaca. philippus de maurtz. Geraldus johannis. petrus

DOCUMENTS 239 montanha. Bernardus rudela. B. tachier. petrus mauri. Guirbertus durandi. Geraldus bayle. petrus domergue. petrus faure. deodatus des banxs. Geraldus tarauela. Geraldus

rayne. petrus dal toron. Bernardus serra) Geraldus tornamira. Geraldus artambal. petrus albert junior. Bernardus domergue. Guilhelmus arnaldi. Guirbertus de cauac. Geraldus garini de torena? Ber’. terralh. petrus lafarga. Geraldus de maurtz. Geraldus domergue. Geraldus caluet? petrus caualier. Bernardus de piers? petrus carrieira junior. petrus erel. Guilhelmus espenta. Huguo la via. Bernardus raynaldz Guilhelmus de betelha. Bernardus erel. Bernardus de torena. Guilhelmus la via. petrus arnaldi. petrus

des banxs? Geraldus santria. & petrus albert! omnes parochie ut dixerunt ecclesie danglars dyocesis cat|urcensis] pro se & aliis dicte parochie sibi adherentes et aderere'! volentes. fecerunt & costituerunt procuratores suos speciales. Discretos viros Magistros Iohannem de lalbuga. philippotum? otonis. Geraldum de caluaruppe: Ramundum juuenis. Huguonem fabri fortis! Huguonem guirbertj. Bernardum. et Rigaldum de saltu. petrum de ecclesia. Bertrandum debedorio. Geraldum danglars. Geraldum

del prestinh clericos jurisperitos. nec non et Magistros Huguonem operarii. Guilhelmum. Ramundum. Huguonem. et Rigaldum de ruppe. martinum montanha) petrum aluini. & petrum boyer clericos et Huguonem aldemarii domicellum: Et quemlibet eorum in solidum jta quod non sit melior condicio occupantis. Coram illustrissimo domino nostro franc’ rege & eius curia. et coram Magistris dicti domini nostri regis in hac parte deputatis. et Coram judicibus quibuscumque delegatis subdelegatis ecclesiasticis seu mundanis senescallis. prepositis. officialibus. castellanis regis seu aliis

quibuscumque. et alter ipsorum constituencium ad invicem alterum constituerunt procuratores. et quod vnus eorum incipiet alter prosequi valeat & finire. Dantes & concedentes predictis procuratoribus suis et eorum cuilibet et alter ipsorum constituencium ad invicem alterj plenam et liberam potestatem et speciale mandatum. specialiter et expresse ad prosequendum causam appellacionis facte ut dicitur per Magistrum Geraldum danglars juris peritum. a Magistris in hac parte deputatis pro dicto domino nostro franc’ rege. ad dominum nostrum regem predictum et eius audienciam. agendum deffendendum. litem contestandum. excipiendum proponendum. ponen-

dum. triplicandum. testes et instrumenta producendum. & contra se producta reprobandum: jurandum de calupnia>? seu de veritate dicenda in animam suam

et subeundum cuius libet alterius generis juramentum) Renunciandum & concludendum: interlocutoriam seu diffinitiuam sentenciam seu sentencias audiendum. appellandum et appellacionis causam seu causas prosequendum. alium uel alios procuratores loco suj sustituendum Et sustitutos ab eis. alium vel alios sustituendum quoscienscumque opus fuerit. eis uel eorum alteri visum fuerit expedire? Hec et omnia alia vniuersa & singula ad dictam causam seu causas spectancia faciendum que veri et legitimi procuratores vel sustitut) ab eis uel eorum altero! uel sustitut) asustitutis et* que dicti constituentes facerent uel facere possent si personaliter presentes essent et que mandatum exhigunt speciale. Ratum et gratum perpetuo habituri quicquid per dictos procuratores suos uel eorum alterum. seu sustitutos ab eis vel asus'Sie.

2MS philipp’otu’.

Ste. *The next five words and the following fa, at the beginning of the twenty-fourth line, are

written over an erasure, as the notary says at the end of the act.

240 APPENDIX titutis sustitutos legitime actum. gestum fuerit seu etiam procuratum: promitentes dicti constituentes omnes et singuli michi Notario infra scripto stipulantj pro omnibus illis quorum interest uel interesse poterit infuturum judicatum solui cum suis clausulis vniuersis. Releuantes dictos procuratores suos et eorum quem libet. et sustitutos ab

eis uel eorum altero? et sustitutos asustitutis ab omni honere satisdandi se et sua fideiussorio nomine ac etiam principali michi Notario infra scripto stipulanti nomine quo supra obligando sub omni renunciatione juris pariter et cautela: constat de rasuris factis superius in vicesima quarta linea. aprincipio computanda in verbis. que dicti constituentes facerent vel fa. acta fuerunt Hec apud anglars in platea communi dicti locj. anno. & mense. & die predictis. testibus presentibus vocatis ad h[oc] specialiter et rogatis. galhardo aujal. Guilhoto de remis. Geraldus de peiret. Bernardo del prestinh. johano’ dalterralh. & petro bayle. Et me Huguone de cazalibus publico Notario auctoritate Regia in tota senescallia

| petrag’ et cat’. qui ad requestam dictorum constituencium hanc cartam scripsi. & informam publicam redegi. signoque meo consueto signauj rogatus. ‘Sze.

9 A procuration issued by the consuls of Totrac at Toirac on 9 September 1309, empowering three agents to seek from the king of France documents concerning the marriage subsidy and to offer him the community’s legitimate claims to exemption from the aid. A. AN, J 356, no. 9. Parchment; 349 mm. X 129 mm.; lined in plummet; with a seal in green wax appended on a tongue folded back and inserted through two slits. Endorsed in fourteenth-century bastard chancery script “procur’ de thauriaco Me CCC*. ixe.”” Numbered xij. See above, pp. 25 n. 51, 118, 137 n. 109, 141 n. 124. Excellentissimo principi ac Super illustri domino suo. Domino philippo dei gratia francorum Regi / sui fideles / Consules de thauriaco / Salutem et Seipsos pronos ad pedes regie magestatis cum omni subiectionis et Reuerentie assiduo famulatu. Vestre magestatis regie nouerit celsitudo / quod nos Consules predicti pro nobis & nomine Consulatus ac communitatis nostre de thauriaco facimus constituimus ac etiam ordinamus / procuratores syndicos vel actores nostros / dominum Iacobum Johannis Burgensem Caturci. et Magistrum Hugonem fabri fortis Iurisperitum et Magistrum stephanum delgal Notarium. quemlibet eorum in solidum Ita quod non sit melior conditio occupantis. ad supplicandum Impetrandum et obtinendum / a vobis & a Curia vestre regie magestatis quascumque litteras simplices & legendas seu aresta gratiam & benignitatem continentia seu etiam continentes. Et specialiter super negocio subsidij de nouo petiti Ratione seu occasione dotis & maritagij Karissime Nate vestre / domine ysabelle vxoris illustris Regis angl’. Necnon ad excusandum super premissis & excusationes nostras legitimas proponendum allegandum et pre-

tendendum. Dantes & concedentes predictis procuratoribus syndicis & actoribus nostris & eorum cuilibet in solidum plenariam potestatem & speciale mandatum

DOCUMENTS 241 premissa faciendi et omnia alia & singula que circa premissa & ea tangentia necessaria fuerint ac etiam oportuna. Ratum et gratum perpetuo habituri / quicquid per dictos procuratores syndicos vel actores nostros vel eorum alterum / super premissis & ea tangentibus / actum petitum supplicatum Impetratum fuerit vel etiam modo quolibet alio procuratum obtentum seu reuocatum et contradictum. Et hec magestati Regie & omnibus quorum Interest vel Interesse potest perhas presentes litteras sigillo nostro

sigillatas fier! volumus manifesta. Actum & datum apud Thauriacum / die Martis proxima post festum Natiuitatis beate Marie virginis. anno dominice Incarnationis .Me. CCC». Nono.

10 A procuration issued by the consuls of Caylus at Caylus on 10 September 1309, empowering three agents to seek from the king of France documents concerning the marriage subsidy and to offer him the community’s legitimate claims to exemption from the aid. A. AN, J 356, no. 10. Parchment; 297/300 mm. X 165/170 mm., with a foldup of 26/30 mm.; lined in plummet; with a seal in green wax appended on a plaited brown and beige cord; prepared by the same notary who drafted the preceding procuration. Endorsed in fourteenth-century bastard chancery script “procur’ Castri de Caslucio Me CCC». ix°.” Numbered xix and 3. See above, pp. 25 n. 51,97 n. 1, 118-19, 128 n. 82, 137 n. 109, 141 n. 124. Excellentissimo principi / ac Super illustri domino suo / Domino Philippo dei gratia Francorum Regi. sui fideles / Consules Castri de Caslucio Caturcensis dyocesis salutem et Se pronos ad pedes Regie magestatis / cum omni subiectionis et reuerentie

assiduo famulatu. Vestre magestatis regie Nouerit celsitudo / quod nos Consules predicti / pro Nobis & nomine Consulatus ac communitatis nostre dicti Castri. facimus constituimus ac etiam ordinamus / procuratores syndicos vel actores nostros / dominum lIacobum Iohannis Burgensem Caturci. et Magistrum Hugonem fabri fortis Turis peritum et Magistrum Stephanum delgal Notarium / quemlibet eorum In Solidum Ita quod non sit melior conditio occupantis / exhibitores presencium. ad supplicandum Impetrandum & obtinendum / a vestra clementia & a Curia vestre Regie magestatis / quascumque litteras simplices & legendas seu aresta / gratiam benignitatem seu [usticiam continentia ac etiam continentes. Et specialiter Super negocio subsidij de Nouo petiti / ratione seu occasione dotis & maritagij domine ysabelle Karissime Nate vestre vxoris illustris Regis anglie / Necnon ad excusandum nos super premissis & excusationes ac rationes nostras bonas sufficientes ac legitimas proponendum & allegandum. Dantes & concedentes predictis procuratoribus syndicis _vel actoribus nostris & eorum cuilibet in solidum plenariam potestatem & speciale mandatum / premissa faciendi. & omnia alia & singula / que Circa premissa necessaria fuerint Seu etiam oportuna. Ratum et gratum perpetuo habituri pro nobis & nomine quo Supra / quicquid per dictos procuratores syndicos vel actores nostros vel eorum alterum Super premissis & ea tangentibus / actum petitum Supplicatum Impetratum excusatum contradictum obtentum fuerit vel etiam modo quolibet alio procuratum. Et hec magestati Regie & omnibus quorum Interest vel Interesse potest. Nos Con-

sules predicti significamus et nota fieri volumus / per has presentes litteras sigillo

242 APPENDIX nostro sigillatas In fidem & testimonium premissorum. Actum et datum apud Caslucium / die Mercurij proxima post festum Natiuitatis beate Marie virginis. Anno dominice Incarnationis. Millesimo. Triscentesimo. Nono.

11 A procuration issued by the consuls of Lalbenque at Lalbenque on 10 September | 1309, empowering three agents to seek from the king of France documents concerning the marriage subsidy and to offer him the community’s legitimate claims to exemption from the aid. A. AN, J 356, no. 3. Parchment; 358/363 mm. X 136/121 mm.; lined in plummet;

with a seal in green wax appended on a tongue folded back and inserted through two slits; prepared by the same notary who drafted the preceding two procurations. Endorsed in fourteenth-century bastard chancery script “procur’ de Albenca Caturcensis dyocesis M° CCC». nono.” Numbered v (in fourteenth-century script different from that ordinarily used for the second numbers) and 3. See above, pp. 25 n. 51,97 n. 1, 119, 137 n. 109, 141 n. 124. Excellentissimo principi ac super illustri domino suo / domino philippo dei gratia Francorum Regi. sui fideles Consules ville de albenca Caturcensis dyocesis / Salutem et Se pronos ad pedes Regie magestatis cum omni subiectionis & reuerentie assiduo famulatu. Vestre magestatis Regie Nouerit celsitudo / quod Nos Consules predicti / pro Nobis & nomine Consulatus ac communitatis nostre ville de albenca. facimus constituimus ac etiam ordinamus. procuratores syndicos vel actores nostros / dominum Iacobum Iohannis burgensem Caturci. et Magistrum Hugonem fabri fortis Iurisperitum et Magistrum stephanum delgal Notarium / quemlibet eorum In Solidum Ita quod non sit melior condicio occupantis exhibitores presentium. ad supplicandum Impetrandum & obtinendum a vobis & a Curia vestre Regie magestatis quascumque litteras simplices & legendas seu arresta. gratiam benignitatem seu lustitiam continentia ac etiam continentes. Et specialiter super subscidio de nouo petito Ratione

seu occasione dotis & maritagij / domine ysabelle Karissime Nate vestre vxoris illustris Regis Anglie. Necnon ad excusandum nos super premissis & excusationes nostras proponendum allegandum & pretendendum bonas sufhcientes & legitimas. Dantes & concedentes predictis procuratoribus syndicis vel actoribus nostris & eorum cuilibet In solidum plenariam potestatem & speciale mandatum / premissa faciendi & omnia alia & singula que circa premissa necessaria fuerint seu etiam oportuna. Ratum et gratum perpetuo habituri / quicquid per dictos procuratores syndicos vel actores nostros vel eorum alterum / super premissis & ea tangentibus / actum petitum supplicatum Impetratum / contradictum vel obtentum fuerit seu etiam modo quolibet alio procuratum. Et hec magestati Regie & omnibus quorum Interest vel Interesse potest. Nos Consules predicti / significamus et nota fier volumus per has presentes litteras sigillo nostro Comuni' Consulatus quo vtimur sigillatas in fidem & testimonium premissorum. Actum & Datum apud albencam. die ‘Corrected from Comunis.

DOCUMENTS 243 Mercuri) proxima post festum Natiuitatis beate Marie virginis. Anno dominice Incarnations. Millesimo. Triscentesimo. Nono.

12 A procuration drawn up by the notary Etienne Delgua for the consuls of Caylus, Luzech, Belaye, Castelfranc, and Puy-lEvéque, dated at Cahors on 11 September 1309, empowering four agents to seek documents from the royal court and elsewhere and to pursue the question of the marriage subsidy.

A. AN, J 356, no. 5. Parchment; 417/413 mm. X 119 mm. with a fold-up of 31/32 mm.; lined in plummet; sealed in brown wax with the seals of Luzech (“de luzegio”), Castelfranc (“de castro franco”), Puy-l’Evéque (“de podio”), and Belaye (“de belaico’’), appended on plaited blue, brown, and beige cords. Endorsed in fourteenth-century bastard chancery script “Procurator’ de Cashulcio / de Luzegio de Belayco. de Castro franco / et Castri de Podio..M° CCC». 1x°.”” Numbered 111) and 3.

See above, pp. 102 n. 18, 117, 137 n. 109, 141 n. 124. Excellentissimo principi domino philippo dei gratia francorum Regi sui humiles et fideles. Consules. de caslhucio. de luzegio / de Belayco / de castro francho / et castri de podio Episcopi caturcensis / se totos / ad pedes maiestatis Regie subiectos / Nouerit Regia celsitudo. quod Nos Consules predicti pro nobis. et nomine vniuersitatum nostrarum / & pro ipsis / facimus / et constituimus. procuratores actores et syndicos nostros. videlicet Iacobum Iohannis burgensem caturci. et Magistros Hugonem Fabri fortis. et Iohannem de albugia. et Stephanum delgua clericos. et eorum quemlibet insolidum. ita quod non sit melior conditio occupantis / ad supplicandum. et contradicendum / et litteras siue rescripta / gratiam et iustitiam continentes. acuria Regia / et alibi Impetrandi & optinendi / Et negotium subsidij de nouo a nobis & vniuersitatibus predictis / per celsitudinem Regiam petiti ratione maritagi illustris domine ysabelle nate sue. Regineque Anglie / prosequendum / et ad alia faciendum que circa premissa necessaria fuerint ac etiam oportuna / In cuius Rei testimonium Nos consules predicti. sigilla consulatuum predictorum nostrorum. presentibus litteris duximus apponenda / Actum & datum caturci die Iouis post festum Natiuitatis beate Marie virginis. Anno domini. Millesimo. triscentesimo. Nono.

13 A procuration issued by representatives of Albas at Cahors on 11 September 1309, empowering three agents to seek documents from the royal court and elsewhere and to pursue the question of the marriage aid. A. AN, J 356, no. 11. Parchment; 258/259 mm. X 203/204 mm. with a foldup of 16/18 mm.; stylus-lined; with a seal in green wax appended on a doubled parchment strip inserted through through double slits in the fold-up. Endorsed in fourteenth-century bastard chancery script “procur’ ville dalbars Me CCC>. ix®.”” Numbered xx and 3.

See above, pp. 97 n. 1, 119-20, 137 n. 109, 139 n. 114, 141 n. 124.

244 APPENDIX Uniuersis Et Singulis presentes literas Inspecturis et Audituris. Officialis Curie Caturcensis Salutem In domino. Noueritis quod in nostra presencia personaliter Constituti die date presencium. Bernardus Arnei. Huguo delamarca et Iohannes da gaucelin. habitatores ville dalbars dyocesis Caturcensis. Syndici et procuratores hominum dicte ville vt dixerunt et vt aparebat in quodam publico instrumento nobis ostenso confecto per manum magistri Raymundi debello podio notarii publici in terra domini Episcopi Caturcensis et suo signo signato vt prima facie apparebat. suos fecerunt constituerunt ordinauerunt seu etiam substituerunt procuratores Certos. veros. generales ac etiam speciales nomine suo proprio et nomine aliorum hominum dicte ville dalbars seu loci. videlicet Magistros hugonem Fabri Fortis. lohannem dealbugia et Stephanum delgua Clericos et eorum quemlibet Insolidum Ita quod non sit melior condicio occupantis. Dantes et Concedentes dicti Constituentes pro se et nomine quo supra dictis procuratoribus suis seu etiam sustitutis et Cuilibet eorum insolidum plenam et liberam potestatem et speciale mandatum. ad supplicandum et

- contradicendum et literas sue Rescripta graciam seu [usticiam continentes a curia Regia et alibi inpetrandum et obtinendum. et negocium subsidij de nouo petiti ab eisdem Racione maritagii illustris domine ysabelle nate domini nostri francie regis Regine anglie prosequendum et alia faciendum que Circa premissa necessaria fuerint

ac etlam oportuna et que ipsimet constituentes coniunctim uel diuisim pro se et nomine quo supra facerent et facere possent et deberent si personaliter Interessent in premissis. Ratum. gratum atque firmum perpetuo habituri dicti constituentes pro se et nomine quo supra quicquid per dictos procuratores seu substitutos suos seu per eorum alterum. actum. suplicatum. Inpetratum. contradictum. obtentum. prosecutum fuerit seu etiam procuratum seu modo quolibet alio in premissis et Circa premissa ordinatum. promitentes dicti constituentes et eorum quilibet Coniunctim uel diuisim pro se et nomine quo supra sub ypotheca et obligatione Rerum suarum tam mobilium quam inmobilium nobis stipulantibus pro omnibus illis quorum Interest et Intererit Infuturum Iudicatum solui Cum suis clausulis vniuersis. Releuantes dicti constituentes et eorum guilibet coniunctim uel diuisim pro se et nomine quo supra dictos procuratores suos seu substitutos et eorum quemlibet ab omni honere satisdandi. se et omnia bona sua pro se et nomine quo supra super hiis obligando. Costat nobis de rasur’.' pro se. Actum et Datum Caturci die Iouis post festum natiuitatis beate Marie Virginis. Anno domini. Me. CCC». Nono. ‘Although the scribe made minor corrections in ink in lines nine, sixteen, and twenty-one, I can see no evidence of erasure. The statement may thus be formulaic.

14 A procuration issued by seven consuls of Montcug at Montcug on 15 September 1309, drawn up by the notary Guillaume de Merlana, empowering two agents

to raise the question of the marriage aid and fines for the acquisition of fiefs before the king and his court. A. AN, J 356, no. 7. Parchment; 334/332 mm. X 216/215 mm. with a fold-up of 21/22 mm.; lined in plummet; validated by the notary’s sign manual and by the community’s seal in brown wax appended on a tag inserted through

DOCUMENTS 245 double slits in the fold-up. Endorsed in two fourteenth-century bastard chancery scripts “Procuratorrum Consulum Montiscussi .M°. CCC». nono” and “De monte cuco. procur’.””. Numbered xvijj and 3. For the notary’s sign manual, see the plate facing p. 1 (c). See above, pp. 121, 137 n. 110, 141 n. 125, 142 n. 128. Nouerint vniuersi quod seguinus de Sancto Genezio Arnaldus / estiual domic(elli]

/ Magister / petrus / Aymerici / Guilhelmus / ebrardi / Ramundus / decomba. Guilhelmus del caire / Hugo / de viridario Consules montiscussi pro se & aliis conconsulibus suis dicti loci montiscussi Et nomine vniuersitatis dicti loci et honoris

eiusdem loci / costituti personaliter Coram me notario & testibus infra scriptis. fecerunt & costituerunt ac etiam ordinauerunt Suos certos et dicte vniuersitatis procuratores generales ac etiam speciales / videlicet / petrum / desyoraco. Bartolomeum de pantino Et quemlibet Eorum insolidum Ita quod nonsit melior conditio occupantis in / hiis / que ipsi consules & vniuersitas dicti loci habent facere Seu etiam expedire inpetrare ac etiam obtinere coram domino nostro Rege franc’ uel Fius curia. Ratione subcidii petiti ab ipsis consulibus & vniuersitate ac etiam inpositi per discretos & nobiles viros dominum / yuonem / delaudunaco & dominum Geraldum / desabanaco legum doctores & dominum Iohannem de arreblayo militem domini nostri Regis senescallum petragor[icensem| & caturcensem / nomine domini nostri Regis Ratione matrimonii seu maritagii serenissime domine. yzabeline filie dicti domini nostri Regis Vxorisque serenissimi principis Regis anglie / necnon & ratione petitorum ab innobilibus personis dicti loci & honoris per dictum dominum. yuonem / Et dominum Iohannem / robberti militem nomine domini Regis predicti ratione Rerum emptarum! ac etiam aquisitarum per innobiles personas a nobilibus

personis / dantes & concedentes ipsi consules pro se & nominibus quibus Supra plenam & liberam potestatem et speciale mandatum dictis procuratoribus suis & Cuilibet eorum insolidum suplicandi petendi Requirendi inpetrandi iudicem uel iudices literam literas seu Rescriptum ac etiam obtinendi et alia vniuersa & singula faciendi que sunt seu erunt necessaria ac etiam vtilia ad predicta facienda suplicanda petenda requirenda inpetranda obtinenda & que merita dictarum causarum exigunt seu requirunt / Ratum & gratum perpetuo habituri quicquid suplicatum petitum inpetratum Requisitum ac obtentum fuerit per dictos procuratores Suos uel Eorum alterum Super premissis - Releuantes pro se et nominibus quibus Supra dictos procuratores suos & Eorum quemlibet ab omni honere? satisdandi - promitentes ipsi consules pro se & nominibus quibus supra - michi notario infra scripto stipulantu & recipienti pro omnibus illis quorum interest uel interesse poterit ut. publica persona sub ypoteca rerum Suarum iudicatum Solui Cum Suis clausulis vniuersis / costituentes se fideiussores pro predictis procuratoribus Suis & quolibet eorundem obliguando

bona dicti consulatus sub renunciatione Iuris & facti qualibet et cautela - Actum Apud montemcucum dyocesis caturcensis Anno domini / Me CCC? nono die lune in Octabis festi natiuitatis beate marie - Regnante philippo Rege francorum In presentia & testimonio / Ramundi / de strata / Guilhelmi / destrata / Et mei Guilhelmi / demerlana - publici notarii tocius senescallie petragor[icensis] & caturcensis Et IMS eptarum. 2MS honore.

246 APPENDIX Fius ressorti qui hanc cartam publicam / scripsi ad requisitionem dictorum consulum & signo meo sequenti signaul Et nos consules predicti in fidem et testimonium premissorum Et ad maiorem Roboris firmitatem Sigillum dicti consulatus - Huic presenti publico Instrumento duximus apponendum—

15 A procuration issued by the consuls of Lafrancaise at Lafrancaise on Monday,

the day following the feast of the Invention (surely a slip of the pen for the Exaltation) of the Holy Cross in 1309 (15 September 1309), drawn up by the notary Pierre-Arnaud Basterii, empowering two agents to take various actions in the king’s court. A. AN, J 356, no. 131%. Parchment; 210/205 mm. * 170/157 mm.; unlined, although a crease 23 mm. from the top served as a guide-line for the first line

of script; with a seal in natural wax appended on a tongue. Endorsed in fourteenth-century bastard chancery script “procur’ ville francisie Caturcensis dyocesis .Me CCC? .ix.”” Numbered ix and 3. See above, pp. 122, 137 n. 108.

_ Vniuerssis presentes litteras Inspecturis. Consules. ville francisie dyocesis. caturcensis. Salutem et presentibus litteris. fidem plenariam adhibere. Noueritis & nouerint vniuerssi & singuli. quod Nos. consules. predicti videlicet. Matheus dela belhier. Petrus. dala sranza.* Iohannes lo coc. Bernardus de Val cioran - Petrus laurentij. bernardus de pessugol. pro nobis & communitate seu vniuersitate. dicte ville francisie facimus & costituimus procuratores nostros Syndicos & Actores discretos viros magistros. Arnaldum. de coloniis juris peritum et Gualhardum fabri notarium burgenses ville montis albani exibitorem seu exibitores presencium litterarum Ambo Insimul et quemlibet Eorum jnsolidum. ita quod non sit melior Condicio

- occupantis. Ad suplicandum jnpetrandum obtinendum. contradicendum. jn curia. excellentissimi principis domini nostri franc’ Regis illustris. dantes & concedentes pro nobis & vniuersitate predicta predictis procuratoribus syndicis & Actoribus nostris & Eorum cuilibet jn solidum plenam. & liberam potestatem suplicandj jnpe-

trandj obtinendj & contradicendj in. predicta curia prefati domini nostri regis & omnia alia vniuerssa & singula faciendj que nos faceremus vel facere possemus s1 presentes essemus. Ratum gratum Et firmum perpetuo habituri quicquid per dictos procuratores nostros syndicos? & Actores suplicatum jnpetratum obtentum contradictum fuerit vel alias procuratum. Promittentes pro nobis & vniuersitate predicta omnibus quorum poterit jnteresse Rem Ratam haberi & judicatum solui cum suis Clausulis vniuerssis sub bonorum nostri consulatus omnium ypotecha. dictos procuratores sindicos & actores nostros releuantes Et Eorum quemlibet ab omni honere 'In 1309 the feast of the Invention of the Holy Cross, 3 May, fell on a Saturday, whereas the feast of the Exaltation, 14 September, fell on a Sunday. *Perhaps for franza. 3MS symdicos.

DOCUMENTS 247

| 16

satisdandj. Incuius rei. testimonium presentibus litteris sigillum consulatus nostri

duximus Apponendum Actum & datum. Apud villam francisiam die lune. jn crastinum jnuencionis Sancte crucis Anno domini .M°. CCC». nono.

A procuration issued by the consuls of Moliéres at Moliéres on 16 September 1309, drawn up by the notary Pierre-Arnaud Basterii, empowering two agents — to take various actions at the king’s court. A. AN, J 356, no. 133. Parchment; 194/192 mm. X 154/124 mm.; unlined except for a single stylus line 18 mm. from the left edge; with a seal in green wax appended on a tongue. Endorsed in fourteenth-century bastard chancery script ‘..procur’ Consulum Castri de Molieras / dyocesis caturcensis M° CCC? .xi°.”

Numbered 1 and 3. See above, pp. 97 n. 1, 121-23, 137 n. 108. Vniuersis presentes litteras Inspecturis. Consules. Castri de molieras. dyocesis caturcensis. Salutem & presentibus literis fidem plenariam adhibere Noueritis & nouerint. vniuersi & singuli quod nos. Consules. predicti. videlicet Bernardus de sancta Arthemia / Arnaldus de garnello / Iohannes boer[1i] / Johannes depogdime / bernardus de Guilhaco /. Guilhermus de pertica / pro nobis & tota communitate seu vniuersitate dicti castri facimus & constituimus procuratores nostros syndicos & actores discretos viros Magistros. Arnaldum de coloniis & Gualhardum. fabri. juris peritos. burgenses. ville montis albanj. exibitorem seu. exibitores presencium ambo jnsimul & quemlibet Eorum jnsolidum ita quod non sit Melior. Condicio _ occupantis ad suplicandum jnpetrandum obtinendum. & contradicendum jn Curia excellentissimi principis domini nostri franc’ Regis. Dantes & concedentes pro nobis & tota vniuersitate predicta dictis procuratoribus syndicis & actoribus nostris & Eorum cuilibet jnsolidum plenam & liberam potestatem. suplicandj jnpetrand) obtinendj & contradicendj jn dicta curia & omnia alia vniuersa et singula faciendi que ipsemet facerent seu facere possent. sipersonaliter jnteressent Ratum Gratum & firmum perpetuo habituri quicquid per dictos procuratores syndicos & actores suplicatum jnpetratum obtentum. contradictum fuerit vel alias procuratum. promittentes

pro nobis & vniuersitate predicta omnibus quorum poterit jnteresse Rem. Ratam haberi & judicatum solui cum suis clausulis vniuerssis sub bonorum nostri consulatus omnium ypotecha. dictos procuratores nostros syndicos & actores & Eorum quemlibet. Releuantes ab omni honere satisdandi In Cuius Rei testimonium nos consules

, predicti sigillum commune consulatus nostri presentibus litteris duximus Apponendum. Actum & datum Apud dictum castrum de molieras. die martis post festum excaltationis' sancte crucis Anno domini .M°. CCC». nono. "This word is written over an erasure.

17 A procuration issued by the consuls of Mirabel at Mirabel on 16 September 1309, drawn up by the notary Pierre-Arnaud Basterii, empowering two agents to take various actions in the king’s court.

248 APPENDIX A. AN, J 356, no. 13%. Parchment; 201/195 mm. X 127/110 mm., with the tongue torn off 52 mm. from the left side; unlined; the seal appended on the

, tongue has now disappeared. A fragment of the seal was still in place in the 1930s, when Charles Taylor examined the document, but it had disappeared by 1969. Endorsed in fourteenth-century bastard chancery hands “..procur’ de Mirabello Caturcensis dyocesis .M°e CCC? nono” and “‘iiij Ib te.” Numbered

xij and 3. There are several small holes in the document; words and letters that have been supplied are enclosed in parentheses. See above, pp. 121-23, 137 n. 108. Vniuerssis presentes litteras Inspecturis. Consules de mirabello. dyocesis caturcensis. Salutem & presentibus fidem plenariam adhibere Noueritis & nouerint vniuerssi & singuli quod nos consules predicti videlicet petrus. de curte Raymundus daurenca. Rigaldus degerssa. Guausselmus martinj. Bernardus de valpadern. stephanus bairauj pronobis & tota vniuersitate dicti loci facimus & costituimus procuratores nostros syndicos & actores discretos viros magistros Arnaldum de coloniis juris peritum & Gualhardum fabri. notarium Comorantes Apud montem albanum Ambo jnsimul & quemlibet Eorum jnsolidum ita quod non sit Melior. Conditio occupantis Ad suplicandum jnpetrandum obtinendum. contradicendum jncuria excellentissimi principis domini nostri franc’ Regis. dantes & concedentes dictis procuratoribus sindicis & Actoribus nostris plenam & liberam potestatem Suplicandj jnpetrandj obtinend) & contradicendj jn predicta curia & omnia alia vniuersa et singula faciendi que nos faceremus s(eu) facere possemus si presentes essemus Ratum. gratum & firmum perpetuo habituri quicquid per dictos procuratores syndicos & Actores suplica(tum jn)petratum obtentum contradictum fuerit vel alias ordinatum promittentes pro nobis & vniuersitate predicta omnibus quorum poterit jnteresse Rem Ratam haberi & judicatum soluj Cum suis clausulis. vniuerssis Sub bonorum nostri consulatus omnium ypotecha dictos procuratores syndicos & actores Et Eorum (quem)libet releuantes ab omni honere satisdandi Actum & datum apud mirabellum die martis post festum exaltationis Sancte crucis Anno domini .M°. CCC». nono In culus rei testimonium nos consules predicti hus presentibus litteris sigillum commune consulatus nostri duximus apponendum actum et datum vt Supra.

18 A procuration issued by the consuls of Montalzat at Montalzat on 16 September 1309, drawn up by the notary Pierre-Arnaud Basterii, empowering two agents to take various actions at the king’s court. A. AN, J 356, no. 13'6 Parchment; 197/201 mm. X 135/113 mm.; unlined; with a seal in brown wax appended on a tongue. Endorsed in a fourteenth-century bastard chancery script “procur’ Montisalsati caturcensis dyocesis .M° CCC? nono.” Numbered xxiiij and 3. see above, pp. 121-23, 137 n. 108. Vniuerssis presentes litteras Inspecturis. Consules montis alsati dyocesis catur-censis. Salutem & presentibus dare fidem / Noueritis & nouerint vniuersi & singuli quod nos consules predicti videlicet Gualhardus dela garda. durandus costantij Guilhermus defunestart Arnaldus depaulet Guilhermus depomaret bernardus degados pro

DOCUMENTS 249 nobis & communitate dicti loci facimus & costituimus procuratores nostros syndicos et Actores. magistros Arnaldum de coloniis juris peritum et Gualhardum fabri notarium burgenses ville montis albani ambo jnsimul & quemlibet Eorum jnsolidum ita quod non sit melior condicio occupantis Ad suplicandum jnpetrandum obtinendum contradicendum jncuria excellentissimi principis domini nostri franc’ Regis. dantes & concedentes dictis procuratoribus syndicis & actoribus plenam & liberam potestatem Suplicandi jnpetrandi obtinendi & contradicendi & omnia alia vniuersa & singula faciendi que nos faceremus vel facere possemus si presentes essemus Ratum gratum & firmum perpetuo habituri quicquid per dictos procuratores syndicos & Actores Actum gestum fuerit vel alias procuratum / promittentes pro nobis & communitate predicta omnibus quorum poterit jnteresse Rem Ratam haberi & judicatum solui cum suis clausulis sub bonorum nostri consulatus omnium ypotecha dictos procuratores syndicos & actores Releuantes ab omni honere satisdandi In cuius rei. testimonium nos consules predicti hus presentibus litteris sigillum consulatus nostri duximus apponendum Actum & datum Apud montem alzatum die martis post exaltacionem sancte crucis Anno domini Me. CCC° nono—

19 A procuration issued by the consuls of Caussade at Caussade on 17 September 1309, drawn up by the notary Pierre-Arnaud Basterii, empowering two agents to take various actions at the king’s court. A. AN, J 356, no. 13%. Parchment; 201/206 mm. X 147/126 mm.; unlined; with a seal in green wax appended on a tongue. Endorsed in a fourteenth-century bastard chancery script “procur’ Castri Calciate / M* CCC? nono.” Numbered

XX. See above, pp. 121-23, 137 n. 108. Vniuersis presentes litteras Inspecturis. Consules. castri calciate dyocesis Caturcensis. Salutem & presentibus dare fidem. Noueritis & nouerint vniuersi & singuli quod nos Consules predicti videlicet. Hugo. de godor Raymundus de brolio. Ray-

, mundus Ragambert. Matheus de leborieras. Guilhermus demonte Andone stephanus dela Comba. pro nobis & tota vniuersitate seu communitate dicti Castri facimus & costituimus procuratores nostros syndicos & Actores magistros Arnaldum de coloniis juris peritum et Gualhardum fabri notarium. burgenses ville montis albani. Ambo Insimul et quemlibet Eorum jn solidum ita quod non sit melior. Condicio occupantis Ad suplicandum jnpetrandum obtinendum et contradicendum jn. Curia. excellentissimi Principis domini nostri franc’ Regis illustris. Dantes & concedentes predictis procuratoribus syndicis & Actoribus plenam & liberam potestatem suplicand)' jnpetrandj obtinendi. contradicendj jn dicta Curia & omnia Alia. vniuersa & singula faciendi que nos faceremus seu facere possemus si presentes essemus. Ratum Gratum & firmum perpetuo habituri quicquid per dictos procuratores sindicos & actores vel Eorum alterum suplicatum jnpetratum obtentum Contradictum fuerit vel procuratum. promittentes pro nobis & dicta communitate seu vniuersitate omnibus quorum poterit "The preceding three letters are written over an erasure.

250 APPENDIX jnteresse Rem Ratam haberi & judicatum soluj cum suis clausulis vniuerssis sub bonorum nostri consulatus omnium ypotecha. dictos procuratores syndicos & Actores Et Eorum quemlibet Releuantes ab omni honere satisdandj In cuius rei. testimonium

nos consules predicti hus presentibus litteris sigillum consulatus nostri duximus Apponendum Actum & datum calciate die mercurii post festum exaltationis sancte crucis Anno domini .M°. CCC>. nono.

20 A procuration issued by the consuls of Septfonds at Septfonds on 17 September 1309, drawn up by the notary Pierre-Arnaud Basterii, empowering two agents to take various actions at the king’s court. A. AN, J 356, no. 132. Parchment; 181/186 mm. X 143/128.5 mm.; unlined; formerly sealed on a tongue, with barely visible traces of wax remaining. Endorsed in fourteenth-century bastard chancery script “Procur’ de Septem fontibus M°. CCC». i1x°.” Numbered xx and 3. See above, pp. 121-23, 137 n. 108. Vniuerssis presentes litteras Inspecturis. Consules deseptemfontibus dyocesis caturcensis Salutem et presentibus dare fidem. Noueritis & nouerint vniuerssi & singuli

quod nos consules predicti videlicet. Hugo dolmiera bertrandus de griffo. Guausbertus geraldj / petrus dalpener bernardus forto. Geraldus bochiera pro nobis & communitate nostra facimus & costituimus procuratores nostros syndicos & actores magistros Arnaldum de colonus galhardum fabri juris peritos de monte albano exibitorem seu exibitores presencium ambo jnsimul & quemlibet Eorum jnsolidum. ita quod non sit melior condicio occupantis Ad suplicandum jnpetrandum obtinendum contradicendum jncuria excellentissimi principis domini nostri franc’ Regis illustris. Dantes & concedentes predictis procuratoribus sindicis & actoribus plenam & liberam potestatem suplicandj jnpetrandj obtinendj contradicendj & omnia alia vniuersa & singula faciendi que nos faceremus vel facere possemus si presentes essemus / Ratum Gratum & firmum perpetuo habituri quicquid per dictos procuratores syndicos & actores vel Eorum alterum suplicatum jnpetratum obtentum contradictum fuerit vel alias procuratum promitentes pro nobis & communitate predicta omnibus quorum poterit jnteresse Rem Ratam haber: & judicatum solu cum suis clausulis vniuerssis. sub bonorum nostri consulatus omnium ypotecha dictos procuratores syndicos & actores & Eorum quemlibet Releuantes ab omni honere satisdandi jn cuius rei testimonium - nos consules predicti hiis presentibus litteris sigillum commune consulatus nostri duximus apponendum Actum & datum Apud septem fontes die mercurii post festum exaltacionis Sancte crucis Anno domini M°*. CCC». nono.

21 A procuration issued by the consuls of Négrepelisse at Négrepelisse on 17 September 1309, drawn up by the notary Pierre-Arnaud Basterii, empowering two agents to take various actions at the king’s court.

DOCUMENTS 251 A. AN, J 356, no. 13'*. Parchment; 201/196 mm. X 160.5/131 mm.; unlined; formerly sealed on a tongue, of which only 30 mm. remain. When Charles Taylor examined this document in the 1930s a fragment of the seal was intact, but it had disappeared by 1969, although in 1969 the tongue had not been torn off. Endorsed in fourteenth-century bastard chancery script “procur’ de nigre pelicie Caturcensis dyocesis Me CCCe. ix.” Numbered xxj and 3. See above, pp. 121-23, 137 n. 108. Vniuerssis presentes. litteras Inspecturis. Consules nigre pellicie de tulmone dyocesis Caturcensis Salutem & presentibus litteris fidem plenariam adhibere. Noueritis et nouerint vniuerssi & singuli quod nos consules predicti videlicet Bernardus Rubei. Arnaldus bocher[11]. Guilhermus bardini. Geraldus Rigaldi stephanus besso hugoninus Raynaldi pro nobis & communitate dicti loci facimus & costituimus procuratores

nostros syndicos & actores magistros Arnaldum decoloniis juris peritum & Gualhardum fabri. notar1um qui morantur apud montem albanum exibitorem seu. exibitores presencium. Ambo jnsimul. & quemlibet Eorum jnsolidum ita quod non sit melior Condicio occupantis Ad suplicandum jnpetrandum obtinendum contradicendum jncuria excellentissimi principis domini nostri franc’ Regis illustris. Dantes & concedentes' predictis procuratoribus syndicis & actoribus plenam & liberam potestatem suplicandi jnpetrandi obtinendi & contradicendi jn dicta curia & omnia alia vniuerssa & singula faciendi que nos faceremus seu facere possemus si presentes essemus Ratum Gratum & firmum perpetuo habituri quicquid per dictos procuratores syndicos & actores suplicatum jnpetratum obtentum contradictum fuerit vel alias

, procuratum. promitentes pro nobis & communitate predicta omnibus quorum poterit jnteresse Rem Ratam haberi & judicatum solui cum suis clausulis vniuerssis sub bonorum nostri consulatus omnium ypotecha dictos procuratores syndicos & actores Releuantes & Eorum quemlibet ab omni honere satisdandi jn cuius rei testimonium

nos consules predicti his presentibus litteris sigillum nostri consulatus duximus apponendum actum & datum nigre pellicie die mercurii post festum exaltacionis sancte. Crucis Anno domini .M°. CCC nono— 'MS consedentes.

22 A procuration issued by the consuls of Bioule at Neégrepelisse on 18 September 1309, drawn up by the notary Pierre-Arnaud Basteru, empowering two agents to take various actions at the king’s court. A. AN, J 356, no. 132°. Parchment; 306/311 mm. X 97/91 mm.; unlined; validated by the notary’s sign manual, for which see the plate facing p. 1 (d). Endorsed in fourteenth-century bastard chancery script “..procur’ Consulum de biole Me CCC? .ix°.” Numbered 3. See above, pp. 121-23, 137 n. 108. Nouerint vniuersi quod Hugoninus ferrat Raymundus teulier Arnaldus peziera. Durandus ichier consules de biole pro se & tota communitate dicti loci. fecerunt & costituerunt procuratores suos syndicos & actores discretos viros. magistros. Ar-

252 APPENDIX naldum de coloniis. juris peritum & Gualhardum fabri notarium burgenses ville montis albani omnes jnsimul & quemlibet ipsorum jnsolidum ita quod non sit melior condicio occupantis Ad suplicandum jnpetrandum obtinendum contradicendum & omnia alia vniuerssa & singula faciendum que ipsi facerent seu facere possent si personaliter presentes essent Ratum gratum & firmum perpetuo habituri quicquid per dictos procuratores syndicos & actores suplicatum jnpetratum obtentum contradictum fuerit vel alias procuratum / promittentes dicti consules pro se & Communitate predicta michi notario jnfrascripto stipulanti pro omnibus quorum poterit jnteresse rem Ratam haberi & judicatum solui cum suis! clausulis vniuersis sub bonorum sui consulatus omnium ypoteca dictos procuratores syndicos & actores releuantes ab omni honere satisdandj quod fuit actum Apud nigram pelliciam die jouis post festum exaltacionis sancte crucis Anno domini M°. CCC». nono Regnante domi- , no philippo franc’ rege Raymundo catur’ episcopo jn presencia & testimonio Gerald} sayret. Guilhermi lo porc. Guilhermi peyrot / & mei petri. Arnaldi basterii notarii publici ville montis albani qui requisitus per dictos consules specialiter & Rogatus istam Cartam scripsi & signaui. ‘suis repeated.

23 A procuration issued by the consuls of Monclar(-de-Quercy) at Monclar on 18 September 1309, drawn up by the notary Pierre-Arnaud Basterii, empowering two agents to take various actions. A. AN, J 356, no. 137. Parchment; 212/204 mm. * 134/118 mm.; unlined; with a seal in natural wax appended on a tongue. Endorsed in fourteenth-century bastard chancery script “..Procurator’ Montis clari dyocesis Caturcensis M° / CCCe .ix°.” Numbered jj and 3. See above, pp. 121-23, 125 n. 72, 137 n. 108.

Vniuersis presentes litteras Inspecturis. Consules Montis clari dyocesis caturcensis. Salutem & presentibus dare fidem. Noueritis & nouerint vniuersi & singuli quod nos consules predicti videlicet. Raymundus vigerii. Guilhermus Richardi. Iohannes home Raymundus furbire Ademarius vigerii. Raymundus grimaldi pro nobis & communitate dicti loci facimus & costituimus procuratores nostros syndicos & actores magistros Arnaldum decoloniis juris. peritum. et Gualhardum fabri. burgenses ville montis albani exibitorem seu exibitores presencium ambo / jnsimul & quemlibet Forum jnsolidum ita quod non sit melior condicio occupantis Ad suplicandum jnpetrandum obtinendum & contradicendum & omnia alia vniuerssa & singula faciendum que nos faceremus seu facere possemus si presentes essemus Ratum Gratum & firmum

perpetuo habituri quicquid per dictos procuratores syndicos & actores vel Eorum alterum. suplicatum jnpetratum obtentum contradictum fuerit vel alias procuratum promittentes pro nobis & dicta communitate omnibus quorum poterit jnteresse Rem Ratam haberi & judicatum solui cum suis clausulis vniuerssis. Sub bonorum nostri consulatus omnium ypotecha dictos procuratores syndicos & actores & eorum quemlibet Releuantes ab omni honere satisdandi jn cuius rei. testimonium nos consules

DOCUMENTS 253 predicti sigillum commune consulatus nostri litteris presentibus duximus Apponendum actum & datum Apud montem clarum die jouis post festum exaltationis sancte crucis Anno domini .M°. CCC? nono.

24 A procuration issued by the consuls of Camboulit at Figeac on 24 September 1309, drawn up by the notary Pierre de Sanoos, empowering five agents to deal with the marriage aid before the king and his court, and authorizing them to perform a wide range of judicial acts. A. AN, J 356, 12. Parchment; 202/205 mm. X 172/171 mm.; no ruling except for a single stylus line 12 mm. from the left edge; validated by the notary’s sign manual, for which see the plate on p. 10 (f). Endorsed in two fourteenthcentury bastard chancery scripts “‘vill’. de Cambolit” and “.M° CCC>. ixe.” Numbered 3 and 12. see above, pp. 127, 137 n. 110, 139-41. Nouerint vniuersi & singuli quod anno gratie. millesimo CCC*. nono. mense septembris. die mercurii post festum beati mathei apostoli Regnante domino philippo illustri franc’ Rege. Rigaldus lafiragina. Et Guillelmus demeleto consules de Cam-

bolito nomine suo & nomine consulatus & vniuersitatis de Cambolito fecerunt & constituerunt procuratores Suos certos speciales & generales. videlicet discretum virum magistrum hugonem fabrifortis juris peritum. Petrum de meolhac. & Iohannem marti. Geraldum lator. Arnaldum nauar! et eorum quemlibet jnsolidum. Ita quod non

sit melior conditio occupantis. ad ducendum negocium petitionis facte per gentes dicti domini Regis pro subsidio maritahgii? domine yzabellis. Regine agnglie.? Coram dicto domino Rege & eius curia. Et super dicto negocio. Agendum. deffendendum excusandum. Respondendum. litem contestandum. de calumpnia jurandum. testes producendum. Reprobandum. obiciendum jn dicta testium & personas. sententiam petendum & audiendum appellandum. et appellationem prosequendum. H[ec] & om-

nia alia & singula faciendum. que veri & legitimi debent & possunt facere procuratores. aut que verus & ydoneus debet & potest facere procurator aut que mandatum exigunt speciale seu etiam generale Ratum gratum & firmum perpetuo habitur) quicquid per dictos procuratores. super premissis & premissa tangentibus actum fuerit siue gestum. ac si per ipsos consules uel eorum alterum personaliter esset factum. promitentes sub ypotheca Rerum suarum & dicti consulatus. mihi notario jnfrascripto stipulanti pro omnibus illis quorum jnterest uel jnteresse poterit jnfuturum. judicio

, sistt Rem ratam haberi & judicatum solui Cum suis clausulis vniuersis. Releuantes dictos procuratores suos & eorum quemlibet ab omni honere satisdandi. proeisdem se & bona sua & dicti consulatus. pro dictis procuratoribus suis et eorum quolibet obligando fideiussorio nomine ac etiam principali sub omni Renunciatione juris pariter & cautela Acta fuerunt h[ec] figiaci jn quodam operatorio domini Guillelmi

Sic. |

"The preceding two words are written over an erasure, as the notary says at the end of the

act.

3Sic.

254 APPENDIX defurno. sub testimonio. petri vathetas. Petri arant Et Bernardi del castanh de figiaco.

Et mei petri de Sanoos clerici auctoritate dicti domini regis notarii publici jn Senescallia petrag’ & caturcensis qui premissis omnibus jnterfui Et hoc jnstrumentum scripsi & jnpublicam formam Redegi Et superius Rasuram feci vbi dicitur & ponitur

Arnaldum nauar. signo que meo solito signaui.

25 A procuration issued by the consuls of Sauveterre at Castelnau-Montratier on 25 September 1309, drawn up by the notary Arnaud de Cumbellocavo, empowering two agents to take various actions in the king’s court. A. AN, J 356, no. 13''. Parchment; 236.5/228 mm. X 255/256 mm. with a foldup of 31 mm.; elaborately ruled in plummet; validated by the notary’s sign manual and by the community’s seal in natural wax appended on a plaited blue, brown, and beige cord. Endorsed in fourteenth-century bastard chancery script “procur’ Salue terre Me ccc? .ix.”” Numbered xxv and 3. see above, pp. 121, 125, 137 n. 108, 142 n. 128, and the plate on p. 10 (e). Notum sit quod Anno Ab jncarnatione domini. Me. CCC». nono. Regnante jllustrissimo principe. domino. philippo rege nostro franc’. Sexta die jn exitu mensis Septembris. dominus. Gualbertus. dels cazazelhs miles. Gualbertus del poial. Raymundus Sabaterij. petrus de binhaco. et Geraldus. de Selerio. Consules castri Salue terre. diocesis caturcensis. jn mei notarj. et testium Subscriptorum presencia personaliter constituti. Apud castrum nouum de vallibus dyocesis predicte. pro Se. et nomine. petri. de noalhaco. domicelli. conconsule Suo et vniuersitate dicti castri Salue terre. et pertinenciarum eiusdem. et nomine consulatus dicti loci. fecerunt constituerunt. et ordinauerunt. Suos Certos generales et Speciales. Sindicos. et procuratores Magistrum. Bartholomeum. de pantino dicti castri noui. de vallibus. et Magistrum. petrum de Syouraco. qui moratur Apud lausertam jn diocesi predicta. et eorum quemlibet jn Solidum jta quod non Sit melior condicio occupantis. Ad Suplicandum. jmpetrandum. optinendum. contradicendum. Super quibuscumque causis et negociys gerendis. et procurandis jn judicio Siue extra. jn curia Serenissimi principis domini nostri franc’ regis predicti. Dantes. et concedentes dictis Syndicis et procuratoribus Suis. et eorum cuilibet jnsolidum plenam et liberam potestatem et Speciale mandatum Suplicandi jmpetrandi optinendi. contradicendi negocia Sua gerendi et procurandi jn judicio siue extra - et omnia Alia et singula faciendi que veri et legitimi possunt et debent facere procuratores. et que jpsi met consules facerent Seu facere possent Si personaliter presentes essent. et que generale et Speciale mandatum exigunt faciendi Ratum et gratum perpetuo habituri quicquid per dictos sindicos et procuratores Suos Seu eorum alterum. Suplicatum jmpetratum optentum contradictum fuerit. seu quoquo. modo Alio procuratum. promittentes. Sub ypotecha bonorum sui consulatus mihi notario jnfra Scripto Stipulanti et recipienti ex meo publico officio nomine omnium quorum jnterest et jnteresse poterit. Si necesse fuerit judicatum Soluj Cum Suis clausulis vniuersis. Releuantes dictos Syndicos et procuratores Suos. et eorum quemlibet ab omni honere Satisdandi. Se jpsos. nomine dicti consulatus et bona Sui consulatus fide1ussorio nomine obligando. et h[ec] volunt per hoc presens publicum jnstrumentum omnibus quorum jnterest jntimari. datum.

DOCUMENTS 255 et Actum Apud castrum nouum de vallibus predictum Anno die quibus Supra. jn presencia et testimonio Guilhelmi bernardi de mota domicelli. petri. de pristinio. hugonis de trapassio. mercatorum dicti castri nouj. Guilhelmi vitalis Senioris. Bernardi delas razas comorancium. jn dicto castro nouo. et mei. Arnaldi. de cumbellocauo. publici notarii jn tota Senescallia. petragoricensi et caturcensi. et eius pertinenciis & ressorto. qui Ad requestam dictorum consulum hanc cartam scripsi. Nos vero Consules predicti Ad maiorem fidem et testimonium premissorum. Huic presenti publico jnstrumento. Sigillum nostri consulatus duximus Apponendum.

26 A procuration addressed to Philip the Fair and issued by the consuls of Gourdon at Gourdon on 25 September 1309, empowering an agent to petition the king concerning the marriage aid and authorizing him to plead, defend, and petition

in all other cases and business affecting the community. A. AN, J 356, no. 133, Parchment; 208/201 mm. X 149/148 mm. with a foldup of 16/15 mm.; lined in plummet; with a seal in green wax appended on a plaited brown and beige cord. Endorsed in fourteenth-century bastard chancery script “procur’ de gordounio caturcensis dyocesis M°. CCC». ix°.”” Numbered xvy and 3. See above, pp. 133-34, 137 n. 109.

Serenissimo principi domino philippo dei gracia franc’ Regi sui humiles & deuoti .. Consules de gordonio dyocesis caturcensis seipsos prostratos cum subiectione & humilitate ad pedes regis magestatis. Nouerit uestra regia celsitudo quod nos pro nobis & vniuersitate castri de gordonio facimus constituimus ac etiam ordinamus procuratorem nostrum certum generalem ac etiam specialem. Arnaldum de uernolio domicellum exhibitorem presencium ad supplicandum vobis & uestre regie magestati racione subsidii de nouo per vos seu gentes uestras Indicti. in Senescallia petrag’ & caturcen’ racione illustris egregie & potentis domine ysabellle] filie uestre Karissime. Anglie que regine. & ad optinendum postulandum petendum requirendum et inpe-

trandum ea que in premissis eidem procuratori visa neccessaria fuerint ac etiam oportuna. & nichilominus ad agendum deffendendum petendum supplicandum. requirendum & inpetrandum in omnibus alijs & singulis causis & negociis! nos & vniuersitatem castri de gordonio tangentibus. & ad faciendum omnia alia vniuersa & singula que nos faceremus uel facere possemus si in premissis presentes essemus Ratum & gratum perpetuo habituri quicquid cum dicto nostro procuratore uel eius substituto. Actum gestum fuerit in premissis & premissa tangentibus uel quomodolibet procuratum. Et hec uestre regie magestati significamus per has presentes litteras sigillo nostro? quo vtimur sigillatas in testimonium premissorum. Datum gord[onio] die veneris ante festum beati michaelis. anno. domini. M°. ccc. Nono. constat nobis de interlineari. nostro. datum ut supra. 'The final four letters of this word and the first letter of the next are written over an erasure.

This word is inserted interlinearly.

256 APPENDIX 27 A procuration issued by the consuls of Montauban at Montauban on 26 September 1309, empowering two agents to take various actions in the king’s court. A. AN, J 356, no. 1317. Parchment; 301 mm. X 148/154 mm. with a fold-up of 25.5/26.5 mm.; lined in plummet and stylus; with a seal in natural wax appended on a tag inserted through double slits on the fold-up. Endorsed in fourteenth-century bastard chancery script “procuratorium ville Montis Albani Caturcensis dyocesis M°. CCC». 1x°.” Numbered vj and 3. See above, pp. 123-24, 137 n. 108, 140.

Uniuersis et Singulis ad quos presentes litere peruenerint! Guilhermus vitalis clericus. Arnaldus Bernardi de aussaco. Iohannes de Artigia. Galhardus de cos. petrus euolopati. Geraldus de salenhaco. Arnaldus estiui. Martinus esquiuati. Costantinus de la Barra consules ville montis Albani caturcensis dyocesis Salutem. & dilectionem. Nouerint uniuersi et singuli quod nos vt consules pro nobis et tota vniuersitate dicte ville facimus constituimus Ac etiam ordinamus procuratores Syndicos nostros certos & indubitatos huius presentis procuratory exibitores videlicet Magistrum Arnaldum

de colonhiis Iuris peritum / et magistrum galhardum fabri conconsulem nostrum. Dantes & concedentes eisdem procuratoribus ac Syndicis nostris et eorum cuilibet

| insolidum plenam & liberam potestatem agendi / defendendi / Supplicandi / impetrandi in curia excellentissimi principis domini nostr) francorum regis / contradicendi & appellandi et appellacionem prosequendi. & h[ec] et omnia alia vniuersa et singula faciendi que veri et legitimi procuratores et Syndici facere possunt et debent / et que nos faceremus et facere possemus si presentes essemus. promittentes nos firmum Ac ratum perpetuo habituri quicquid per dictos procuratores Ac Syndicos

nostros uel Alterum eorum Aut cum ipsis uel eorum Altero Actum procuratum Suplicatum inpetratum ve fuerit in premissis uel circa. Releuantes ipsos et eorum quemlibet in solidum Ab omni honere satisdandi Sub omni juris renunciatione et cautela. Datum & actum et sigillo nostri consulatus Sigillatum Apud montem Albanum

die veneris Ante festum beati micaelis Septembris Anno. domini. M°. CCC». nono 'The final letter of this word is corrected over an erasure.

28 A procuration addressed to Philip the Fair, issued by the consuls of Bretenoux at Bretenoux on 26 September 1309, empowering six agents to request documents concerning the marriage aid and to offer the community’s legitimate claims to exemption from the aid.

A. AN, J 356, no. 6. Parchment; 296/303 mm. X 162/165 mm. with a fold-up of 26.5/27 mm.; lined in plummet; with a seal in green wax appended on a plaited blue, brown, and beige cord; apparently drawn up by the same notary who prepared the mandate of Martel, below, no. 33. Endorsed in fourteenthcentury bastard chancery script “..Procuratorium de Orlanda Me CCC? ix.” Numbered viy and 3. See above, pp. 25 n. 51, 129, 137 n. 109, 140-41.

DOCUMENTS 257 Excellentissimo principi domino suo domino. Philippo dei gratia francorum Regi sui fideles Consules de orlanda / alias vocata de bretenos. se pronos ad pedes regie magestatis. cum omni subiectionis! et Reuerentie assiduo famulatu. Vestre magestatis

regie nouerit celsitudo. quod nos Consules predicti pro nobis et nomine consulatus ac vniuersitatis nostre de bretenos facimus et constituimus procuratores syndicos uel actores nostros generales certos ac speciales. Magistrum. Ademarum girberti jurisperitum. Poncium blaeni. Hugonem maschalli. lohannem girberti. Garinum Vitalis.

Oliuerium de antissaco. quemlibet eorundem Insolidum Ita quod non sit melior conditio occupantis. ad supplicandum Impetrandum et obtinendum a vobis et a curia vestre Regie magestatis quascumque Litteras simplices & legendas seu aresta gratiam benignitatem seu [ustitiam continentia vel etiam continentes. Et specialiter super negocio subcidi de nouo petiti Ratione seu occasione dotis et Maritagij Karissime Nate vestre domine ysabelle vxoris illustris Regis anglie. Necnon ad excusandum nos super premissis / et excusationes nostras Legitimas proponendum allegandum et pretendendum. Et omnia alia et Singula faciendum que circa premissa et ea tangentia necessaria fuerint ac etiam oportuna. Et h[ec] Magestati Regie significamus

per has presentes Litteras Sigillo nostro sigillatas / In fidem et testimonium premissorum. Actum et datum apud bretenos die Veneris ante festum beati Michaelis Archangeli. Anno domino Me. CCC». Nono. 'The ending is corrected from es.

29 A procuration issued by the consuls of Lauzerte at Lauzerte on 27 September 1309, empowering an agent to seek the king’s favor in various matters including the marriage aid, authorizing him to act in other cases involving the consulate, and giving him a wide range of powers including the authority to effect settlements and to enter into obligations on behalf of the consulate. A. AN, J 356, no. 4. Parchment; 286/285 mm. X 310/318 mm. with a fold-up of 17 mm.; lined in plummet; with a seal in green wax appended on a tag inserted through double slits in the fold-up. Endorsed in fourteenth-century bastard chancery script “Me CCC». ix°.. procur’ de lauserta.”” Numbered xv and 3. See above, pp. 121, 126, 137 n. 109, 140, 142 n. 128.

Vniuersis et singulis has presentes literas visuris et audituris Consules castri lauserte salutem et fidem presentibus adhibere / Noueritis quod nos consules predicti _ pronobis et vniuersitate castri predicti nostrum facimus et costituimus hac etiam ordinamus procuratorem actorem et scindicum hichonomum certum specialem et etiam generalem / videlicet magistrum petrum desurraco habitatorem castri predicti lauserte / Ad suplicandum requirendum et obtinendum graciam jncuria domini nostri franc’ regis / et specialiter et expresse jnhiis et super hiis que ipsi consules sunt facturi et expedituri jn dicta curia tam ratione seu causa subcidii denouo petiti occasione matrimony! jam contract) jnter illustrem regem Anglie et serenissimam Iza'Sic.

258 APPENDIX bellem reginam Anglie / quam ex quacumque alia occatione? uel causa nec non et jn omnibus et singulis causis et litibus motis et mouendis tam A dictis consulibus seu eorum predecessoribus pro Se et vniuersitate predicta contra quascumque personas ecclesiasticas uel seculares quam A quibuscumque personis ecclesiasticis uel secularibus contra nos et castrum predictum et vniuersitatem castri predicti et predecessores nostros / coram quibuscumque tudicibus ecclesiasticis uel secularibus ordinariis extra ordinariis comisariis Auctoritate Regia uel alias deputatis seu aliis iudicibus quibuscumque iuridictionem aliquam habentibus / Dantes et concedentes pronobis

et vniuersitate predicta dicto procuratorj nostro plenam et liberam potestatem et speciale mandatum / agendi petendi deffendendi ponendi proponendi suplicandi duplicandi triplicandi transigendi pascicendi obligandi nomine consulatus et vniuersitatis predictorum apellandi semel uel pluries / et appellacionum causas motas seu mouendas prosequendi expensas petendi iurandi et rescipiendi easdem [que] sibi adiudicate fuerint et subeundi cuiuslibet alterius generis juramentum Aiure concesum? et omnia alia et singula faciendi que uerus et legitimus hichonomus Actor seu scin-

dicus facere debet et potest / et que nos predicti consules pronobis et nomine consulatus et vniuersitatis predictorum faceremus / uel facere possemus si personaliter presentes essemus / habentes perpetuo Ratum et gratum quidquid per dictum procuratorem hichonomum actorem seu scindicum nostrum / Actum deffensum procuratum suplicatum petitum obligatum super premissis fuerit stue gestum / promitentes nos dicti consules pronobis et nomine quo supra judicatum solui cum suis clausulis vniuersis ut consules et nomine consulatus et vniuersitatis dicti castri dictum consulatum / et res et bona dicti consulatus presencia et futura et successores nostros

jn dicto consulatu et vniuersitatem predictam totaliter obligando / Releuantes dictum procuratorem actorem / hichonomum seu scindicum nostrum ab omni honere satisdandi / Et hec omnibus quorum interest uel intererit uel jnteresse poterit significare uolumus per has presentes literas Sigillo dicti consulatus munimine sigillatas / Datum lauserte die sabbatj Ante festum beati micaelis / Anno jncarnationis. domini Millesimo

tressentezimo nono /

Sic. ,

Sze.

30 A procuration issued by the consuls of Cahors at Cahors on 27 September 1309,

: empowering three agents to seek from the king of France documents concerning the marriage subsidy and to offer the community’s legitimate claims to exemption

from the aid. A. AN, J 356, no. 1 (AE II 318). Parchment; 285/295 mm. X 129/128 mm. with a fold-up of 25 mm.; lined in plummet; with a seal in brown wax appended on a plaited blue and beige cord; drawn up by the same notary who prepared

nos. 9-11 above. Endorsed in a fourteenth-century bastard chancery script ‘..Procuratorium Caturci M°. CCC». ixe.” Numbered xvj, 3, and .1.! 'This text is published in Musée des Archives nationales. Documents originaux de Uhistotre de

France exposes dans Hotel Soubise (Paris, 1872), p. 175, no. 318.

DOCUMENTS 259 See above, pp. 25 n. 51, 117, 121, 137 n. 109, 141. Excellentissimo principi. domino suo. domino Philippo dei gracia francorum Regi. sui fideles Consules Ciuitatis Caturci. Se pronos ad pedes Regie magestatis / cum omni subiectionis et Reuerentie assiduo famulatu. Vestre magestatis regie nouerit celsitudo. quod nos Consules predicti pro nobis & nomine Consulatus ac Vniuersitatis nostre Caturci / facimus & constituimus procuratores syndicos vel actores nostros generales certos ac speciales. Iacobum Iohannis conconsulem & comburgensem nostrum & Magistrum Hugonem fabri fortis & Magistrum stephanum delga clericos. quemlibet eorum in solidum Ita quod non sit melior conditio occupantis. ad supplicandum Impetrandum et obtinendum a vobis & a curia vestre regie magestatis / quascumque litteras simplices & legendas seu aresta / graciam / benignitatem seu lusticiam continentia vel etiam continentes / Et specialiter Super negocio subsidij de Nouo petiti racione seu occasione dotis & maritagij Karissime nate Vestre domine ysabelle vxoris illustris Regis angl’. Necnon ad excusandum nos super premissis & excusationes nostras legitimas proponendum allegandum & pretendendum / et omnia alia & singula faciendum que circa premissa & ea tangentia necessaria fuerint ac etiam oportuna. Et hec magestati Regie significamus per has presentes litteras sigillo nostro sigillatis In fidem & testimonium premissorum. Actum et Datum Caturci die sabbati ante festum beati Michaelis arcangeli. anno domini. Me. CCC. Nono.

31 A procuration issued by the consuls of Fons at Fons on 27 September 1309, drawn up by the notary Hugues Operarii, empowering an agent to seek and obtain letters of grace and justice from the king’s or any other court, and to conduct the affairs of the community before the king, his court, and any other person.

A. AN, J 356, no. 13!°. Parchment; 274/275 mm. X 261/254 mm.; lined in plummet; validated by the notary’s sign manual. Endorsed in three fourteenthcentury bastard chancery scripts “procur’ ville de Fontibus,” “ville de Fontibus,” “Littere Reginaldi [Grumy, canceled] Gramaui M° CCC: 1x.” Numbered 3. See above, pp. 116 n. 43, 127-28, 137 n. 108, 141, and the plate facing p. 1 (b).

Nouerint vniuersi et singuli quod Anno domini. M?’. cece. Nono: die Sabbati proxima Ante festum beati Michaelis Regnante domino philippo illustri rege francorum / Inpresentia mei Notarii infra scripti testiumque sub scriptorum personaliter costituti Rignaldus gramaui / petrus angelrici / Geraldus marti / consules uille de fontibus dyocesis caturcensis pro se & aliis conconsulibus suis et pro vniuersitate et pro consulatu dicte uille fecerunt & costituerunt Arnaldum! Nauar procuratorem suum exhibitorem huius presentis publici instrumenti ad suplicandum jmpetratum et contradicendum et obtinendum litteras simplices et legendas a Curia domini Regis francie et aquacumque alia graciam uel iusticiam continentes et adpetendum Requi'The first four letters are written over an erasure, as the scribe notes at the end of the act.

260 APPENDIX rendum Suplicandum ea que petenda Suplicanda Requirenda fuerint et etiam impetranda et ad omnia alia negocia per agenda que coram domino Rege predicto seu eius Curia seu coram quocumque alio impetranda fuerint seu etiam peragenda Dantes

& concedentes predicto procuratori suo plenam potestatem / agendi deffendendi proponendi requirendi Suplicandi contradicendi et Impetrandi et obtinendi ea que proponenda Requirenda petenda suplicanda deffendenda contradicenda obtinenda fuerint uel etiam Impetranda / Ratum & gratum perpetuo habituri quicquid per dictum

procuratorem suum actum fuerit petitum suplicatum Requisitum deffensum contradictum uel etiam impetratum in premissis et circa premissa Releuantes ipsum procuratorem suum ab omni honere satisdandi} Acta fuerunt h[ec] apud fontes jn operatorio Rignaldi gramaui Anno & die predictis testibus presentibus vocatis et Rogatis / jhoanne? plegadi / hugone artal / petro uergua / hugone destampas / Bernardo aurel:—Constat de rasura superius facta arna / Et me hugone operarij auctoritate Regia. publico. notario. jntota. Senescallia petrag’ et catur’ qui rogatus h[ec] scripsi et in publicam formam redegi signoque meo consueto signaui:— 2MS Shoe’.

32 A procuration issued by the jurati of Le Bourg at Fons on 27 September 1309, drawn up by the notary Hugues Operarii, empowering an agent to seek and obtain letters of grace and justice from the king’s or any other court, and to conduct the affairs of the community before the king, his court, and any other person.

A. AN, J 356, no. 13!. Parchment; 267/271 mm. X 229/236 mm.; lined in plummet; validated by the notary’s sign manual, for which see the plate facing p. 1 (b). Endorsed in two fourteenth-century bastard chancery scripts “vill’ de burgo” and “procur’ ville de Burgo Me CCC? .ixe.”” Numbered 3 and, in a late-eighteenth- or nineteenth-century hand, 13. _ See above, pp. 116 n. 43, 127-28, 137 n. 108, 141.

Nouerint vniuersi et singuli quod Anno domini. Me. ccc®. Nono! die Sabbati proxima Ante festum Beati michaelis Regnante domino philippo illustri Rege francorum In presentia mei Notarii infra scripti testiumque sub scriptorum personaliter costituti Bernardus pradi et petrus de moylo jurati ut dixerunt ville de burgo sancti

, saturnini caturcensis dyocesis pro se et vniuersitate dicte ville de burgo fecerunt & costituerunt Arnaldum Nauar exhibitorem huius presentis publici instrumenti procuratorem suum ad suplicandum Impetrandum & contra dicendum et obtinendum litteras simplices & legendas a Curia domini Regis francie et aguacumque alia graciam uel 1usticiam continentes / et ad petendum Requirendum Suplicandum ea que petenda Suplicanda Requirenda fuerint et etiam Impetranda et ad omnia alia negocia per agenda que coram domino Rege predicto seu e1us Curia seu coram quocumque alio impetranda fuerint seu etiam per agenda / Dantes & concedentes predicto procuratori suo plenam potestatem / Agendi deffendendi proponendi Requirendi Suplicandi contra dicendi et impetrandi & obtinendi ea que proponenda Requirenda petenda Su-

DOCUMENTS 261 plicanda deffendenda contradicenda obtinenda fuerint uel etiam impetranda Ratum et gratum perpetuo habituri quicquid per dictum procuratorem suum actum fuerit , petitum Suplicatum Requisitum deffensum contradictum uel etiam impetratum inpremissis & circa premissa / Releuantes ipsum procuratorem suum ab omni honere satisdandi: Acta fuerunt h[ec] apud fontes jn operatorio Rignaldi gramaui anno & die quibus supra testibus presentibus vocatis et rogatis discreto uiro Magistro petro debanis jurisperito maiore) magistro petro debanis clerico juniore Rignaldo gramaui defont|ibis] / G. laporta / jhoanne' boni desoanaco} Et me hugone operarii auctoritate Regia. publico. notario In tota. Senescallia. petrag’. & cat’. qui rogatus h[ec] scripsi et in formam publicam redegi signoque meo consueto signaul. IMS Jhoe’.

33 A procuration issued by the consuls of Martel at Martel on 27 September 1309, empowering six agents to seek from the king of France documents concerning

the marriage subsidy and to offer him the community’s legitimate claims to | exemption from the aid. A. AN, J 356, no. 2. Parchment, 317 mm. X 132/138 mm. with a fold-up of 17/18 mm.; lined in plummet; with a seal in green wax appended on a plaited blue, brown, and beige cord; apparently drawn up by the same notary who prepared the mandate of Bretenoux, above, no. 28. Endorsed in fourteenthcentury bastard chancery script “.procuratorium ville Martelli .M° CCC>. ix.” Numbered [v]ij! and 3. See above, pp. 25 n. 51, 128-29, 137 n. 109, 141. Excellentissimo principi domino suo. domino Philippo dei gratia francorum Regi sui fideles Consules Ville Martelli. Se pronos ad pedes Regie magestatis. cum omni

subiectionis et Reuerentie assiduo famulatu. Vestre magestatis Regie nouerit celcitudo? / quod nos Consules predicti pro nobis et nomine Consulatus ac vniuersitatis nostre Martelli facimus et constituimus procuratores syndicos vel actores nostros generales certos ac speciales Magistrum Ademarum girberti. Poncium blaeni Hugonem maschalli Iohannem girberti. Garinum. Vitalis. Olruerium dantissac. quemlibet eorundem Insolidum Ita quod non sit melior conditio occupantis ad supplicandum Impetrandum et obtinendum a vobis et a curia Vestre regie Magestatis quascumque litteras simplices & legendas seu aresta gratiam benignitatem seu lustitiam continentia vel etiam continentes. Et specialiter super negocio subcidi de nouo petiti ratione seu occasione dotis et Maritagij Karissime nate vestre domine ysabelle vxoris illustris Regis Anglie. Necnon ad excusandum nos super premissis & excusationes nostras legitimas proponendum allegandum et pretendendum. Et omnia alia et singula faciendum que circa premissa et ea tangentia necessaria fuerint ac etiam oportuna. Et hec magestati Regie significamus per has presentes Litteras sigillo nostro sigillatas. 'The first component of this numeral seems to have been effaced.

Sic. ,

262 APPENDIX In fidem et testimonium premissorum. Actum et datum martelli die sabbati ante festum beati Michaelis Archangeli. Anno domino Me. CCC». Nono.

34 A procuration issued by the consuls of Castelnau-Montratier at CastelnauMontratier on 28 September 1309, drawn up by the notary Arnaud de Cumbellocavo, empowering two agents to take various actions in the king’s court. A. AN, J 356, no. 13% Parchment; 244/243 mm. X 230/234 mm. with a foldup of 40 mm.; lined in plummet; validated by a seal in natural wax appended on a plaited blue, brown, and beige cord, and the notary’s sign manual, for which see the plate on p. 10 (e). Endorsed in fourteenth-century bastard chancery script “..procurator’ Consulum Castri Noui Caturcensis dyocesis .Me CCC? .ixe..”” Numbered x and 3. See above, pp. 121, 125-126, 137 n. 108.

Notum Sit quod Anno Ab jncarnatione domini. M°. CCC:. nono. Regnante jllus-

trissimo principe domino philippo Rege nostro franc’. tercia die jn exitu mensis Septembris. Dominus Raymundus de Sancto priuato miles. Guilhelmus de poteto. poncius de cos. domicell[i]. Magister Bartholomeus de pantino. Guilhelmus. pelhisserij. Hugo. de prestiis. et Guilhelmus de Asterio. Consules castri noui de! vallibus caturcensis dyocesis. jn mei notarij et testtum Subscriptorum presencia personaliter constituti. pro Se. et Bernardo de rozeto domicello conconsule Suo. et vniuersitate

dicti castri et pertinenciarum eiusdem. et nomine consulatus dicti loci. fecerunt constituerunt et ordinauerunt Suos Certos generales et Speciales Sindicos et procuratores. Magistros. Arnaldum. de colhuenha et Gualhardum fabri de monte albano dyocesis predicte. et eorum quemlibet jn Solidum jta quod non Sit melior condicio occupantis. Ad Suplicandum. jmpetrandum optinendum. contradicendum Super qui-

buscumque causis et negocijs. jn curia Serenissimi principis domini nostri regis predicti. Dantes et concedentes dictis Syndicis et procuratoribus Suis et eorum cuilibet in Solidum plenam et liberam potestatem et Speciale mandatum. Suplicandi jmpetrandi optinendi contradicendi. et omnia et Singula faciendi que veri et legitimi possunt et debent facere Sindici et procuratores. et que jpsi met facerent Seu facere possent si personaliter presentes essent. et que generale et speciale mandatum exigunt faciendi. Ratum et gratum perpetuo habituri. quicquid per dictos Sindicos et procuratores Suos vel eorum alterum Suplicatum jmpetratum optentum contradictum

fuerit Seu quoquo modo Alio procuratum. promittentes Sub ypotecha Rerum et bonorum Sui Consulatus michi notario jnfra Scripto Stipulanti et Recipienti nomine omnium quorum jnterest Si necesse fuerit judicatum Soluj cum Suis clausulis vniuersis. Releuantes dictos Sindicos et procuratores Suos et eorum quemlibet. ab omni honere Satisdandi Se jpsos vt consules. et bona sui consulatus fidetussorio nomine obligando. et h[ec] volunt omnibus quorum jnterest per hoc presens publicum jnstrumentum jntimari. datum. et Actum. jn dicto castro. Anno die quibus Supra. in presencia. et testimonio domini. Arnaldi delezergas militis. Magistri. R. bothery. notaru. 'Corrected.

DOCUMENTS 263 B. tholozani. Raymundi marcha. Guilhelmi. de briua petri. de trebes junioris. et Mei Arnaldi de cumbellocauo. publici notary jn tota Senescallia. petrag’. et caturcensi. et elus pertinenciis. et ressorto. qui requisitus per dictos consules Supra nominatos hanc cartam Scripsi. Nos vero Consules predicti. Supra nominati. Ad maiorem fidem et testimonium premissorum Sigillum dicti Consulatus huic presenti publico jnstrumentum duximus Apponendum.

35 A procuration issued by the consuls of Figeac at Figeac on 28 September 1309, empowering eleven agents to petition the king and his court concerning the marriage subsidy and fines for the acquisition of fiefs, and authorizing them to perform a wide range of judicial acts in connection with the petitions and with all other business and cases concerning the consulate. A. AN, J 356, no. 8. Parchment; 231/229 mm. X 299/282 mm.; lined in plummet;

with a seal in green wax appended on a tongue folded back and inserted through two slits. Endorsed in fourteenth-century bastard chancery script on the reverse “Procur’ Figiaci .M° CCC> 1x°.” Numbered xij and 3. See above, pp. 113, 134-35, 137 n. 109, 141.

In dei nomine amen. Nouerint Vniuersi & Singuli presentes pariter & futuri. quod Nos. Rigaldus boneti. & Bernardus de marcoles Guillelmus treganho. Bertrandus saliner1). Geraldus ferrerij. Johannes de aureliaco & Petrus de sancto Iohanne .. Consules ville figiaci nomine Consulatus & communitatis seu vniuersitatis dicte ville facimus ordinamus & constituimus procuratores nostros certos speciales ac etiam generales. videlicet ex nobis ipsis. discretos viros. Bertrandus salinerij. Bernardum.

de marcoles & Iohannem de aureliaco predictos. necnon & discretum virum magistrum. Philippum otonis clericum jurisperitum consiliarium nostrum / & Raymundum del garric & Petrum la val. & Geraldum de solaretz. Hugonem de madinho. & Iohannem rotberti juniorem. necnon & Guillelmum fabr} & Bartholomeum vaichieira clericos. & quemlibet eorum in solidum Ita quod non sit melior conditio occupantis ad supplicandum illustrissimo principi domino nostro franc’ Regi et Curie seu Curtalibus erusdem Super negocio subcidij quod petitur per eundem uel de eius mandato occasione matrimony Nobilis domine yzabellis filie ipstus domini nostri Regis. Regine que Anglie. Et Super eo quod de nouo petitur per eundem dominum nostrum Regem uel de mandato eiusdem Ratione uel occasione feudorum nobilium

que de nobilibus ad jnnobiles peruenerunt. et ad petendum requirendum que & - obtinendum Super premissis ea omnia & Singula que in premissis neccessaria fuerint seu etiam oportuna. et ad supplicandum jmpetrandum & obtinendum & contradicendum quascumque litteras simplices & legendas jus seu gratiam continentes. necnon & ad agendum petendum & deffendendum. libellum dandum petendum & recipiendum exipiendum proponendum litem contestandum jurandum de calumpnia & subeundum culuslibet alterius liciti generis juramentum. jus jnterloquit’ & diffinitiuam sententiam uel sententias petendum & audiendum. appellandum & appellationis cau-

sam uel causas prosequendum. H[e]c & omnia alia vniuersa & Singula faciendum

264 APPENDIX que in premissis neccessaria fuerint uel etiam oportuna. et que nos faceremus uel facere possemus in premissis si personaliter presentes essemus. et que mandatum exigunt speciale uel etiam generale. & hoc jn omnibus & Singulis negociis siue causis motis seu mouendis tam per nos seu Consulatum aut villam predictos contra quascumque personas collegia siue loca quam econtra. Coram quibuscumque judicibus auditoribus comissariis! Curis seu personis .. Dantes & concedentes dictis procuratoribus nostris & vnus alij ut quemlibet tangit seu tangere potest & Cuilibet eorum

in solidum plenam & liberam potestatem & speciale mandatum & etiam generale faciendj premissa & Singula premissorum & alia que oportuna seu neccessaria fuerint jn eisdem & quolibet eorundem. Promittentes sub ypotheca rerum & bonorum Consulatus & comunitatis ac ville predictorum. Nos nominibus quibus Supra ratum & firmum perpetuo habituri quicquid per dictos procuratores uel eorum alterum. Supplicatum jmpetratum contradictum actum deffensum. Responsum juratum appellatum prosecutum procuratum ve in premissis fuerit siue gestum. necnon & Iudicio cisti & judicatum soluj si neccesse fuerit cum suis clausulis vniuersis. Releuantes dictos

procuratores & quemlibet ipsorum & vnus alium ut quemlibet tangit seu tangere potest ab omni honere satisdandj nos nomine quo Supra & bona Consulatus ac comunitatis seu vniuersitatis & ville predictorum Obligantes Super hiis pro eisdem & eorum quolibet fideiussorio nomine & etiam principali sub juris Renunciatione qualibet & cautela .. Quoscumque alios procuratores per nos seu predecessores nostros alias constitutos usque in diem presentem tenore presentium reuocantes. & h[e]c omnibus & Singulis quorum jnterest uel jntererit aut jnteresse potest uel poterit jn futurum nota fieri volumus per presentes quibus in fidem & testimonium premissorum Sigillum comunis Consily dicte ville figiaci duximus apponendum. Datum figiaci In domo nostra Comuni dominica ante festum beati Michaelis. Anno domini Me CCC Nono. 'This word is spelled out fully; thus I have not doubled the m in the words comunitas and comunis, which are abbreviated in the document.

36 A procuration commissioned by Raymond de Vigier, prior of Meyssac and proctor

of the abbot of Tulle, drawn up by the notary Pierre Martial at Rocamadour on 28 September 1309, appointing three substitute proctors to represent the abbot of Tulle in negotiations regarding the recently imposed subsidy. A. AN, J 356, no. 13?!. Parchment; 249/250 mm. X 280/278 mm.; no visible lining except for two double vertical pencil lines 20 mm. and 18 mm., respectively, from the left and right edges; validated by the notary’s sign manual, for which see the plate on p. 10 (g). Endorsed in fourteenth-century bastard chancery script “..Procurator’ Abbatis Tutellensis .Me CCCe .Nono.” Numbered 3.! See above, pp. 129-30, 137 n. 110, 140, 141-42.

, 'This document is badly stained and faded; I greatly appreciate the help of Lucie Favier and the Institut de Recherche et d’Histoire des Textes in securing an ultra-violet photograph, a copy of which is deposited in Carton J 356 at the Archives nationales.

DOCUMENT'S 265 R[aymundu]s vigerij prior de mainsaco ordinis sancti benedicti lemouicensis dyocesis a Reuerendo patre jn christo domino. aicardo dei et sedis apostolice gratia tutellensis abbas? dominj pape - capellanus’ procurator deputatus omnibus ad quos presentes litere peruenerint salutem et veritatem literas dicti domini. abbatis procurationis Nos recepisse noueritis formam que sequitur continentem* -

vniuerssis presentes literas jnspecturis aicardus dei et sedis apostolice gracia tutellensis abbas domini pape. capellanus salutem jn domino. Noueritis quod nos facimus ordinamus et constituimus procuratorem nostrum sindicum seu yconomum generalem specialem et verum karissimum nostrum in christo R[aymun|dum _ vigerlj priorem prioratus nostri de mainsaco exhibitorem presentium In omnibus causis et negociis motis et mouendis a nobis contra quascumque personas seu a quibuscumque personis contra nos coram judicibus quibuscumque. Dantes et concedentes predicto procuratori nostro yconomo uel actori quem etiam actorem nostrum facimus. plenam et liberam potestatem et generale ac speciale mandatum agendi componendi exipiendi deffendendi negocia nostra promouendi prossequendi et expediendi libellum jn scriptis petendi et tradendi litem contestandi jurandi jn animam nostram de Calumpnia et de veritate dicenda et subeundi cuiuslibet alterius liciti generis juramentum positiones faciendi et positionibus Respondendi alium seu alios procuratores loco suj sustituendi. quj jn premissis eandem uel consimilem habeant potestatem et eundem sustituendi.’ seu sustitutos Reuocandi quandocumque eidem visum fuerit expedire potestate a nobis dicto procuratori nostro concessa nichilominus jn suo Robore permanente appellandi appellationem prossequendi curias hominum et subditorum nostrorum petendi et obtinendi et omnia alia faciendi que potest et debet facere verus et legitimus yconomus seu etiam procurator Ratum habentes et gratum ac etiam habituri quicquid per dictum procuratorem nostrum seu yconomum aut per substitutum seu substitutos ab ipso procuratum fuerit siue factum. promittens® sub ypotheca Rerum

et bonorum nostrorum pro ipso procuratore nostro seu yconomo et substituto seu substitutis ab eo si fuerit neccesse judicatum solui Cum suis clausulis adiacentibus volentes ipsum et substitutum seu substitutos ab ipso propter h[oc] Releuare ab omni honere satisdandi et h{ec| omnibus quorum jnterest uel jntererit signifficari volumus per has presentes literas quibus sigillum nostrum apposuimus

jn testimonium premissorum. Datum viii°. Kalendas marci. anno domini. Millesimo. ccc°. septimo.

auctoritate quarum loco nostri sustituimus facimus et ponimus procuratores nostros et dicti domini abbatis. Radulphum de maycha effermier. de bello loco et Magistrum

ademarum Guisberti clericum juris peritum exhibitorem’ presentium. et quemlibet , eorum jn solidum jta quod non sit melior condicio occupantis super facto subsidjj domini nostri Regis Franc’ nuper jnpositi dicto domino meo per dictum dominum

| 3Sic. Sic.

*Szc. §Sze.

Sic. ”Ste.

266 APPENDIX Regem seu mandatum suum. Dantes eisdem procuratoribus nomine quo supra loco nostri substitutis generalem ac specialem et liberam potestatem Requirendi suplicandi proponendi excusandi finandi componendi et omnia alia faciendi. super facto subsidij

predicti que veri et legitimj procuratores facere possunt et debent et que nos faceremus seu dictus dominus. abbas faceret si personaliter jnteresset Ratum gratum et firmum perpetuo habituri quicquid per dictos procuratores seu alterum eorundem actum Requisitum suplicatum finatum compositum super dicto subsidio fuerit uel quomodolibet alio procuratum. et Requiro Magistrum petrum Marcialis ut de premissis conficiat publicum jnstrumentum. et ego petrum Marcialis auctoritate Regia publicus notarius vidi legi et diligenter jnspexi predictas literas dicti Reuerendi patris domini abbatis tutellensis et sigillo suo sigillatas ut prima facie apparebant non viciatas non abolitas nec jn aliqua sui parte viciatas et premissa acta fuerunt jn presencia mea

et ea jn publicam formam Redegi ad preces et jnstantiam dicti domini R[aymun]di procuratoris Reuerendi patris predicti acta fuerunt hec apud Rupemamatoriam / die dominica. ante festum beati Michaelis anno domini. Millesimo. ccc°. nono. Regnante domino philippo dei gracia Rege Franc’ jllustri testibus ad h[ec] presentibus vocatis et Rogatis domino. B. oleri presbitero. p. la Ribiera. et me petro Marcialis clerico jn tota Senescallia petrag’ et caturcensi et erus Ressorto auctoritate Regia publico notario qui Requisitus et Rogatus hlec] scripsi Recepi et jn publicam formam Redegi

| signo que meo solito et consueto signaui.

37 A mandate of Philip the Fair concerning the marriage aid, addressed to his commissioners in Périgord and Quercy and Saintonge, dated 15 October 1309 at Parts. A. Originals lost.

B. AN, JJ 42A, fols. 97-98, no. Ixxy (72). ,

C. AM, Cahors, Livre nouveau, | (MS 4), 186-87, no. 8, a seventeenth-century copy on parchment of the mandate issued for Cahors and neighboring communities. A note in the margin reads “Du mercredy auant la feste de St Luc 1309. Ne 8." See Fawtier, Registres, 1:no. 819 and 819%; and above, pp. 88 n. 76, 97 n. 1, 98 n. 3, 113 n. 37, 120, 128-29, 131-35, 150-52. littera de modo exigendi subsidium ab abbate tutellensi / Racione Maritagy Regine ang)’

Philippus dei gracia Franc’ [rex] dilectis Magistris. yuoni de laudunaco & Geraldo de sabenaco / jurisperitis clericis nostris Salutem & dileccionem [accedens|? ad pre-

senciam nostram ademarus Gilleberti procurator abbatis Tutellensis’ / nobis quo 'The bracketed words are taken from the copy in the Lzvre nouveau, which contains numerous errors and misspellings. 2accendens in JJ 42A.

>The copy in the Lrvre nouveau refers instead to “Stephanus delga procurator hominum et uniuersitatum uillarum de Caturco de Caslhiaci luzegio, de belayo de podio Episcopi de Castro franco, de albars, de monte pensato et de Tauriaco.”

DOCUMENTS 267 supra nomine [humiliter] supplicauit ut ab exaccione subsidij pro maritagio Carissime [filie] nostre Regine Anglie petiti / ad curus prestacionem virtute commissionis nostre sub certa sub* h[oc] uobis forma directe ipsum seu homines terre sue compellatis® / & quibus ad Summas pro dicta subuencione in positas sub pena duppli soluendas infra instans festum omnium sanctorum terminum prefixistis® / vo[s| desistere man-

daremus nos vero eidem procuratori fecimus Respondi / quod si ipse nomine predictorum abbatis & hominum suorum terre predicte’? / per viam juris aut gracie a nobis petende uel finencie® prestande super premissis uellet intendere / Nos super altera viarum ipsarum quam duxerit eligendam / ipsum prompti eramus audire / & super qualibet viarum ipsarum facere quod racionabiliter fuerit faciendum / qui siquidem procurator procedendi super his potestatem non habere se asserens aut mandatum / ad deliberandum cum illis aquibus missus fuerat super modo procedendi predicto Sibi dari inducias postulauit / quas eidem inducias usque ad quindenam festi omnium sanctorum’ duximus concedendas jdeoque volumus & mandamus vobis quatinus / tam Summas hominibus terre predicte’® impositas / quam dupplum predictum / usque ad dictam quindenam!! / explectare & leuare de voluntatis nostre beneplacito desistatis / si uero dictus abbas pro hominibus suis!? / uel singulares persone quecumque super subsidio predicto / nostro et ipsorum imposterum jure saluo financias! vobiscum facere voluerint financias huiusmodi prout commode videritis admittatis nostra tamen super h[oc] voluntate Retenta. Datum Parisius die mercury ante festum beati luce euuangeliste Anno domini. M. CCC». Nono. Sub ista forma scriptum fuit predictis Commissariis .Y. de laud’ et .G. desabenaco .. pro Arnardo de vernolio procuratore / hominum & vniuersitatis Castri de gordonio.

Item pro philippo Odonis procuratore hominum & vniuersitatum villarum' de figiaco / de sancto sirico / de lanhaco & danglars. Item pro ademaro fabri procuratore hominum & vniuersitatum villarum Briue / de Belachessargne / de sancto medardo / de podiomissis / de montibus et de aemto Item pro alnardo procuratore hominum & vniuersitatum. villarum de Caiiarco / de Fontibus / de Burgo / & de Cambolico Item pro stephano procuratore hominum & vniuersitatum villarum de Caturco de Caslhucio / de luzegio / de belayco / de podio Episcopi / de Castro Francho / de abbars'’ de monte pensaco & de Thauriaco.. Item pro arnaldo de colonijs / & Gaillardo fabri procuratoribus hominum & vniuersitatum villarum de monte albano de calciata'® de Castro nouo raterij / de ‘Sic in JJ 42A. ‘For ipsum ... compellatis the Livre nouveau reads ipsos compellitis. ‘In place of terminum prefixistis the Livre nouveau reads cum instantia fit istis. ‘abbatis ... predicte omitted in the Livre nouveau. Sfinanciae in the Livre nouveau.

°The Lzvre nouveau of Cahors reads ad tres Septimanas post festum omnium Sanctorum actum.

For hominibus terre predicte the Livre nouveau reads Singularibus uniuersitatibus. "The Livre nouveau of Cahors reads ad dictarum trium Septimanarum Terminum. The Livre nouveau of Cahors reads Si uero uniuersitates uel. '3s7nancias here and below in JJ 42A.

, MMS Harum. SMS abbais. l6MS cletata.

268 APPENDIX monte alzaco / de villa francisia / de molerijs / de Septem fontibus / de mirabello / de monte claro / de virga pellicia!” / de byole & de picatos Item pro procuratore abbatis olbazine'®

.Item pro Guidone de paonnaco / procuratore ville de bello loco | Item pro Petro de Sioraco / procuratore hominum & vniuersitatum villarum de lauserta / de monte cuto!® / de monte lenando”® / & de salua terra Item pro Ademaro gilleberti procuratore hominum & vniuersitatum villarum de marcello?! / de bretenous de Ruppe amatoria & de carennaco.. Item pro abbate bollibonensi / Senescallie / Petrag’. Item pro Ranulpho de brya procuratore .Archiepiscopi Burdegalensis.. Sub forma qua scribitur in littera precedenti / que Magistris / Yuoni de Laudunaco. Et Geraldo de Sabenaco dirigitur / scriptum fuit. domino .H. de Cella Militi & Senescallo xanctonensi / pro alone domino Montis Maurilij. Oduino / de brebezallo / et armando de Saltu Militibus / procuratoribus plurium Nobilium Castellaniarum de Brebezallo / de archiaco / de jouniaco / de Ruppe Chaudent’ / de Calesio / de Ruppe / de alba terra / de Conzillaco”? / de monte maurelij / de Ruppe fulcaudi / de Blandiaco / de Nantronio / de vertolio / de Roufiaco / de Esie / de Cabenesio / de Consulanco”? / de Castello Reginaldi de monte Berulphi / de Ruppe Bouiscurti / de villa Bouis / de Boutevilla / de Iarnaco / de Castro nouo** / de monregnaco / de monte auserio / & de ponte / Item pro Rectore ecclesie / de aiotis procuratore abbatis de Nantolio.? Item pro Gaufrido Raymundi / & hel’ de Girennia clericis procuratoribus / Episcopi / decani & Capituli Engolisme. Item pro alone domino Montis Maurili) / Odoine** de Brebezillo / militibus / pro se. et aluis villis ut supra dictum est / dupplicata 7 Sie.

'8Added in the margin. 19St0. 2087C.

21870.

2Perhaps Conzac, located between Barbezieux and Blanzac. It is possible, although less likely, that the community is the more important center of Cognac. Fawtier identifies it as Condilhac: Fawtier, Registres, 1:index s.v. Conzillacum. If this were the case, however, the community should more logically be listed with the neighboring communities of Chabanais and Confolens. See the map on p. 114. 23Sic, for Confulanco (Confolens). 24MS Casto nouo. 25 SiC. 26S7C.

| 38 A list of proctors representing communities and religious establishments of

nobles from nobles. |

Quercy on the questions of the marriage aid and of property purchased by non-

DOCUMENTS 269 A. AN, J 356, no. 14. Parchment; 205/218 mm. X 222/218 mm.; the document is unlined and the parchment of poor quality; the bastard chancery hand is markedly similar to that used for the endorsements found on most of the procurations in the carton. See above, pp. 98, 113 n. 37, 127 n. 75, 128-29, 131-34, 149 n. 8. .Procuratores Infrascripti. comparent pro villis et locis infrascriptis. Racione Maritagii domine Ysabell[is]! Regine Anglie / & Racione rerum emptarum ab personis innobilibus / a personis nobilibus Stephanus delgua clericus. pro ciuitate caturci pro castro deluzegio

pro castro debelayco pro castro de podio Episcopi pro villa de castro francho pro villa de albars pro castro de caslhucio pro villa de tauriaco / Magistri arnaldus? de colonia & Galhardus fabri

pro albano , pro villa villadedemonte calciata pro castro nouo rater}

pro castro demonte alzato

pro villa francizia pro villa de moleriis pro villa deseptem fontibus pro castro de mirabello pro castro montis clari

pro villa nigre pellicie ,

pro castro debiole pro castro de picacos Petrus desioraco

pro castro delauserta |

pro castro de monte cuco pro castro de salua terra pro castro demonte lanardo Magister philippus odonis pro villa defigiaco pro abbate aurelaacensi pro dominis & hominibus danglars Arnaldus de Vernolio domicellus pro castro degordonio ut procurator

'See the inventory of Nogaret’s papers, prepared in 1315 by a royal chancery clerk, BN, Dupuy 635, fol. 104v. 2In the inventory of Nogaret’s papers, A/nardus; cf. Langlois, “Les papiers de Nogaret,” p. 229, who gives A/vardus.

270 APPENDIX pro villa de payraco ut dominus dicti loci Magister Ademarus girberti pro villa de martello? pro villa deruppeamatoria pro villa debrethenos _ pro abbate tutellensi. et membris Suit Arnaldus nauarri pro villa decaiarco ut consul dicti loci pro villa defontibus pro villa de cambolico ut procurator pro villa deburgo ,

Magister Ademarus fabri pro villa briue

pro ville demontibus pro villa de empto

, pro villa debella cassanha pro villa de sancto medardo / dominus abbas de bello loco dominus abbas figiacensis dominus abbas terrasonensis Dominus Radulphus de moyschr monachus procurator prioris sancte ferrioli°

Guido de pannaco & Raymundus de curamanno procuratores ville debello loco / |

‘martil’o, as in BN, Dupuy 635, fol. 104v; cf. Langlois, “Les papiers de Nogaret,” p. 229, who gives Marcillaco. *Sic.

‘Note that this and the following entry are given in full both in this list and the inventory of Nogaret’s papers; cf. Langlois, “Les papiers de Nogaret,” p. 229.

39 A letter of the mayor and jurés of Rouen dated October 1309, announcing the terms of an agreement concluded between them and officials of the king concerning the marriage subsidy and the custom of the bridge of Rouen. A. AN, J 392, no. 24. Parchment; 275/278 mm. X 202 mm. with a fold-up of 16 mm.; lined in plummet; with a seal in brown wax appended on a tag. Endorsed in fourteenth-century bastard chancery script “littera ville Rothomagensis de XXX™- Ibr’ tur’ soluendis Regi ad Quinquennium,” “‘xxliij,” “M

CCC ix.” See above, pp. 154-55.

A Touz Ceus qui ces presentes lettres Verront. Li Maires & li iure de la ville de Rouen Salut en nostre seignor. Nous faisons assauoir Que Comme nostre tres chiers sires li Rois feist demander a la dite ville de Rouen. aide ou subuencion pour Reson du Mariage de sa chiere fille ysabel par la grace de dieu Royne dengleterre.

DOCUMENTS 271 Nous proposans & disans par plusours Resons que Nous & la dite ville a ceste aide faire nestions pas tenus. Et Nous dautre part Requeissons nostre dit seignor le Roi que il la Coustume du pont de Rouen. laquele il li auoit pleu a mettre en sa Main vousist Rendre & deliurer a la dite ville en la Maniere que Nous la tenions par point de chartre enciennement. les gens nostre dit seignor le Roi disans au contraire par aucunes Resons que la dite coustume ne nous deuoit pas estre deliuree. A la parfin entre les gens nostre dit seignor le Roi pour lui dune part / & Nous pour la dite ville dautre / eus seur ces choses plusours tretiez. acorde fu entreuz & Nous par grant deliberacion en la maniere qui sensuit - Cest assauoir que li Rois nostre sires Rendra & deliurera a plain a nous & a la dite ville / la coustume du pont deuant dite / en la Maniere que Nous & la dite ville la tenions anciennement. sauf le droit dautrui / & se soufferra quant a ceste fois de laide deuant dite / Et Nous ou non de la dite ville Rendrons & paierons au Roi nostre dit seignor Trente Mil liures tornois petis a paler par cinc annees / Cest assauoir au prechain eschequier de pasques Trois Mil liures tornois / & ainsi a chascun eschequier apres ensiuant trois Mil liures tornois & ainsi par les dites cinc annees de eschequier en eschequier autant. Jusquatant que la somme des trente Mil liures dessus dites tornois / soit toute par paiee. Et Auoeques ce. Nous en Non de la dite commune Rendrons & deliuerrons

au Roi nostre dit seignor / en non de quitance vnes lettres contenans que li diz nostre sires li Rois estoit tenus a la dite ville en dis Mil liures parisis ou enuiron par cause de prest / Et est assauoir / que entre les dites gens nostre dit seignor le Roi & Nous dessus dis il est expressement acorde & Retenu / que pour Reson de cest acort / ou finance quant a laide du mariage deuant dit / nul preiudice ne nouueletes ne puissent estre faites en tel cas ou en semblabe ou temps auenir / au Roi nostre dit seignor en son droit ancien / ou a ses successours / ne a nous ne a la dite ville / ou commune en nos franchises & droitures en aucune Maniere. En tesmoing des queles choses Nous auon! mis en ces lettres le scel de la commune de Rouen / Ce fu fait / ou Mois doctouure / Lan de grace Mil / CCC & Nuef. 'Sic.

40 A letter of Philip the Fair, dated October 1309 at Paris and sealed in white wax, announcing the terms of the agreement that his offictals have concluded with the mayor and jurés of Rouen concerning the marriage aid and the custom of the bridge of Rouen. A. Original lost. B. AN, JJ 41, fols. 90v-91, no. clij. AN, JJ 42B, fol. 75, no. 151. See Fawtier, Registres, 1:no. 679, and above, pp. 154-55. Accordamentum factum per gentes domini Regis cum ciuibus et iuratis communie rothomagensis! 'AN, JJ 41, fol. 90v. There is no rubric in JJ 42B, which contains variant spelling, abbreviations, and punctuation.

272 APPENDIX PHilippe Par la grace de dieu Rois de france A Touz ceus qui ces presentes lettres verront Salut Nous faisons a sauoir que comme nous a la ville de Roan feisons demander aide ou subuention pour raison dou mariage de nostre chiere fille ysabel Royne Dengleterre /. Le Maire & les Jurez de la commune de la dite ville proposanz & disanz par plusours raisons que il a ceste aide faire nestoient pas tenuz. Et il dautre

part ou non de la dite Commune nous requeissent o grant instance que nous la coustume du Pont de Roan la quele nous auions mise en nostre main vousissiens rendre & deliurer a la dite ville en la maniere que il la tenoient par point de chartre anciennement. Nos genz disanz au contraire pour nous par aucunes raisons que la dite coustume ne leur deuoit pas estre deliuree / A la par fin entre nos dites genz pour nous dune part / Et les diz Maire & Jurez pour la dite commune dautre / euz sur ces choses plusours traitiez / acorde fu entre eus par grant deliberation en la maniere qui sensuit. Cest a sauoir que nous rendrons / & deliuerrons a plain aus diz Maire & Jurez & a la commune de la dite ville la coustume du Pont deuant dite en la maniere que il la tenoient anciennement / sauf le droit dautri / Et nous soufferrons

quant a ceste foiz de laide deuant dite / Et li dit Maires & Jurez ou non de la commune de la dite ville nous rendront & paieront xxx™ |’ tournois petiz a paier par .v. annees / Cest a sauoir au prochain Eschequier de pasques 1jM I t’. Et ensi a chascun eschequier? apres ensiuans 1j™ I’ t’ / Et ensi de Eschequier en eschequier au tant / Jusqua a tant que la Somme des dites xxx™ |’ t’ soit toute parpaiee / Et auec ce il ou non de la dite commune nous rendront & deliuerront en non de quittance vnes lettres que il ont contenanz que nous a la dite ville estions tenuz en x™ Ibr’ par’

/ ou enuiron pour cause de prest. Et est a sauoir que entre nos dites Genz & les diz Mayeur & Jurez pour la dite commune / il est expressement accorde & retenu que pour raison de cest acort dou finance quant a laide dou mariage deuant dit nuls , preiudice / ne nouueletez ne puissent estre faites en tel cas / ou en samblable ou temps a venir a nous en nostre droit ancien ou a nos successeurs / Ne aus diz Mayeur

, & Jurez / ne a la dite ville ou commune en leur franchises & droitures en aucune maniere / En testmoing des queles choses nous auons fait meitre nostre seel en ces presentes lettres. Donne a Paris ou Moys doctobre / lan de grace Mil CCC & nuef. Ista littera fuit sigillata in cera alba. 2de pasques ... eschequier inserted; Eschaquier and ainsi here and below in JJ 42B.

41 | A declaration of Philip the Fair, dated at Paris in October 1309, concerning the levy of the marriage aid in Normandy. A. Original lost.

B. AN, JJ 41, fol. 82v, no. cxxxvij. AN, JJ 42B, fol. 68v, no. 136. See Fawtier, Registres, 1:no. 664; above, pp. 154-55, 165-66.

Littera Regis pro gentibus de ducatu normanie super aliquibus sibi concessis! 'AN, JJ 41, fol. 52v. There is no rubric in JJ 42B, which contains variant spelling, abbreviations, and punctuation.

DOCUMENTS 273 Philippe .. Par la grace de dieu Roys de france A touz ceus qui ces presentes lettres verront et orront Salut. Sauoir faisons que comme les genz de la Duchee de Normendie soient nobles ou autres qui de nous tiennent senz moien soient tenuz a nous pour la Raison de leur fiez & teneures chascuns selonc la condicion du fief quil tient a paier a nous aide de nostre fille marier en la maniere que il est accoustume a faire en Normendie entre les hommes & les seigneurs & il la puissent cuillir & leuer chascuns sus ses subgiez & auoir a leur main de demorant ce qui en fust cuilli’ & leue outre ce qui? en fust deu. Et il nous aient otroie de grace & de courtoisie a la Requeste de nous que tout ce qui sera leue & cuilli de la dite aide qui a leur main puet demorer selonc la coustume viengne tout a nostre main senz riens demorer a

la leur quant a ceste foiz en tele maniere que il ne nous paieront riens fors tant seulement ce qui sera leue de leur sugiez. Nous voulons et otrions pour nous & pour nos hoirs que cil otroi quil nous ont fait de cel outre plus qui* leur peust demorer par la coustume du pays si comme il est dit ne face preiudice a eus / ne a leur hoirs ou temps a venir / Et que autre foiz ne leur puisse estre reprochie que il soient’ tenuz a ce faire / ne que par ce nous soit aucuns droiz acquis en ce cas / ou en samblable*® ou dit outreplus. En testmoing de la quele’ chose nous auons fait meitre nostre seel en ces lettres / Donne a Paris. ou Mois doctobre lan de grace Mil CCC & Nuef. -habuerunt sub hac forma xvijj litteras® 2cuille in JJ41. 3a nous, following, in JJ 42B.

*Corrected from quil by expunction in JJ 41. ‘que il sorent repeated in JJ 42B.

Csemblabe in JJ 42B. ° 7gulel in JJ 42B.

*This notation is added in JJ 42B, in a different ink and script.

42 A mandate of Philip the Fair to the seneschal of Poitou, ordering him to transmit orders involving various financial commissioners operating in his district, dated

25 July 1310 at Paris. A. Original lost. B. BN, fr. 5290, fols. 6v-7v, a fifteenth-century collection of extracts from the

, records of the Chamber of Accounts; copied from Mémorial A of the Chamber of Accounts, fol. 8v. Preceding the copy is the following notation, “Ou lure signe a est enRegistree certaine Renonciacion faicte Par le Roy philippe le bel de tous commissaires Sur le fait des nouueaulx acquestz Excepte ceulx qu) depuis an parauant y auoyent este commis fo viy° dont lateneur sensuit.” C. AN, P 2290 (Mémorial A, 1309 4 1354), pp. 33-36, a register of copies of documents from the Chamber of Accounts constituted after the fire of 1737. Preceding the copy are the following notations: “Memorial A, fol. 8.v. 1° Comptes en general. 2° Receveurs en general.” The document is identified as “Lettres du 25 juillet 1310. portant reuocation de tous les Receveurs des francs fiefs et nouveaux acquets jusqu’a ce quils ayent rendus leurs comptes.”’

274 APPENDIX A number of minor differences in orthography and punctuation exist between this copy and that found in fr. 5290. After the copy is the following notation: “Collationné par nous conseiller. maistre a ce commis. Gaschier.”

See above, p. 167. ,

Philipus dei gracia Francorum Rex Senescallo pictauen’ salutem ad nostrum peruenit auditum quod nonnulli commissarjj per vestram senescalliam et eius Ressortum per nostras vt dicunt licteras constitut) ad leuandum arreragia Ex Inpositis' per nos seu concessis nobis pridem decimalibus subsidiis annalibus et aliis subuentionibus Necnon et ludeorum negocia ad financias faciendas Racione possessionum feudalium

a personis et locis prohibitis acquisitarum et ad plura alia Receptarum seu quorumcumque explectorum nostra negocia deputatj vt dicunt multas virtute commissionum a nostra sibi curia factarum summas peccunie leuasse dicuntur quas numdum nostris thesaurarlis assignarunt et pluries monitj de Reddendis compotis suis gentibus compotorum nostrorum parisius super leueis et explectis factis per eos nullum adhuc compotum Reddiderunt \ Et licet curia nostra commissiones factas aliquibus ex dictis

commissariis penitus subpenderit \ Ex potissime quod de leueis et Receptis quas fecerant pro nobis nichil omnino vel minus debito eisdem nostris thesaurariis assignauerint \ Et compotum de hus pluries monit) super hoc Reddere non curauerint

Ipsi tamen suspencioni commissionum \ huiusmodj non obstante Sub pretextu ipsarum? seu alias \ Contra Intencionem curie nostre In commissis sibj negociis Remanserunt et ea exercent multas ex hiis leuando peccunias vestram senescalliam discurrentes’ \ Quo circa mandamus vobis et districte precipimus quathinus omnes et singulos commissarios per senescalliam hutusmodj cuiuscumque condicionis ex-_ istant Ad predicta nostra negocia deputatos \ A nobis quos ex nunc ex causa tenore presencium Reuocamus omnino vt Reuocat”* a nobis apredictis nostris negociis ex nunc’ penitus cessare faciatis / Eisque \ vlterius quo ad hoc parerj aut Intendj non permittatis Sed potius® si hoc videatur expediens Reuocatos’ a nobis nunciarj et ne

eis pareatur In aliquo prohiberj publice faciatis donec compotum super leueis et explectis predictis / nostre curie Reddiderunt competenter Iniungendo?® eis auctoritate’ nostra sub omnj pena quam possunt Incurrere et!° statim post expositum eis presencium tenorem omnem peccuniam quam ex dictis negociis leuauerint vel leuare contingerit vsque ad diem notifficacionis presencium eis facte Sine omnj dilacione nostris thesaurariis parisius assignent quodque In octabis Instantis proxime fest} assumpcionis beate marie virginis Accedant parisius suos compotos nostre curie Redditurj [llos autem quj ad decime noue nobis concesse et subsidij Indit) pro maritagio filie nostre Negocia ad financias feudorum [et] Alia nostra quarumcumque 'MSS Inporitis; corrected to zmpositis in P 2290, p. 33, n. (a).

, 2>MSS isparum. ‘Corrected from P 2290, p. 34; in fr. 5290, fol. 7, Discrureen’ or Discrurien’., ‘In P 2290, p. 34, revocatis.

“MSS nuc; corrected in P 2290, p. 34, n. (a) from uc. °MSS poscius; corrected to potius in P 2290, p. 34, n. (a). ’reuocatis in P 2290, p. 34. 8Jmiungendo in fr. 5290, fol. 7. *aute or ante in fr. 5290, fol. 7.

eg in P 2290, p. 35.

DOCUMENTS 275 Receptarum vel explectorum negocia sunt ab anno! citra In eadem senescallia” deputat) per curiam nostram Nullatenus per hoc!’ Intendimus Reuocarj vel aliquatenus

Impedir} Eos tamen per vos modis quibus melius poteritis exhortar) volumus et'* Inducj vt In negociis sib) comissis omnem quam poterunt diligenciam adhibeant et actentos se Reddant et sollicitos vt omnem quam poterunt ex dictis negociis leuare peccuniam quam cicius et plenius potuerint assignent et Reddant Vos eciam omnem quam ex nostris debitis habere poteritis peccuniam sine omny dilacione assignetis et Reddatis parisius nostris thesaurariis antedictis Datum parisius xxv® die luly'* Anno

Dominy Me CCCe Decimo

Following this word, a word of six or seven letters beginning with s is canceled in fr. 5290, fol. 7. \2senescalliam in fr. 5290, fol. 7. '3Following this word Ind is canceled in fr. 5290, fol. 7. ‘Following this word Inducj and Indicj are canceled in fr. 5290, fol. 7v. 'SJully in fr. $290, fol. 7v.

43 A letter of the consuls of forty-eight communities of the diocese of Cahors, dated at Cahors on 24 March 1311, addressed to Pope Clement V, informing him that they have empowered twenty-one agents to pursue the appeal concerning sentences | issued by the bishop of Cahors and his commissioners regarding the usury statutes, which has been lodged on behalf of the king of France by the seneschal of Périgord and Quercy and by the royal procurator of the seneschalsy, and by the consuls of the communities. A. AM, Cahors, FF 15. Parchment; 520/516 mm. X 341/343 mm. with a foldup of 28/31 mm.; ruled in plummet with lines 9 mm. apart. Twenty-six small round holes are cut through the fold-up for sealing on cords, with the names of twelve communities above some of the holes (“Caorz,” ““Montalba,” “‘causada,” “de montecuco,” “Lauserta,” “caslutz,” “Belaie,” “negra pelhissa,” “de podio Rupas,” “castri sagrat,” “‘roqamador,” “cajarc”). The act was apparently

drawn up by the same notary who prepared the procurations issued in connection with the protest against the marriage aid by Cahors, Caylus, Lalbenque, and Toirac (see nos. 9-11 and 20 above). On the dorse are numerous notations dating from the fourteenth through the nineteenth century, including numbers formerly assigned to the document (33, 69, 81), three descriptions of the act, and a list of forty-eight communities. B. BN, Doat 119, fols. 23-26. This copy was made and collated from the parchment original “‘Sceellé de plusieurs Sceaux trouue aus Archives de |Hostel de

Ville de Caors” by Gratian Capot in the presence and on the orders of Jean de Doat at Albi on 24 April 1669. It is signed by both Doat and Capot. C. AD, Lot, F 121/2. A nineteenth-century paper copy by Léon Lacabane, apparently made from the copy in Doat 119. See Albe, “Inventaire,” pp. 35-36; and above, pp. 109-11, 161. Sanctissimo patri jn christo ac domino / Domino Clementi diuina prouidentia summo pontifici. Sui Humiles ac deuoti. Consules Ciuitatis Caturci. Et Consules de

276 | APPENDIX Figiaco. De monte albano. De Moysiaco. De Lauserta. De podio ruppis. De calciata. De villa francisca. De Regali villa. De mirabello. De molerijs. De Castro nouo de vallibus. De monte pensato. De septem fontibus. De bruniquello. De nigra pellicia / De bastita dalbiars. De bastita Sancti stephani. De flaounhaco. De monte Claro. De bastita de saluitate. De insula madida. De Bioule. & De gordonio. De Ruppe amatoria. De Castro sacrato. De Caiarco. De martello. De monte cuco. De sancto Cyrico de popia. De Caslucio. De belloforti. De albenca. De salua terra. De lusegio. De saluiaco. De bastita domini fortanerij. De belayo. De Castro franco. De podio Episcopi. De Gramato. de solhaco. De podio bruni. De bretanone.' De fontibus. De monte alzato. De Monte ricoso. De podio garde. Caturcensis dyocesis. deuota pedum oscula Beatorum. Sanctitati vestre pater sanctissime Notum fieri volumus per pre-sentes. quod nos Consules predicti / pro nobis & nomine Consulatuum & communitatum villarum nostrarum & locorum predictorum / facimus & creamus constituimus ac etiam ordinamus. procuratores nostros syndicos & actores / generales certos ac speciales. Hugonem cambaloni / et Iohannem de fonte. Raymundum de saluanhico. Iohannem raterij. Guilhelmonum de cazelis. Magistrum Iohannem de albugia & Magistrum stephanum delga. burgenses & Ciues Caturci. Et lohannem de bastita. Iohannem de gordo. Bertrandum de fon cabriera. ville de monte albano. Et magistrum Raymundum Riguardi. Magistrum Raymundum de ruppe Iuris peritos. magistrum. Petrum rayne. Magistrum Bertrandum de campo piperaco de Gordonio. Et magistrum Bernardum da peire guilhem [urisperitum. Magistrum Petrum de siouraco / Ramundum de barraco. Bernardum delacort de Lauserta. Et magistrum Petrum salnier. Magistrum Guilhelmum del Boischo Iurisperitum. de figiaco. Magistrum Johannem de Reuelhos. de Ruppe amatoria. quemlibet eorum in solidum jta quod _ non sit melior condicio occupantis / exhibitorem seu exhibitores presentium litterarum. ad totam illam causam seu causas. quam vel quas Nos Consules predicti pro nobis & nomine quo Supra / expedire habemus. Coram vobis & Curia vestre Sancte clementie ac etiam sanctitatis. Racione & ex causa cuiusdam appellacionis facte / per dominum Senescallum Petrag’ & Caturcensem / pro illustri domino nostro franc’ Rege / & per procuratorem dicti domini Regis dicte Senescallie / & per nos nomine quo Supra / ad vos pater sancte & vestram Curiam sacro sanctam. ab audiencia Episcopi Caturcensis & eius Comissariorum super facto vsurarum statutorum. & ipsum factum seu negocium tangentibus. Dantes & concedentes pro nobis & nomine quo Supra. predictis procuratoribus syndicis & actoribus nostris / & eorum cuilibet in solidum / plenam et liberam potestatem & speciale mandatum Super dicta causa appellacionis & ipsam tangentibus / agendi. & deffendendi / Supplicandi & impetrandi & obtinendi a vestre sanctitatis clementia & eius Curia / quascumque litteras simplices & legendas seu rescripta / lus gratiam ac benignitatem continentia seu etiam continentes. Iudices seu Comissarios super predictis & ea tangentibus Impetrandi & si necesse fuerit recusandi & contradicendi. Hec & omnia alia & singula faciendi. que & quemadmodum Nos faceremus Seu facere possemus si Super / premissis & ea tangentibus personaliter presentes essemus. et que veri & legitimi procuratores syndici vel actores / aut vnus In Solidum constitutus facere possunt et debent / & que mandatum exigunt speciale. Ratum & gratum perpetuo habituri. \Sic, corrected from bretonone.

DOCUMENTS 277 quicquid per dictos procuratores syndicos vel actores nostros / vel eorum alterum Super premissis & ea tangentibus / Actum deffensum / Supplicatum Impetratum obtentum contradictum seu recusatum fuerit vel etiam modo quolibet alio procuratum siue gestum. Et etiam si necesse fuerit Iudicatum solui cum suis clausulis vniuerssis. Et volentes releuare predictos procuratores syndicos vel actores nostros / & eorum quemlibet in solidum / ab omni onere satisdandi. Constituimus nos ut Consules & nomine que Supra / & res & bona nostrorum Consulatuum & communitatum villarum

nostrarum & locorum predictorum obligantes / fiderussores pro ipsis & quolibet eorumdem. IN quorum omnium fidem & testimonium premissorum et ad maioris Roboris firmitatem. Nos Consules Supradicti sigilla nostra communia / nostrorum Consulatuum ac communitatum nostrarum villarum & locorum predictorum / presentibus litteris duximus apponenda. Actum & Datum Caturci ac concessum. die Mercurij proxima / ante festum annunciacionis Beate Marie virginis. Anno dominice Incarnationis. Millesimo. Triscentesimo / Decimo. Mense Marci.

44 A mandate of Philip the Fair to the prévot of Paris and the commissioners for the knighting aid, informing them that he 1s sending agents to examine privileges claimed by the chapter of the church of Paris, and ordering them to stop collecting

the knighting aid until the investigation has been concluded, dated 23 April 1314 at Pontoise. The letter 1s contained in an exemplification executed by Jean

Ploiebaut, guard of the prévoté of Paris, dated 4 May 1314. A. AN, S 282 (formerly L 459), no. 20. Parchment; 242 mm. X 136/127 mm. with a fold-up of 8 mm.; formerly sealed on a tag attached through a single slit in the fold-up. On the reverse are: (1) a late-fifteenth- or sixteenth-century classmark; (2) in a seventeenth-century hand, “1: liasse de la Justice. 5”; “23 Auril 1314 Verno Vidimus de la lettre de philippes Roy de france par laquelle il mande au preuost de paris dexaminer soigneusement les titres et priuileges en vertu desquels ils pretendent estre dispensés auecq leurs sujets hommes et sujets de leurs terres de payer le subside pour I’armée du Roy de nauarre fils dud. philippes, et ou cas quil se trouue vray leur restituer ce qui leur auait esté pris pour lesdites Contributions./” See above, pp. 200-201. A Touz Ceus qui Ces lettres verront Jehan ploiebauch Garde de la preuoste de paris salut / Sachent tuit que nous lan de grace Mil. ccc & xij. le samedi apres la sainte croiz en Mai veismes vne lettre scelee du scel nostre seigneur le Roy contenant la fourme qui sensuit .. Philippus dei gracia franc’ Rex. preposito parisiensi aut eius locum tenenti. ac deputatis ad exigendum & leuandum subsidium pro milicia Carissimi primogeniti nostri ludouici' Regis Nauarre. Campanie brieque Comitis palatini Salutem. Cum dilecti nostri Decanus et Capitulum ecclesie parisiensis asserant se habere libertates Cartas & priuilegia per quas & que dicunt ad solucionem dicti? subsidii IMS luid’. 2MS det.

278 APPENDIX non teneri seruientes homines & hospites suos parisius. ac villarum de Seneliaco de layo de vitriaco yuriaco. Auliaco et aliarum villarum suarum vos que seu aliqui vestrum aut alie? gentes nostre a dictis seruientibus hominibus & hospitibus exigere nitamini subsidium antedictum. Et nos ad inspiciendum et examinandum huiusmodi libertates cartas & priuilegia deputauerimus certas gentes nostras. Mandamus vobis et cuilibet vestrum quatinus donec dicte gentes nostre predicta diligenter inspexerint. Et super h[ec] duxerint ordinandum cessetis ab exactione predicta. Si quid propter h[oc] ceperitis seu capi feceritis a dictis seruientibus hominibus &hospitibus? id eis Interim Recredentes uel facientes sine difficultate & dilatione Recredi. Datum pontisare die. xxij Aprilis Anno domini - Millesimo CCC°. X111)°

Et nous ce transcript auons scele du scel de lapreuoste de paris lan &le Jour dessus diz—

Saint ligier*

Collation fete par n. de caudebec 7MS alio. *MS S’ Ligur.

45 A mandate of Philip the Fair to Nicolas de La Poterie, ordering him to collect all sums due for the knighting aid of Louis of Navarre and all fines imposed by the Parlement in the bailliage of Amiens and its district, dated 14 June 1314 at Parts, and a letter of Lienars le Sec, guard of the bailliage of Amiens, dated 10 August 1314 announcing that by virtue of this commission, Nicolas de La Poterie has recetved 660 l.par. from Amiens in full payment of the 600 Lpar. owed for the knighting aid and of a fine of 60 I. par. The letter is contained tn an exemplification issued by Galeran de Vaux, bailli of Amiens, dated at Amiens in October 1331. A. BN, Picardie 280, no. 34. Parchment; 264 mm. X 200 mm., originally turned up 15 mm.; unlined except for a single stylus line 16 mm. from the left edge; holes are cut for three seals, now missing, to be appended on tags. On the reverse, in the same hand in which the document is written, “les escheuins damiens. paie lx |.” See above, p. 204. A tous chiaus qui ches lettres Verront ou orront. Galerans de Vaus bailli damiens salut. Sachent tout que pardeuant Jehan du quarrel & Jehan bargoul chitoiens damiens mis & estaulis de par nous ache oir furent apportees leues et diligaument Rewardees

vnes lettres seellees du seel de le baillie damiens sauues & entieres si comme 11 apparoit contenans cheste fourme— Atous chiaus qui ches presentes lettres verront ou orront / Lienars li ses garde de le baillie damiens salut. Nous auons veu les lettres nostreseigneur le Roi contenans le fourme qui sensuit.

DOCUMENTS 279 Philippe par legrace de dieu Rois de franche / a nostre ame nicholas de la poterie salut & amour. Nous te commandons & commettons par la teneur de ches presentes lettres que tu sans delai te transportes en la! baillie damiens / et toutes les debtes qui nous sont deues tant en ichelle baillie quant ou Ressort / soient de la

cheualerie nostre tres chier ainsne fil loeis Rois de nauare et des amendes de nostre parlement / soient de preuostes ou dautres coses quelles que elles soient / ou dequelconque cause ou Raison deues nous soient / lieues & esploites hastieuement / et apportes tout che que tu aras leue anostre tresor du louure / et se aucuns estoit Rebelles depaier & Rendre che que il doit / Nous te donnons plain pooir & especial mandement de enuoier le en prison en nostre chastelet aparis / Et mandons par ches lettres anostre bailli damiens ou ason lieu tenant & atous autres Justichiers serians & subgies que il te obeissent & fachent obeir quant ache. / Et du[rjera cheste presente commissions Juques acheste miaoust tant seulement Donne aparis le quatorsime Jour de Juing lan de grace Mil. trois chens & quatorze Par la vertu de le quelle commission. lidis nicholas aeu & Rechut du maieur des escheuins & de toute le Communite de le ville damiens Sis chens & soissante lb’

deparis. Sil est assauoir Sis chens lbr’ deparis pour la cause de le cheualerie noseigneur le Roi de nauare deuant dit / et soissante lbr’ deparis pour vn appel que il firent dun Jugie donne contre aus par les gardes des foires de champaingne Contre maistre thumas froiterie. les quels deniers dessus dis lidis nicholas Reconnut pardeuant nous auoir eus & Recheus / et sen est tenus plainnement apaies pour le Roi noseigneur pardeuant nous / En tesmongnage de le quel cose nous auons ches presentes lettres seellees du seel de le baillie damiens. Faites en lan degrace Mil trois chens et quatorze le Jour de le feste saint leurens. le quelle teneur des dites lettres. lidit auditeur nous ont tesmongnie par leurs seauls. Et nous en leur tesmongnage auons mis le seel de le baillie damiens achest present vidimus sauf le droit le Roi & lautrui en tout / che fu fait en lan de grace Mil CCC. trente & vn ou mois doctembre. ‘Sic.

BLANK PAGE

Bibliography 1. MANUSCRIPT SOURCES

London, British Library Cottonian MS Julius E.1. Gascon Registers, 1242-1332. Cottonian MS Nero C.vii. Household accounts, Edward II and Isabelle. London, Public Record Office

C 47/27/8/9. Chancery Miscellanea. Diplomatic Documents. E 101. Records of the Exchequer, The King’s Remembrancer, Accounts, various: 362/25; 373/153 374/63 374/15; 375/9; 375/19: 376/20; 377/11; 506/16; 506/18; 540/22. E 401/176-200. Rolls of the Exchequer of Receipt. E 405/51-54. Jornalia Rolls of the Exchequer of Receipt. - Paris, Archives nationales

AB XIX 3134, 3135, 3181 (104 Mi 29, 30, 76). Dom Lenoir’s transcriptions of documents of the Chamber of Accounts concerning Normandy. J Series. Layettes du Trésor des Chartes, J 148-735, and Supplément, J 7361168. J 164A (Valois II); 171A (Chartres I); 178B (Anjou); 179A (Craon); 226-27 (Alencon I); 237 (Ponthieu I); 335 (Nimes); 341 (Cahors); 342 (Figeac); 356 (Procurations); 377 (Charles of Valois); 384 (Subsidies); 392 (Debts owed to the kings of France); 403 (Testaments of the royal family); 408 (Marriage treaties); 414-15 (Templars); 428 (Albigensians); 631 (England, 1280-1300); 654 (England, undated rolls); 655 (England, undated documents); 682 (Dissolutions of marriages); 896 (Languedoc); 975 (Apanages); 1020 (Canceled royal letters); 1036 (Miscellaneous documents). JJ series. Registers of the Trésor des Chartes. JJ 18 (Inventory of Pierre d’Etampes, 1320); JJ 1'2 (Inventory of bulls and other documents, 1315-18); JJ 35, 36, 40, 42A-B, 44, 49, 50 (Registers of the reign of Philip the Fair);

| JJ 57 (AE II 327) (Household ordonnances, 1261-1320); JJ 59, 60 (Registers of the reign of Philip V); JJ 61, 62 (Registers of the reign of Charles IV); JJ 66 (Register of the reign of Philip VI); JJ 539, 583, 584, 585, 586 (Eighteenth-century copies of the inventory of the Trésor des Chartes by Pierre Dupuy and Théodore Godefroy). K 38, 54. Cartons des rois, Philip the Fair, Charles VI. P 2289, 2290. Eighteenth-century copies of documents from the Registers of the Chamber of Accounts. S 282 (formerly L 459). Notre-Dame of Paris; Justice de la Grande-Paroisse, Vernon, etc. (1262-1744). X'* 3, 5, 7, 8843, 8844. Parlement; Olim, Jugés, Greffe. 281

282 BIBLIOGRAPHY Paris, Bibliotheque nationale

Fonds frangais 2838 (De Mesmes 553: sixteenth-century extracts from letters and accounts); 5290 (Fifteenth-century copies of financial documents); 26264 (Original documents of Dom Villevieille, Anglia-Ayssac); 32510 (Caille du Fourny, extracts from royal accounts). Fonds latins 9787 (Fourteenth-century account of royal receipts, 1320-21); 14350 (James of Ravenna, commentary on Roman law). Fonds frangais, nouvelles acquisitions, 564 (1575 inventory of the archives of Najac); 7404 (De Camps 74; eighteenth-century copies of documents); 7413 (De Camps 83; eighteenth-century copies of documents); 20025 (Original documents, 1269-1349); 21857 (Collection Léopold Delisle on the history of France; accounts, 1316-21); 22045 (Papers of Alexandre de Laborde). Fonds latin, nouvelles acquisitions, 1662 (Léon Lacabane, copies and extracts). Collection de Bourgogne 109 (Eighteenth-century copies made by Dom Guillaume Aubrée from the Chambers of Accounts at Déle and Dion, 12251395).

Collection de Champagne 25 (Seventeenth- and eighteenth-century copies of documents relating to Provins). Collection Clairambault 228 (Account for the knighting aid of 1313); 832 (Eighteenth-century partial copy of royal household account of 1313). Collection de Languedoc (Bénédictins) 81 (Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century copies of documents, 1275-1300); 159 (Eighteenth-century copies of domanial accounts, 1272-1585; extracts from the Chamber of Accounts); 192 (Original documents of the abbey of La Salvetat, diocese of Castres, 10571327).

Collection de Languedoc (Doat) 7 (Miscellaneous documents, 811-1294); 51-52 (Narbonne, 1291-1316, 1317-1338); 96 (Foix, 1133-1594); 118-19 (Cahors, 1203-1306, 1307-1509); 125 (Figeac, Capdenac, Rocamadour, Tulle, 1173-1613); 126 (Figeac, 755-1556; Fons, 959-1493); 145 (Millau, 10701587); 146 (Najac, 1255-1500; Rodez, 1085-1601); 176 (Counts and nobles of Languedoc, 1293-98); 181 (Counts and nobles of Languedoc, 131419); 241 (1546 Inventory of the archives of the chateau of Montignac in Périgord); 248 (Viscounty of Lautrec, 1557; counts of Dreux, 1380-1515). Collection Dupuy 162-69 (Inventory of the Trésor des Chartes, begun 1 June 1615, by Pierre Dupuy and Théodore Godefroy); 635 (Documents con-

cerning the Languedoc and Brittany and other miscellaneous subjects, 1647).

Collection Moreau 222 (Eighteenth-century copies of charters, 1316-18). Collection de Périgord 32 (Eighteenth-century copies of documents concerning Périgord). Collection de Picardie 280 (Original documents, diocese of Amiens, 1114-1764). Archives municipales and Archives communales

Alés (Gard): I. S. 3, 12, 16, 22. Aurillac (Cantal): AA 1.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 283 Cahors (Lot): Livre nouveau (MSS 4, 5, 6; seventeenth-century copies of documents concerning Cahors); AA 11, 12; BB 6; DD 31. Clermont-Ferrand (Puy-de-Déme): Montferrand CC 1. Cordes (Tarn): CC 27. Digne (Alpes-de-Haute-Provence): CC 23, 24. Foix (Ariége): FF 313. Martel (Lot): CC 2. Millau (Aveyron): CC 346, 509; EE 118.

Montauban (Tarn-et-Garonne): AA 1, 3 (Livre rouge, Livre armé); 2FF 1. | Montpellier (Hérault): Louvet 3861. Narbonne (Aude): AA 63, 103; BB 136. Périgueux (Dordogne): BB 2; CC 41, 42, 52; EE 5; FF 6, 73. Pézenas (Hérault): Armoire B, layette 2, liasse 6, no. 25. Riom (Puy-de-Déme): AA 2, 12; CC 7, 9. Saint-Antonin (Tarn-et-Garonne): AA 3; FF 2; II 11. Toulouse (Haute-Garonne): AA 3. Villeneuve-lés-Avignon (Gard): AA 1. Archives départementales

Aveyron (Rodez): 2 E.178.2 (Accounts of Najac, 1289-1332); 2 E.178.12; G 964. Basses-Pyrénées (Pau): E 170. Cote-d’Or (Dijon): B 292, 1353, 11665. Lot (Cahors): H 69, 71. Nievre (Nevers): Sér. 2, F 192. Pas-de-Calais (Arras): A 53, 79, 233, 235. Tarn-et-Garonne (Montauban): A 321 (1). Yonne (Auxerre): E 190. Bibliotheques municipales

Rouen (Seine-Maritime): MS 3398, 3400, 3403 (Leber 5870; Menant 1, 3, 5).

2. EDITIONS OF DOCUMENTS, INVENTORIES, AND GUIDES TO SOURCES

Many of the books and articles listed in section 3 of the Bibliography also contain useful editions of documents, in notes or appendices. The only inventories listed here are those published by the Commission supérieure des Archives nationales,

départementales, communales et hospitaliéres and cited in the notes. Acta Aragonensia. Quellen zur deutschen, italienischen, franzisischen, spanischen, zur Kirchen- und Kulturgeschichte aus der diplomatischen Korrespondenz Jaymes IT. (1291-1327). Edited by Heinrich Finke. 3 vols. Berlin, 1908-22.

Acta Imperii, Angliae et Franciae ab a. 1267 ad a. 1313.... Edited by Fritz Kern. Tubingen, 1911. Actes et comptes de la commune de Provins de Van 1271 a Pan 1330. Edited by Maurice

Prou and Jules d’Auriac. 2 vols. Provins, 1933-35.

284 BIBLIOGRAPHY Albe, Edmond. “Inventaire raisonné et analytique des archives municipales de Cahors.” Bulletin de la Société des études littéraires, scientifiques et artistiques du Lot

: 38 (1913), 291-92; 41 (1920), 1-48; 43 (1922), 1-28; 45 (1924), 1-60, 63-99; 48 (1927), 1-150. ——. Cahors. Inventaire raisonné et analytique des Archives muntcipales. Premiére partie. XIIIe stécle (1200-1300). Cahors, [1915]. Allmand, C. T. “The Collection of Dom Lenoir and the English Occupation of Normandy in the Fifteenth Century.” Archives 6 (1964), 202-10. L’ancienne coutume de Normandy. Edited by William-Laurence de Gruchy. Jersey, 1881. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, According to the Several Original Authorities. Edited and

translated by Benjamin Thorpe. 2 vols. Rolls Series, no. 23. London, 1861. Archives anciennes de la ville de Saint-Quentin. Edited by Emmanuel Lemaire. 2 vols. Saint-Quentin, 1888-1910.

, Archives d’Anjou. Recueil de documents et mémotres inédits sur cette province. Edited by Paul Marchegay. 3 vols. Angers, 1843-54. Archives de la ville de Montpellier. Inventaires et documents. 6 vols. Montpellier, 18951955. Vol. 14: Inventatre du “Grand Chartrier” rédigé par Pierre Louvet en 16621663. Edited by Joseph Berthelé. Archives municipales d’Agen. Chartes. Premiére série (1189-1328). Edited by Adolphe

Magen and G. Tholin. Villeneuve-sur-Lot, 1876. Arresta Communia Scacarit. Deux collections darréts notables de ’Echiquier de Normandie de la fin du XTITe siécle (1276-1290. 1291-1294). Edited by Ernest Perrot. Bibliotheque @histoire du droit normand. Premiére série. Textes, no. 1. Caen, 1910.

‘‘Association de paix entre les villes de Figeac, Périgueux, Brive et Sarlat en 1263.” Edited by Michel Hardy. Revue des Sociétés savantes des départements, 7th ser., 6

(1882), 433-34. |

Astesanus de Asti. Summa de casibus conscientiae. Strasbourg, ca. 1473. , “Aus dem Briefbuch des Johann von Arbois.” Edited by Fritz Kern. Neues Archiv 34 (1908-9), 216-23. Barbiche, Bernard. Les actes pontificaux originaux des Archives nationales de Paris. 3 vols. Index Actorum Romanorum Pontificum ab Innocentio III ad Martinum V electum. Vatican City, 1975-82. Berger, Elie. Notice sur divers manuscrits de la Bibliotheque Vaticane. Richard le Poitevin, moine de Cluny, historien et poéte. Bibliotheque des Ecoles frangaises d’Athénes et de Rome, no. 6. Paris, 1879. Bloch, Laurent, and Jules Doinel. Imventaire sommaires des Archives départementales antérieures a 1790. Aude. Archives ecclésiastiques. Séries G et H. Vol. 3. Carcassonne, 1900.

Boutaric, Edgard. Actes du Parlement de Paris, Ire série, de Pan 1254 a Pan 1328. 2 vols. Paris, 1863-67. ——. “Notices et extraits de documents inédits relatifs 4 l’histoire de France sous Philippe le Bel.” Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliotheque impériale et — autres bibliothéques 20? (1862), 83-237. Brunel, Clovis. “Documents sur le Pontieu [szc] conservés dans la collection de l’ Ancient Correspondence au Public Record Office de Londres (1278-1337).” Bulletin

BIBLIOGRAPHY 285 philologique et historique (jusqu’a 1715) du Comité des travaux historiques et scien-

, tifiques (1918), 231-77.

Calendar of Patent Rolls. Edward I. A.D. 1307-1313. London, 1894. Cartulaire de Vévéche de Poitiers ou Grand-Gauthier. Edited by M. Rédet. Archives historiques du Poitou 10 (1881). Cartulaire de Maguelone. Edited by J. Rouquette and A. Villemagne. 5 vols. Montpellier, 1912-26. Cartulaire des abbayes de Saint-Martin de Tulle en Limousin et a Roc-Amadour. Edited by J.-B. de Champeval. Brive, 1903. Un cartulaire et divers actes des Alaman, des de Lautrec et des de Lévis, seigneurs de Castelnau-de-Bonafous, Villeneuve-sur-Vére, Labastide-de-Lévis, Graulhet, Puybegon, Rabastens, en Albigeois; Saint-Sulpice, Azas, Montastruc, Corbarieu, en Toulousain; et Lafox, en Agenais. XIIIe et XIVe siécles. Edited by Edmond Cabié and L. Mazens. Toulouse, 1882. Chartes et documents poitevins du XIITe siécle en langue vulgaire. Edited by Milan S. La Du. Annales historiques du Poitou. Vols. 57 and 58. 1960, 1963.

Chronica Monasterit S. Albani. Edited by Henry Thomas Riley. 6 parts, 11 vols. Rolls Series, no. 28. London, 1863-73. Part 1, 3 vols.: Thomas Walsingham, Historia Anglicana. Part 2: Johannes de Trokelowe and Henricus de Blaneforde, Chronica et Annales. Chronicles of the Reigns of Edward I and Edward I, Edited from Manuscripts. Edited

by William Stubbs. 2 vols. Rolls Series, no. 76. London, 1882-83. La chronique métrique attribuée a Geffroy de Paris. Edited by Armel Diverrés. Publications de la Faculté des Lettres de l’Université de Strasbourg, no. 129. Strasbourg, 1956. Codex Diplomaticus Flandriae inde ab anno 1296 ad usque 1327, ou Recueil de documents relatifs aux guerres et dissensions suscitées par Philippe-le-Bel, roi de France, contre Gui de Dampierre, comte de Flandre. Edited by Thierry-Marie-Joseph de Limburg-

Stirum. 2 vols. Bruges, 1879-89. “Un compte de |’échiquier relatif aux relations d’Edouard Ter d’Angleterre avec le duc Jean II de Brabant”. Edited by Bryce D. Lyon. Bulletin de la Commission royale d'histoire. Académie royale des sciences, des lettres et des beaux-arts, Bruxelles

120 (1955), 67-93. “Le compte du subside levé en 1349 dans le vicomté de Coutances pour le mariage de Jeanne de France avec le comte de Luxembourg.” Edited by Francois de Beaurepaire. Revue de la Société d’archéologie et a’histoire du département de la Manche, St-Lé 5 (1963), 151-54. Comptes du Trésor (1296, 1316, 1384, 1477). Edited by Robert Fawtier. Recueil des historiens de la France, Documents financiers, no. 2. Paris, 1930. Comptes royaux (1285-1314). Edited by Robert Fawtier with Francois Maillard. 3 vols. Recueil des historiens de la France, Documents financiers, no. 3. Paris, 1953-56. Comptes royaux (1314-1328). Edited by Francois Maillard. 2 vols. Recueil des historiens de la France, Documents financiers, no. 4. Paris, 1961. Correspondance administrative d’Alfonse de Poitiers. Edited by Auguste Molinier. Col-

lection de documents inédits sur histoire de France. Paris, 1894-1900.

286 BIBLIOGRAPHY Les coutumes de Saint Gilles (XIIe-XIVe siécles). Texte latin critique, avec traduction, notes, introduction et tables. Edited by E. Bligny-Bondurand. Paris, 1915. Coutumes et institutions de l’Anjou et du Maine antérieures au XVIe siecle. Textes et documents, avec notes et dissertations. Edited by Charles-Jean Beautemps-Beaupré.

8 vols. Paris, 1877-97. Coutumiers de Normandie. Textes critiques. Vol. 1: Le trés ancien coutumier de Normandte. Texte latin. Vol. 2: La Summa de Legibus. Edited by Ernest-Joseph ‘Tardif.

Publications de la Société de histoire de Normandie. Rouen, 1881. ‘Documents financiers sur la sénéchaussée de Poitou aux XIIe et XIVe siécles.” Edited by Henri de Berranger. Archives historiques du Poitou 52 (1942), 169-249.

‘Documents relatifs 4 ’Agenais, au Périgord et a la Saintonge 4 la fin du XIIIe ou au commencement du XIVe siécle.” Edited by Charles-Victor Langlois. Bzb/iotheque de [’Ecole des Chartes $1 (1890), 298-304.

“Documents relatifs 4 histoire de la Saintonge et de |’Aunis extraits des registres du Trésor des Chartes.” Edited by Paul Guérin. Archives historiques de la Saintonge et de l’Aunis 12 (1884), 11-245. Documents relatifs au comté de Champagne et de Brie, 1172-1361. Edited by Auguste

Longnon. 3 vols. Paris, 1901-14. |

Documents relatifs aux Etats généraux et assemblées réunis sous Philippe le Bel. Edited

by Georges Picot. Paris, 1901. Documents sur la ville de Millau. Mémorial des priviléges, livres de comptes des consuls boursiers, délibérations communales (XIe-XVIe siécles). Edited by Jules-F. Artiéres. Archives historiques du Rouergue 7 (1930). Le dossier de l'affaire des Templiers. Edited by Georges Lizerand. Les classiques de

Phistoire de France au Moyen Age. Paris, 1964. Dubois, Pierre. De Recuperatione Terre Sancte. Traité de politique générale par Pierre Dubois avocat des causes eccléstastiques au bailliage de Coutances sous Philippe le Bel (publié d’aprés le manuscrit du Vatican). Edited by Charles-Victor Langlois. Col-

lection de textes pour servir 4 l’étude et a l’enseignement de Vhistoire, no. 9. Paris, 1891. Du Breuil, Guillaume. Stilus Curie Parlamenti. Nouvelle édition critique publiée avec une introduction et des notes. Edited by Félix Aubert. Collection de textes pour servir a l’étude et a l’enseignement de Vhistoire, no. 42. Paris, 1909. Dynter, Edmond de. Chronica nobilissimorum ducum Lotharingiae et Brabantiae ac regum Francorum. Edited by P. F. X. de Ram. 3 vols. Brussels, 1854-60. English Medieval Diplomatic Practice, Part 1: Documents and Interpretation. Edited by Pierre Chaplais. 2 vols. London, 1982. Enquétes administratives d’Alfonse de Poitiers. Arréts de son parlement tenu a Toulouse et textes annexes, 1249-1271]. Edited by Pierre-Frangois Fournier and Pascal Guébin. Paris, 1959, “Extrait des comptes du bailli d’Artois de 1281, 1307 et 1308.” Edited by le Comte de Galametz. Bulletin de la Société des antiquaires de la Morinie 8 (1887-91), 63440. Fawtier, Robert, with Jean Guerout. Registres du Trésor des Chartes. Inventatre analytique. Vol. 2: Régnes des fils de Philippe le Bel. Part 1: Régnes de Louis X le Hutin et de Philippe V le Long. Paris, 1966.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 287 ——, with Jean Glénisson and Jean Guerout. Registres du Trésor des Chartes. Inventaire analytique. Vol. 1: Régne de Philippe le Bel. Paris, 1958. Foedera, conventiones, litterae, et cujuscunque generis acta publica inter reges Angliae et alios quosvis imperatores, reges, pontifices, principes, vel communitates ab ingressu

Guilielmi I. in Angham, A.D. 1066, ad nostra usque tempora habita aut tractata. Edited by Thomas Rymer and Robert Sanderson, and by Adam Clarke and Fred-

erick Holbrooke. 4 vols. London, 1816-69.

Gascon Register A (Series of 1318-1319). Edited from British Museum Cottonian MS. Julius E.1. Edited by George P. Cuttino with J.-P. Trabut-Cussac. 3 vols. London, 1975-76. Geoffrey le Baker. Coronicon Galfridi le Baker de Swynebroke. Edited by Edward Maunde Thompson. Oxford, 1889. Giles of Rome [Aegidius Romanus]. De regimine principum libri IIT. Rome, 1482. ——. Li Livres du Gouvernement des Rois: A XIIIth Century French Version of Egidio Colonna’s Treatise De Regimine Principum, Now First Published from the Kerr Ms. Edited by Samuel P. Molenaer. New York, 1899. Guillaume Anelier. Histoire de la guerre de Navarre en 1276 et 1277 par Guillaume Anelier de Toulouse. Edited by Francisque Michel. Paris, 1856. Guillaume de Nangis. Chronique de Guillaume de Nangis de 1113 a 1300 avec les continuations de cette chronique de 1300 a 1368. Edited by Hercule Géraud. Publications de la Société de |’histoire de France, nos. 33, 35. Paris, 1843. Guillaume Durand [Guillelmus Durandus]. Speculi clarissimi virt Gulielmi Durand pars primal[-quarta], una cum Io. Andreae, ac Baldi Doctorum in vtraque Turium facultate longe praestantissimorum theorematibus, faustissimo impressa sidere relucet.

3 vols. Lyon, 1547.

Guillaume le Maire. Livre de Guillaume le Maire. Edited by Frangois-Célestin Port. Collection de documents inédits sur l’histoire de France, publiée par les soins du Ministre de l’Instruction publique. Mélanges historiques. Choix de documents. Vol. 2. Paris, 1877. Pp. 187-569. Hostiensis, Henricus Cardinalis. Summa domini Henricit cardinalis Hostiensis. Lyon, 1537.

“The Inventory of the Jewels and Wardrobe of Queen Isabella (1 307-1308).” Edited by Walter E. Rhodes. English Historical Review 12 (1897), 517-21. Jacme Olivier. Le livre de comptes de Jacme Olivier, marchand narbonnais du XIVe siecle. Edited by Alphonse Blanc. Paris, 1899. Jean Blanc [Johannes Blanchus]. Epitome feudorum. In Tractatus uniuersi turis. 20 vols. Venice, 1584-86: Vol. 10, part 1, fols. 263-89. Jean de Blanot. Summa super homagio. Edited by Jean Acher in “Notes sur le droit savant au Moyen Age.” Nouvelle revue historique de droit francais et étranger 30 (1906), 125-78. Johannes de Trokelowe. See Chronica Monasterii S. Albani. Les journaux du Trésor de Charles IV le Bel. Edited by Jules-Edouard-M. Viard. Paris, 1917.

Les journaux du Trésor de Philippe IV le Bel. Edited by Jules-Edouard-M. Viard. Paris, 1940. Langlois, Charles-Victor. “Le fonds de PAnctent Correspondence au Public Record Office de Londres.” Journal des Savants (1904), 380-93, 446-53.

288 BIBLIOGRAPHY Layettes du Trésor des Chartes. Edited by Alexandre Teulet et al. 5 vols. Paris, 18631909.

Le Pesant, M. “Les manuscrits de Dom Lenoir sur histoire de Normandie.” Bulletin de la Société des antiquaires de Normandie 50 (1946-48), 125-51. Letters of Edward Prince of Wales 1304-1305. Edited by Hilda Johnstone. Roxburghe Club, no. 194. Cambridge, Eng., 1931. Lettres de Philippe le Bel relatives au pays de Gévaudan. Edited by Jean Roucaute and Marc Saché. Mende, 1896. Lettres de rois, reines et autres personnages des cours de France et d’Angleterre depuis Louis VII jusqu’a Henri IV tirées des archives de Londres par Bréquigny. Edited by Jacques-Joseph Champollion-Figeac. 2 vols. Paris, 1839-47. Lettres inédites de Philippe le Bel. Edited by Adolphe Baudouin. Paris, 1887. Le livre de la taille de Paris Pan de grace 1313. Edited by Karl Michaélsson. Acta Universitatis Gotoburgensis; Géteborgs Hogskolas Arsskrift. Vol. 57, part 3. Goteborg, 1951. Mantissa codicis juris gentium diplomatici, continens statuta magnorum ordinum regionum, acta vetera electionum regis Romani, mantfestationes jurium inter Franciam, Angliam et Burgundiam olim controversorum. Edited by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Hanover, 1700. Marolles, Michel de. Inventatire des titres de Nevers de Cabbé de Marolles, sutvi d’extraits des titres de Bourgogne et de Nivernois, dextraits des inventaires des archives de Véghse de Nevers et de linventaire des archives des Bordes. Edited by le Comte de Soultrait. Nevers, 1873. “The Marriage Contract of King Edward II.” Edited by R. W. Banks. Archaeologia Cambrensis: The Journal of the Cambrian Archaeological Association, 5th ser., 4 (1887), 53-57. Martin-Chabot, Eugene. Les archives de la Cour des comptes, aides et finances de Montpellier, avec un essai de restitution des premiers registres de la sénéchaussée. Paris, 1907.

‘Memorandum des consuls de la ville de Martel.” Edited by H. Teulié. Revue de philologie francaise et provencale 7 (1893), 253-64; 8 (1894), 17-34, 279-95. Mignon, Robert. Inventaire d’anciens comptes royaux dressé par Robert Mignon sous le régne de Philippe de Valois. Edited by Charles-Victor Langlois. Recueil des historiens de la France, Documents financiers, no. 1. Paris, 1899. Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Legum. Sectio IV. Constitutiones. Vol. 4, part 1. Edited by Jakob Schwalm. Hanover, 1906. Muntaner, Ramon. Chrontk des edlen En Ramon Muntaner. Edited by Karl Lanz. Bibliothek des literarischen Vereins in Stuttgart, no. 8. Stuttgart, 1844. Musée des Archives nationales. Documents originaux de U’bistoire de France exposés dans P’Hotel Soubise. Paris, 1872.

Les Olim, ou registres des arréts rendus par la cour du rot sous les regnes de saint Louis, de Philippe le Hard:, de Philippe le Bel, de Louis le Hutin et de Philippe le Long.

Edited by Arthur-Auguste Beugnot, 4 vols. Paris, 1839-48. Ordonnances des rois de France de la troisteme race, recueillies par ordre chronologique....

Edited by Eusébe-Jacob de Lauriére et al. 22 vols. and Supplément. Paris, 1723-

1849. |

BIBLIOGRAPHY 289 Petit, Joseph, Michel Gavrilovitch, Maury, and Téodoru. Essai de restitution des plus — anciens mémoriaux de la Chambre des comptes de Paris. Paris, 1899. Pierre Jame [Petrus Jacobus]. Aurea practica libellorum. Cologne, 1574. Proces des Templiers. Edited by Jules Michelet. 2 vols. Paris, 1841-51. Quellen zur Geschichte des rimisch-kanonischen Prozesses im Mittelalter. Edited by Ludwig Wahrmund. 5 vols. Innsbruck, 1905-31. “Quelques actes de Philippe-le-Bel concernant le Nivernais.” Edited by Henri de Flamare. Mémoires de la Société académique du Nivernais 3 (1888), 46-56. Raymundus de Penyafort. Summa. 2nd ed. Verona, 1744. Recueil de documents concernant la commune et la ville de Poitiers. Edited by E. Audouin and P. Boissonnade. Archives historiques du Poitou 44 (1923). Recueil des documents concernant le Poitou contenus dans les registres de la chancellerie

de France. Edited by Paul Guérin. Archives historiques du Poitou \\ (1881), 13 (1883). Recueil des histortens des Gaules et de la France. :dited by Martin Bouquet et al. 24

vols. Paris, 1738-1904. Recueil des monuments inédits de (histoire du tiers état. Premtére série. Chartes, coutumes, actes municipaux, statuts des corporations darts et métiers des villes et communes de France. Région du nord. Edited by Augustin Thierry. 4 vols. Paris, 185070.

Recueil général des anciennes lois francaises depuis an 420 jusqu’a la Révolution de 1789. Edited by Athanase-J.-L. Jourdan, Decrusy, and Frangois-A. Isambert. 29 vols. Paris, 1822-33. Regestum Clementis Papae V ex Vaticanis archetypis sanctissimi domini nostri Leonis XII Pontificis Maximi iussu et munificentia nunc primum editum cura et studio monachorum Ordinis S. Benedicti anno 1887. Edited by L. Tosti et al. 10 vols. Rome, 1885-1957. Les registres de Boniface VII, recueil des bulles de ce pape publiées ou analysées d'apres les manuscrits originaux des archives du Vatican. Edited by Georges Digard, Maurice Faucon, Antoine Thomas, and Robert Fawtier. Bibliotheque des Ecoles francaises d’Athénes et de Rome, 2nd ser., no. 4. Paris, 1884-1939. Reliquiae manuscriptorum omnis aevi. Edited by Johann von Ludewig. 12 vols. Frank-

furt and Lippe, 1720-41. Richard of Middletown [Ricardus de Media Villa]. 77za recognita reconcinataque quodlibeta. Venice, 1509. Roffredo of Benevento. Solemnis atque aureus tractatus libellorum domini Rofredi Beneventani super utraque censura. Venice, 1537. Roles gascons. Edited by Charles Bémont, Francisque Michel, and Yves Renouard. 4 vols. Paris, 1885-1962. Roschach, E. Ville de Toulouse. Inventaire des archives communales antérieures a 1790. Série AA. Toulouse, 1891. Select Charters and Other Illustrations of English Constitutional History from the Earliest Times to the Reign of Edward the First. Edited by William Stubbs, and by H.

W. C. Davis. 9th ed. Oxford, 1921. “Le Songe du Vergier, qui parle de la disputacion du clerc et du chevalier.” Edited by Jean-Louis Brunet. In Pierre Dupuy. Traztez des droits et libertez de Véglise gallicane. Vol, 2. Paris, 1731. Reprinted in “Le Songe du vergier, qui parle de la

290 BIBLIOGRAPHY Disputacion du clerc et du chevalier. Reproduction photo-mécanique de 1’édition Brunet, dans les Traitez des droits et libertez de [’Eglise gallicane, 1731.” In Revue du moyen age latin 13 (1957) and 14 (1958). — Soulié, Gabriel. “‘Les archives de la ville de Martel.” Bulletin de la Société scientifique, historique et archéologique de la Corréze 53 (1931), 167-75. Spicilegium, sive collectio veterum aliquot scriptorum qui in Galliae bibliothects deliterant. Edited by Luc d’Achery, and by Etienne Baluze, Edmond Martene, and Louis-Frangois-Joseph de la Barre. 3 vols. Paris, 1723. The Statutes of the Realm. ... Edited by A. Luders et al. 11 vols. London, 1810-28. Tardif, Jules. Monuments bistoriques. Paris, 1866. Teilhard de Chardin, E. Inventaire sommatre des archives communales antérieures a 1790. Ville de Clermont-Ferrand. Fonds de Montferrand, AA.-CC. 332. ClermontFerrand, 1902.

Textes relatifs a Phistoire du Parlement depuis les origines jusquen 1314. Edited by Charles-Victor Langlois. Collection de textes pour servir a l’étude et a l’enseignement de histoire, no. 5. Paris, 1888. Thesaurus novus anecdotorum quinque in tomos distributus. Edited by Edmond Marténe

and Ursin Durand. 5 vols. Paris, 1717. “Traité d’alliance entre les villes de Brive, Figeac, Périgueux et Sarlat en 1263.” Edited by Michel Hardy. Bulletin de la Société scientifique, historique et archéologique

de la Corréze 6 (1884), 529-31. Treaty Rolls Preserved in the Public Record Office. Vol. 1: 1234-1325. Edited by Pierre Chaplais. London, 1955. — Trivet, Nicholas. Nicolai Triveti Annalium continuatio; ut et Adami Murimuthensis Chronicon, cum ejusdem continuatione, quibus accedunt Joannis Bostoni Speculum coenobitarum, et Edmundi Boltoni Hypercritica. Edited by Antony Hall. Oxford, 1722.

‘Trois lettres d’Edouard premier prince de Galles, fils d’Edouard ler roi d’Angleterre.” Edited by Roland Delachenal. Annuaire-Bulletin de la Société de Uhistotre de France 59 (1922), 175-80. Veterum scriptorum et monumentorum historicorum, dogmaticorum, moralium amplissima collectio. Edited by Edmond Martene and Ursin Durand. 9 vols. Paris, 1724— 33.

Vitae paparum Avenionensium. Edited by Etienne Baluze, and by Guillaume Mollat. 4 vols. Paris, 1914-27. Walsingham, Thomas. See Chronica Monasterii S. Albani

3. SECONDARY SOURCES

Alauzier, Louis d’. “Actes notariés et actes sous le sceau dans la région de Figeac de 1250 4 1299.” In Actes du 96e Congrés national des sociétés savants (Toulouse, 1971). Vol. 2: Pays de Langue d’Oc, histoire et dialectologie. Paris, 1978. Pp. 21330.

——. “Une assignation de revenus en Quercy et Périgord faite en 1287 au roi d’Angleterre.” Bulletin philologique et historique (jusqu’a 1610) du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques (1964), 525-57.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 291 Anselme de la Vierge Marie, le Pére [Pierre de Guibours]. Histoire genealogique et chronologique de la maison royale de France. Continued by Du Fourny. 3rd ed. Continued by Honoré Caille, Sieur du Fourny. Edited by les P. Ange de Sainte Rosalie [Francois Raffard] and Simplicien. 9 vols. Paris, 1726-33. Arbois de Jubainville, Henri, d’. Histoire des ducs et des comtes de Champagne. 7 vols. Paris, 1859-69. Artiéres, Jules-F. “Notice historique sur les libertés, privileges, coutumes et franchises de la ville de Millau en Rouergue, suivie de nouveaux documents inédits concernant la ville de Millau.”” Mémoires de la Société des lettres, sciences et arts de l’Aveyron 16 (1900-1905), 171-312. Artonne, André. Le mouvement de 1314 et les chartes provinciales de 1315. Bibliotheque

de la Faculté des Lettres de l’?Université de Paris, no. 29. Paris, 1912. Baratier, Edouard. La démographie provencale du XIITe au XVIe siécle.... Paris, 1961. Bardon, Achille. Histozre de la ville d’Alais de 1250 a 1340. 2 vols. Nimes, 1894-96. Barral, Paul. Conszdérations sur le régime municipal de Clermont en Lodévois aux XIITe et XIVe siecles. Montpellier, 1918. Baumhauer, August. Philipp der Schine und Boniface VIII. in ihrer Stellung zur franz. Kirche mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung der Bishofrwahlen. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1920.

Bautier, Robert-Henri. “Critique diplomatique, commandement des actes et psychologie des souverains du Moyen Age.” Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Comptes rendus des séances (Jan.-March 1978), 8-26.

——. “Diplomatique et histoire politique: ce que la critique diplomatique nous apprend sur la personnalité de Philippe le Bel.” Revue historique 259 (1978), 3-27. ——. “Inventaires de comptes royaux particuliers de 1328 4 1351.” Bulletin philologique et historique (jusqu’a 1610) du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques

(1960), 773-837. ——. “Recherches sur la chancellerie royale au temps de Philippe VI.” Bibliothéque de Ecole des Chartes 122 (1964), 89-176; 123 (1965), 313-459. ———. “Recherches sur les routes de l'Europe médiévale.” Bulletin philologique et historique (jusqu’a 1610) du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques (1960), 99-143; (1961), 277-308. Beauchet-Filleau, Henri, and Charles de Chergé. Dictionnaire historique et généalogique des familles du Poitou. 2nd ed. 4 vols. Poitiers, 1891-[1963]. Beaunier, Dom, and Dom Besse, et al. Abbayes et prieurés de Vancienne France. Recueil historique des archevéchés, évéchés, abbayes et prieurés de France. 12 vols. Ligugé and Paris, 1905-41. Vols. 1, 4, 7, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 36, 37, and 45 of Archives de la France monastique.

Benton, John F. “Philip the Fair and the Empire. A Research Report Prepared for Joseph R. Strayer.” 1957. ———~. “Philip the Fair and the Jours of Troyes.” Studies in Medieval and Renaissance

History 6 (1969), 280-344. Berger, Adolf. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. New ser. Vol. 43, part 2. Philadelphia, 1953. Bertin, Paul. Une commune flamande-artésienne: Aire-sur-la-Lys, des origines au XVIme

siecle. Commission départementale des Monuments historiques du Pas-de-Calais. Etudes historiques, no. 3. Arras, 1946.

292 BIBLIOGRAPHY , Biget, Jean-Louis. “Aspects du crédit dans |’Albigeois a la fin du XIIle siécle.” In Castres et pays tarnais, Actes du XXVIe Congres d'études régtonales organisé a Castres, les 5-7 juin 1970 par la Société culturelle du pays castrais et la Société des sciences, arts et belles-lettres du Tarn, Fédération des Sociétés académiques et savantes Languedoc-Pyrénées—Gascogne. Albi, 1972. Pp. 1-50.

Bigwood, Georges. “La politique de la laine en France sous les régnes de Philippe le Bel et de ses fils.” Edited by Armand Grunzweig. Revue belge de philologie et

d'histoire 15 (1936), 79-102, 429-58; 16 (1937), 95~129.

8 (1929), 1109-30.

——. “Les Tolomei en France au XIVe siecle.” Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire

Bisson, Thomas N. Assemblies and Representation in Languedoc in the Thirteenth

Century. Princeton, 1964. i

——. Conservation of Coinage: Monetary Exploitation and Its Restriction in France, Catalonia, and Aragon (c. A.D. 1000-c. 1225). Oxford, 1979. ——. “Consultative Functions in the King’s Parlements (1250-1314).” Speculum 44 (1969), 353-73. Reprinted in idem, Medieval France, pp. 75-95. ———. “The General Assemblies of Philip the Fair: Their Character Reconsidered.” Studia Gratiana 15 (1972) (Post Scripta), 537-64. Reprinted in idem, Medieval France, pp. 97-122. —. Medieval France and Her Pyrenean Neighbors: Studies in Early Institutional History. SPICHRPI, no. 70. London, 1989. ——. “Negotiations for Taxes under Alfonse of Poitiers.” XIIe Congrés International des Sciences Historiques, Vienna 1965. SPICHRPI, no. 31. Louvain, 1966. Pp. 75101. Reprinted in idem, Medieval France, pp. 49-74. ——. “The Organized Peace in Southern France and Catalonia, ca. 1140-ca. 1233.” American Historical Review 82 (1977), 290-311. Reprinted in idem, Medieval France, pp. 215-36. Blanchet, Adrien, and Adolphe-E. Dieudonné, Manuel de numismatique francaise. 4 vols. Paris, 1912-36. Bloch, Marc. “Blanche de Castille et les serfs du chapitre de Paris.” Mémoztres de la Société de l'histoire de Paris et de ['Tle-de-France 38 (1919), 224-72. Reprinted in idem, Mélanges historiques, 1:462-90. ——. Mélanges historiques. 2 vols. Paris, 1963. ——. La société féodale. 2 vols. Paris, 1949. Translated by L. A. Manyon as Feudal Society. Chicago, 1961. Boislisle, Arthur de. See under Henri Courteault, Le Bourg-Saint-Andeol. ... ——. “Le budget et la population de la France sous Philippe de Valois.” AnnuazreBulletin de la Société de histoire de France (1875), pp. 86-94, 181-90, 199-207, 232-40.

——. “Projet de croisade du premier duc de Bourbon (1316-1333).” AnnuatreBulletin de la Société de [histoire de France (1872) (Publications, no. 161), 23036, 246-55. Boland, G. “Le testament d’Henri III, duc de Brabant (26 février 1261).” Revue a’histoire eccléstastique 38 (1942), 59-96. Bonnassieux, Pierre. De /a réunion de Lyon a@ la France. Etude historique d’apres les documents originaux. Lyon, 1874.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 293 Borrelli de Serres, le Colonel Léon-Louis. Recherches sur divers services publics du XITe au XVIle siécle. 3 vols. Paris, 1895-1909. Boudet, Marcellin. “Etude sur les sociétés marchandes et financieres au Moyen Age. Les Gayte et les Chauchat de Clermont.” Revue d’Auvergne 28 (1911), 1-20, 145-86, 239-70, 379-429; 29 (1912), 42-64, 116-41, 261-81; 30 (1913), 10244; 31 (1914), 278-88, 331-53; 32 (1915), 45-59, 135-44, 199-214; 33 (1916),

41-64, 129-38. Bousquet, Jacques, and Madeleine Villard. “Les notaires de Millau et leur seing 4 l’étoile. Essai d’histoire d’une forme et d’un usage.” Recueil des mémotres et travaux publiés par la Société d’bistoire du droit et des institutions des anciens pays du drott

écrit 7 (1970), 41-64. Boutaric, Edgard. La France sous Philippe le Bel. Etude sur les institutions politiques et administratives du Moyen Age. Paris, 1861. ——. Saint Louis et Alfonse de Poitiers. Etude sur la réunton des provinces du Midi et de l’Quest a la couronne et sur les origines de la centralisation administrative d’apres des documents inédits. Paris, 1870. Bridrey, E. “Une page oubliée des coutumiers normands. Le chapitre de monnéage.” Bulletin de la Société des antiquaires de Normandie 48 (1940-41), 76-519. Brown, A. L. “The Authorization of Letters under the Great Seal.” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 37 (1964), 125-56. Brown, Elizabeth A. R. Adultery, Charivari, and Political Criticism in Early-Fourteenth-Century France: Les Livres de Fauvel. Forthcoming.

—. “Assemblies of French Towns in 1316: Some New Texts.” Speculum 46 (1971), 282-301. Reprinted in eadem, Polztics, no. VI. ——. “The Ceremonial of Royal Succession in Capetian France: The Double Funeral of Louis X.” Traditio 34 (1978), 227-71. Reprinted in eadem, Monarchy, no. VIL.

——. “The Ceremonial of Royal Succession in Capetian France: The Funeral of Philip V.” Speculum 55 (1980), 266-93. Reprinted in eadem, Monarchy, no. VII. ——. “Cessante Causa and the Taxes of the Last Capetians: The Political Applications of a Philosophical Maxim.” Studia Gratiana 15 (Post Scripta) (1972), 56587. Reprinted in eadem, Polztzcs, no. II. ——~. “Charters and Leagues in Early Fourteenth Century France: The Movement of 1314 and 1315.” Ph.D. diss., Radcliffe and Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. 1960. ——. “Customary Aids and Royal Fiscal Policy under Philip VI of Valois.” Traditio

30 (1974), 191-258. Reprinted in eadem, Politics, no. IX.

——. “Diplomacy, Adultery, and Domestic Politics at the Court of Philip the Fair: Queen Isabelle’s Mission to France in 1314.” In Documenting the Past: Essays in Medteval History Presented to George Peddy Cuttino. Edited by J. S. Hamilton and Patricia J. Bradley. Wolfeboro, 1989. Pp. 53-83. ——. “Gascon Subsidies and the Finances of the English Dominions, 1315-1324.” Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History 8 (1971), 33-163. ——. “La généalogie capétienne dans Phistoriographie du Moyen Age: Philippe le Bel, le reniement du redstus et la création d’une ascendance carolingienne pour Hugues Capet.” In Religion et culture autour de Van Mil. Actes du Colloque Hugues Capet, 987-1987. La France de ’an Mil. Auxerre, 26 et 27 juin 1987—Metz, 11 et

294 BIBLIOGRAPHY 12 septembre 1987. Edited by Dominique Jogna-Prat and Jean-Charles Picard. Paris, 1990. Pp. 190-214. ——. “The Marriage of Edward II of England and Isabelle of France: A Postscript.” Speculum 64 (1989), 373-379. ——. The Monarchy of Capetian France and Royal Ceremony. Aldershot, 1991.

——. “Persona et Gesta: The Image and Deeds of the Thirteenth-Century Capetians. The Case of Philip the Fair.” Viator 19 (1988), 219-46. Reprinted in eadem, Monarchy, no. V. ——. “Philip the Fair, Plena Potestas, and the Aide pur fille marier of 1308.” Representative Institutions in Theory and Practice: Historical Papers Read at Bryn Mawr College, April 1968. SPICHRPI, no. 39. Brussels, 1971. Pp. 1-27. ——. “The Political Repercussions of Family Ties in the Early Fourteenth Century:

The Marriage of Edward II of England and Isabelle of France.” Speculum 63

(1988), 573-595. | ——. Politics and Institutions in Medieval France. Aldershot, 1991. ——. “The Prince Is Father of the King: The Character and Childhood of Philip the Fair.” Mediaeval Studies 49 (1987), 282-334. Reprinted in eadem, Monarchy, no. II. ——. “Reform and Resistance to Royal Authority in Fourteenth-Century France: The Leagues of 1314-1315.” Parliaments, Estates and Representation / Parlements, Etats et Représentation | (1981), 109-37. Reprinted in eadem, Polttics, no. V.

——.. “Representation and Agency Law in the Later Middle Ages: The Theoretical , Foundations and the Evolution of Practice in the Thirteenth- and FourteenthCentury Midi,” Viator 3 (1972), 329-64. Reprinted in eadem, Podlrtics, no. I. ——. Review of Gascon Register A ..., edited by George P. Cuttino with J.-P. Trabut-Cussac. Speculum $3 (1978), 348-51. ——. “Royal Commissioners and Grants of Privilege in Philip the Fair’s France: Pierre de Latilli, Raoul de Breuilli, and the Ordonnance for the Seneschalsy of Toulouse and Albi of 1299.” Francia 13 (1985; pub. 1986), 151-90. Reprinted in eadem, Politics, no. IV. , ———. “Royal Necessity and Noble Service and Subsidy in Early Fourteenth-Century France: The Assembly of Bourges of November 1318.” In PARADOSIS: Studies in Memory of Edwin A. Quain. Edited by Henry George Fletcher III and Mary Beatrice Schulte. New York, 1976. Pp. 135-68. Reprinted in eadem, Pofctics, no. VII.

——. “Royal Salvation and Needs of State in Early-Fourteenth-Century France.” In eadem, Monarchy, no. IV. Pp. 1-56. ——. “Royal Salvation and Needs of State in Late Capetian France.” In Order and Innovation in the Middle Ages: Essays in Honor of Joseph R. Strayer. Edited by William C. Jordan, Bruce McNab, and Teofilo F. Ruiz. Princeton, 1976. Pp. 365-83, 541-61. ——. “Subsidy and Reform in 1321: The Accounts of Najac and the Policies of Philip V.” Traditio 27 (1971), 399-430. Reprinted in eadem, Politics, no. VIII. ——. “Taxation and Morality in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries: Conscience and Political Power and the Kings of France.” French Historical Studies 8 (1973), 1-28. Reprinted in eadem, Po/stics, no. III.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 295 ——, and Nancy Freeman Regalado. “La grant feste: Philip the Fair’s Celebration of the Knighting of His Sons in Paris at Pentecost of 1313.” In Czty and Spectacle in Medieval Europe. Edited by Barbara Hanawalt and Kathryn Reyerson. Forthcoming. Brussel, Nicolas. Nouvel examen de l'usage général des fiefs en France pendant le XI. le XI. le XT. et le X1Ve. siecle, pour servir a Vintelligence des plus anciens Titres

de la Couronne. 2 vols. Paris, 1727. | Bulit, Roger. “Le chateau de Gourdon, Xe-XVIle siécles.” Bulletin de la Société des études littéraires, scientifiques et artistiques du Lot 52 (1931), 3-53. Bur, Michel. “Réle et place de la Champagne dans le royaume de France au temps de Philippe Auguste.” In La France de Philippe Auguste. Le temps des mutations. Actes du Colloque international organisé par le C.N.R.S. (Paris, 29 septembre-4

octobre 1980). Edited by Robert-Henri Bautier. Colloques internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, no. 602. Paris, 1982. Pp. 237-54. Callery, Alphonse. Histotre du pouvoir royal dimposer depuis la féodalité jusqu’au régne de Charles V: origines de Pimpét royal, des Etats généraux et provinciaux, de Vadministration des aydes et de la Cour des aydes. Etude destinée a l'histoire des institutions financiéres de l’ancienne France. Brussels, [1879]. See Revue des questions historiques 26 (1879), 419-92. Calmet, Augustin. Hzstoire de Lorraine. New ed. 7 vols. Nancy, 1745-57. Carreau, Marie-Elisabeth. “Les commissaires royaux aux amortissements et aux nou-

veaux acquéts sous les Capétiens, 1275-1328.” These, Ecole Nationale des Chartes, Paris, 1953. ——. “Les commissaires royaux aux amortissements et aux nouveaux acquéts sous les Capétiens, 1275-1328.” Positions des théses de [’Ecole des Chartes (1953), 1922. Cartellieri, Alexander. Philipp IT. August, Kénig von Frankreich. 4 vols. Leipzig, 18991922. Cathala-Coture, Antoine de. Histoire politique, eccléstastique et littéraire du Querct.

Continued by P.-T. Cazaméa. 3 vols. Montauban, 1785. Cazel, Fred A., Jr. ““The Tax of 1185 in Aid of the Holy Land.” Speculum 30 (1955), 385-92. Cazelles, Raymond. “Quelques réflexions a propos des mutations de la monnaie royale francaise (1295-1360).” Le Moyen Age 72 (1966), 83-105, 251-78. Chaplais, Pierre. Essays in Medieval Diplomacy and Administration. London, 1981. ——. “Reéglement des conflits internationaux franco-anglais au XIVe siécle.” Le Moyen Age, 4th ser., 6, vol. 57 (1951), 269-302. Reprinted in idem, Essays, No. 9.

——. “La souveraineté du roi de France et le pouvoir législatif en Guyenne au début du XIVe siecle.” Le Moyen Age 69 (1963), 449-69. Reprinted in idem, Essays, No. 5. Chevalier, Francois-Félix. Mémoires historiques sur la ville et seigneurie de Poligny, avec des recherches relatives a Vhistoire du comté de Bourgogne et de ses anciens souverains, et une collection de chartes intéressantes. 2 vols. Lons-le-Saulnier, 176769.

Cheyette, Fredric L. “Procurations by Large-Scale Communities in FourteenthCentury France.” Speculum 37 (1962), 18-31.

296 BIBLIOGRAPHY Clerc, Edouard. Essai sur histoire de la Franche-Comté. 2 vols. Besangon, 1870. Contamine, Philippe. ‘Points de vue sur la chevalerie en France 4 la fin du Moyen Age.” Francia 4 (1976), 255-85. Cottineau, L.-H. Répertozre topo-bibliographique des abbayes et prieurés. 3 vols. Macon,

1935-70. Vol. 3 edited by Grégoire Poras. Coulet, Noél. “Une enquéte criminelle au XVe siécle.” Provence historique 158 (1989), 565-73. ——, and Louis Stouff. “Les institutions communales dans les villages de Provence au bas Moyen Age.” Etudes rurales 63-64 (1976), 67-81. ——, Le village de Provence au bas Moyen Age. Cahiers du Centre d'Etudes des Sociétés Méditerranéennes. New ser., no. 2. Aix-en-Provence, 1987. Courteault, Henri. Le Bourg-Saint-Andeéol. Essai sur la constitution et Vétat social d’une

ville du Midi de la France au Moyen Age. Introduction a (histoire de la maison de Nicolay rédigée et publiée sous les auspices de M. le Marquis de Nicolay et dapreés les documents recueillis par M. A. de Boislisle. Paris, 1909.

Cugnasse, Claude. “Activité économique et milieu humain 4 Montauban au XIVe siecle d’aprés le registre de Barthélemy Bonis.” Annales du Midi 69 (1957), 20727.

Cuttino, George P. English Diplomatic Administration, 1259-1339. 2nd ed. Oxford Historical Monographs. Oxford, 1971. Daumet, Georges. Mémoires sur les relations de la France et de la Castille de 1255 a

1328. Paris, 1913. :

Davies, James Conway. The Baronial Opposition to Edward II, Its Character and Policy: A Study in Administrative History. Cambridge, Eng., 1918. Declareuil, Joseph. Histoire générale du droit frangais des origines a 1789, a Pusage des étudiants des facultés de droit. (Premiére année de licence et doctorat és sciences politiques). Vol. 1. Paris, 1925. Deffontaines, Pierre. Les hommes et leurs travaux dans les pays de la Moyenne-Garonne (Agenais, Bas-Quercy). Mémoires et travaux publiés par des professeurs des Fa-

cultés catholiques de Lille, no. 39. Lille, 1932. Delaborde, Henri-Francois. “Notice sur le registre de Pierre d’Etampes.” Brbliothéque de ’Ecole des Chartes 61 (1900), 426-46. ——. “Une oeuvre nouvelle de Guillaume de Saint-Pathus.” Bzbliothéque de [Ecole des Chartes 63 (1902), 262-88. Delachenal, Roland. Histoire des avocats au Parlement de Paris, 1300-1600. Paris, 1885.

Delisle, Léopold. “Mémoire sur les opérations financiéres des Templiers.” Mémoires de l’ Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, 33, pt. 2 (1889), 1-248. Denholm-Young, Noél. Richard of Cornwall. New York, 1947. Denton, Jeffrey H. “A Worcester Text of the Remonstrances of 1297.” Speculum 53 (1978), 511-21. Depoin, J. “La maison de Chambly sous les Capétiens directs.” Bulletin philologique et historique (jusqu’a 1715) du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques (1914),

117-62. De Roover, Raymond. Money, Banking and Credit in Mediaeval Bruges... . Cambridge, Mass., 1948. Dessalles, Léon. Histoire du Périgord. 3 vols. Périgueux, 1883-85.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 297 ——. “Le Trésor des Chartes, sa création, ses gardes et leurs travaux, depuis l’origine jyusqu’en 1582.” Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres de l'Institut

de France, \st ser., Sujets divers d’érudition | (1884), 365-461. Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques. Edited by Alfred Baudrillart et al. Paris, 1912-. Dietterle, Johannes. “Die Summae confessorum (sive de casibus conscientiae) von ihren

Anfangen an bis zu Silvester Prierias unter besonderer Beriticksichtigung ihrer Bestimmungen tiber den Ablass.” Zeztschrift fur Kirchengeschichte 24 (1903), 353-

74, 520-48; 25 (1904), 248-72; 26 (1905), 59-81, 350-62; 27 (1906), 70-83, 166-88, 296-310, 433-42; 28 (1907), 401-31. Dieudonné, A. “L’ordonnance ou réglement de 1315 sur le monnayage des barons.” Bibliotheque de Ecole des Chartes 93 (1932), 5-54. Digard, Georges. Philippe le Bel et le Saint-Siége de 1285 a 1304. 2 vols. Paris, 1936. Dognon, Paul. Les institutions politiques et administratives du pays de Languedoc du XIlTe siécle aux guerres de religion. Bibliotheque méridionale, 2nd ser., no. 4. Toulouse, 1895. Doherty, Paul C. “The Date of the Birth of Isabella, Queen of England (1308-58).” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 48 (1975), 246-48. ——. “Isabella, Queen of England, 1296-1330.” D.Phil. diss., Oxford University, 1977.

Dossat, Yves. “Les limites du Toulousain et du Quercy et la bailie du Tescou (12731329).” Annales du Midi 59 (1947), 193-209. Duby, Georges. L’économie rurale et la vie des campagnes dans l’Occident médiéval (France, Angleterre, Empire, IXe-XVe siécles). Essai de synthése et perspectives de recherches. Paris, 1962. Translated by Cynthia Postan as Rural Economy and Country Life in the Medieval West. London, 1968. ——.. Guerriers et paysans, VIIe-XIle siécle. Premier essor de l'économie européenne. Bibliotheque des histoires. Paris, 1973. Translated by Howard B. Clarke as The Early Growth of the European Economy: Warriors and Peasants from the Seventh

to the Twelfth Century. Ithaca, 1974. }

——. “Problémes d’économie seigneuriale dans la France du XIe siécle.” Probleme des 12. Jahrhunderts: Reichenau-Vortrige, 1965-1967. Vortrige und Forschungen \2 (1968), 161-67. ——. La société aux XIe et Xe siécles dans la région maconnaise. Paris, 1953, 1971. Dirrholder, Gottfried. Die Kreuzzugspolitik unter Papst Johann XXII. (1316-1334). Strasbourg, 1913. Dufour, Emile. La commune de Cahors au moyen-age. Cahors, 1846. Du Tillet, Jean. Recueil des Roys de France, Levrs Couronne et Maison, Ensemble, le rengs des grands de France ... Plus, Vne Chronique abbregé contenant tout ce qui est advenue, tant en fait de Guerre, qu’autrement, entre les Roys & Princes, Republiques C potentats estrangers: Par M. I. du Tillet, Euesques de Meaux freres. 2 parts. Paris, 1579-80. Enlart, Camille. “L’émaillerie cloisonnée a Paris sous Philippe le Bel et le maitre Guillaume Julien.” Monuments Prot 29 (1927-28), 1-97. Erlande-Brandenburg, Alain. “La priorale Saint-Louis de Poissy.” Bulletin monu-

mental 129 (1971), 85-112. |

298 BIBLIOGRAPHY Fasolt, Constantin. Council and Hierarchy: The Political Thought of William Durant the Younger. Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought. 4th ser., no. 16. Cambridge, Eng., 1991. Favier, Jean. Un conseiller de Philippe le Bel, Enguerran de Marigny. Mémoires et documents publiés par la Société de l’Ecole des Chartes, no. 16. Paris, 1963. ——. “L’histoire administrative et financiére du Moyen Age occidental depuis dix ans.” Bibliotheque de l’Ecole des Chartes 126 (1968), 437-503. Fawtier, Robert. Autour de la France capétienne: personnages et institutions. Edited by Jeanne C. Fawtier Stone. London, 1987. ——. “Comment, au début du XIVe siecle, un roi de France pouvait-il se représenter son royaume?” Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Comptes rendus des séances (April-Dec. 1960), 117-22. ——. “Comment, au début du XIVe siécle, un roi de France pouvait-il se représenter son royaume?” Mémoires et documents publiés par la Société d'histoire et darchéologie

de Genéve 40 (Mélanges offerts a M. Paul-E. Martin) (1961), 65-77. Reprinted in idem, Autour de la France capétienne, no. 14. ——. “Un parlement franco-anglais en 1308.” In Recueil de travaux offert a M. Clovis Brunel, membre de [’Institut, directeur honoraire de [’Ecole des Chartes, par ses amis, collegues et éléves. 2 vols. Mémoires et documents publiés par la Société de l’Ecole

des Chartes, no. 12. Paris, 1955. Vol. 1, pp. 422-24. Reprinted in idem, Autour de la France capétienne, no. 15. Félibien, Michel. Histoire de la ville de Paris. Edited by Guy-Alexis Lobineau. 5 vols.

| Paris, 1725.

Fenwick, Muriel. “The Inquiry into Complaints against the Ministers of Eleanor of Castile, 1201-92: Its Administrative and Legal Significance.” M. A. Thesis, University of London, 1931. Ferretti, Giovanni. “Roffredo Epifanio da Benevento.” Studi medievali 3 (1909), 230-87. Fichtner, Paula Sutter. “Dynastic Marriage in Sixteenth-Century Habsburg Diplomacy and Statecraft: An Interdisciplinary Approach.” American Historical Review 81 (1976), 243-65. Finke, Heinrich. Papsttum und Untergang des Templerordens. 2 vols. Vorreformationsgeschichtliche Forschungen, no. 4. Miinster, 1907. Flammermont, Jules. Review of Alphonse Callery, Histoire du pouvoir royal d’imposer.... Revue historique 18 (1882), 206-13, 432-42. Fournial, Etienne. Les villes et Péconomie d’échange en Forez aux XIITe et X1Ve siécles.

Paris, 1967. Fryde, Natalie. The Tyranny and Fall of Edward II, 1321-1326. Cambridge, Eng., 1979. Funck-Brentano, Frantz. De exercituum commeatibus tertio decimo et quarto decimo saeculis post Christum natum. Paris, 1897.

——. “Documents relatifs aux formes diplomatiques aux XIIIe et XIVe siécles.” Revue d'histoire diplomatique 11 (1897), 76-101, 234-62, 369-86. ——. Les origines de la Guerre de Cent Ans. Philippe le Bel en Flandre. Paris, 1897. ——. “Philippe le Bel et la noblesse franc-comtoise.” Bzbliothéque de [Ecole des Chartes 49 (1888), 5-40, 238-53. Funke, Paul. Papst Benedikt XI. Eine Monographie. Minster, 1891.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 299

vols. Madrid, 1922-28. .

Gaibrois de Ballesteros, Mercedes. Historia del retnado de Sancho IV de Castilla. 3 Gallia Christiana in provincias ecclesiasticas distributa. ... Edited by Denis de Sainte-

Marthe et al. 16 vols. Paris, 1715-1865. Ganshof, F. L. Feudalism. Translated by Philip Grierson. London, 1952. ——. “Le testament du duc de Brabant Henri III.” Revue belge de philologie et P’histoire 22 (1943), 587. Garaud, Marcel. Les chatelains de Poitou et ’avénement du régime feodal, XTe et XITe stécles. Mémotres de la Société des antiquaires de ’'Quest, 4th ser., 8 (1964). Gaujal, Marc-Antoine-Francois, baron de. Etudes historiques sur le Rouergue. 4 vols.

Paris, 1858-59. Gay, Emmanuel. Le consulat et [administration municipale du Vigan au XVITe et au XVITTe siecle. Paris, 1913.

Gilles, Henri. “L’administration royale des Eaux et Foréts en Languedoc au moyen age.” Bulletin philologique et historique (usqu’a 1610) du Comité des travaux bistoriques et scientifiques (1963), 331-73. Giry, Arthur. Manuel de diplomatique. Paris, 1894. Glénisson, Jean. “Les enquéteurs-réformateurs de 1270 4 1328. Contribution 4 l’étude des commissaires royaux.” Thése, Ecole Nationale des Chartes, 1946.

——. “Les enquéteurs-réformateurs de 1270 4 1328. Contribution 4 étude des commissaires royaux.” Positions des théses de ?’ Ecole des Chartes (1946), 81-88. Glorieux, Palémon. La fittérature quodlibétique de 1260 a 1320. 2 vols. Bibliotheque

thomiste, nos. 5, 21. Le Saulchoir, Kain, and Paris, 1925-35. Gouron, Marcel. Catalogue des chartes de franchises de la France. Vol. 2: Les chartes de franchises de Guienne et Gascogne. Paris, 1935. ——. Histoire de la ville du Pont-Saint-Esprit. Nimes, 1934. Gramain, Monique. “La communauté de Puissalicon (1250-1350).” Fedération historique du Languedoc méditerranéen et du Roussillon, XLIIe Congrés (Béziers, 3031 mai 1970), Béziers et le Biterrois. Montpellier, 1971. Pp. 165-77. Grunzweig, Armand. “Les incidences internationales des mutations monétaires de Philippe le Bel.” Le Moyen Age 59 (1953), 117-72. Guenée, Bernard. L’Occident aux XIVe et XVe siécles. Les états. Nouvelle Clio, L’histoire et ses probleémes, no. 22. 2nd ed. Paris, 1981. Translated by Juliet Vale as States and Rulers in Later Medieval Europe. Oxford, 1985. Guerout, Jean. “Le Palais de la cité a Paris des origines 4 1417. Essai topographique et archéologique.” Mémoires de la Fédération des Sociétés historiques et archéologiques

de Paris et de I’Ile-de-France \ (1949), 57-212; 2 (1950), 21-204; 3 (1951), 7-

~ 101.

Guillois, André. Recherches sur les maitres des requétes de hotel des origines a 1350. Paris, 1909. Hamilton, Jeffrey Scott. Pzers Gaveston, Earl of Cornwall, 1307-1312: Politics and Patronage in the Reign of Edward II. Detroit, 1988. Hardy, Michel. “Députation des villes du Périgord pour le proces des Templiers.” Bulletin de la Société historique et archéologique du Périgord 19 (1892), 475-83. Henneberg, Hermann. Die politischen Beziehungen zwischen Deutschland und Frankreich unter Konig Albrecht I., 1289-1308. Strasbourg, 1891.

300 BIBLIOGRAPHY | Henneman, John Bell. “ ‘Enquéteurs-réformateurs’ and Fiscal Officers in FourteenthCentury France.” Traditio 24 (1968), 309-17. ——. Royal Taxation in Fourteenth-Century France: The Captivity and Ransom of John IT, 1356-1370. Philadelphia, 1976. ——. Royal Taxation in Fourteenth Century France: The Development of War Financing, 1322-1356. Princeton, 1971. ——. “Taxation of Italians by the French Crown (1311-1363).” Mediaeval Studies

31 (1969), 15-43.

Henry, Abel. “Guillaume de Plaisians, ministre de Philippe le Bel.” Le Moyen Age 5 (1892), 32-38. Holt, James Clarke. Magna Carta. Cambridge, Eng., 1965. Holtzmann, Robert. Wilhelm von Nogaret, Rat und Grosssiegelbewahrer Philipps des Schénen von Frankreich, Freiburg, 1898. Home, Henry, Lord Kames. Historical Law-Tracts. 2nd ed. Edinburgh, 1761.

Housley, Norman. “Pope Clement V and the Crusades of 1309-10.” Journal of Medieval History 8 (1982), 29-43. Hughes, Diane Owen. “From Brideprice to Dowry in Mediterranean Europe.” Journal of Family History 3 (1978), 262-96. Johnstone, Hilda. Edward of Carnarvon, 1284-1307. Publications of the University of Manchester, no. 295; Historical Series, no. 83. Manchester, 1946. ——.. “Isabella, the She-Wolf of France.” History, n. s., 21 (1936-37), 208-18. ——. “The Queen’s Household.” The English Government at Work, 1327-1336. Vol. 1: Central and Prerogative Administration. Edited by James F. Willard and W. A. Morris. Cambridge, Mass., 1940. Pp. 250-99. ——. “The Queen’s Household.” In Thomas Frederick Tout, Chapters in the Administrative History of Mediaeval England: The Wardrobe, the Chamber and the

Small Seals. 6 vols. Publications of the University of Manchester, Historical Series, nos. 34, 35, 38, 39, 57, 64. Manchester, 1920-33. Vol. 5, 231-89. Jordan, William Chester. The French Monarchy and the Jews: From Philip Augustus to the Last Capetians. Philadelphia, 1989.

—. Louis IX and the Challenge of the Crusade: A Study in Rulership. Princeton, 1979,

Juglas, Josette. “La vie rurale dans le village de Jonquiéres (aujourd’hui Martigues), 1308-1418,” Provence historique 8 (1958), 9-33. Jusselin, Maurice. “Les ‘Présidenz a Paris’ au temps des derniers Capétiens.” B7bliothéque de [’ Ecole des Chartes 92 (1931), 277-84. Kehl, Paul. Die Steuer in der Lehre der Theologen des Mittelalters. V olkswirtschaftliche

Studien, no. 17. Berlin, 1927. “King in Council.” Review of James F. Larkin and Paul L. Hughes, eds., Stuart Royal Proclamations, Vol. 1: Royal Proclamations of King James [, 1603-1625 (Oxford, 1973). Times Literary Supplement, 22 March 1974, p. 280. Lajard, Félix. “Gilles de Rome, religieux augustin, théologien.” Histozre littéraire de la France 30 (1888), 421-566. ——. “Henri de Gand, sa vie.” Histoire littéraire de la France 20 (1842), 144-203. Lalou, Elisabeth. “Les négociations diplomatiques avec |’Angleterre sous le regne de Philippe le Bel.” In La “France anglaise” au Moyen Age. Actes du I1le Congres

BIBLIOGRAPHY 301 national des Sociétés savantes (Poitiers, 1986). Section d’histoire médiévale et de phil-

ologie. Paris, 1988. Vol. 1. Pp. 326-55. ——.. “Les révoltes contre le pouvoir a la fin du XIIe et au début du XIVe siécle.” In Violence et contestation au Moyen Age. Actes du 114e Congrés national des Sociétés

savantes (Paris, 1989). Section d’histotre médiévale et de philologie. Paris, 1990. Pp. 159-88.

Langlois, Charles-Victor. “Les doléances des communautés du Toulousain contre Pierre de Latilli et Raoul de Breuilli (1297-1298).” Revue historique 95 (1907), 23-53. ——. “Lettres missives, suppliques, pétitions, doléances.” Histoire littéraire de la France 36 (1927), 531-76. ——. “Les papiers de Guillaume de Nogaret et de Guillaume de Plaisians au Trésor des Chartes.” Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliotheque nationale et autres bibliothéques 39! (1909), 211-54.

——. “Le procés des Templiers, d’aprés des documens [sic] nouveaux.” Revue des deux mondes 103 (1891), 382-421. ———. ‘“‘Registres perdus des archives de la Chambre des comptes de Paris.” Notzces

et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliotheque nationale et autres bibliothéques 40 (1917), 33-399. ——. Le régne de Philippe III le Hard:. Paris, 1887. —. Saint Louis-Philippe le Bel. Les derniers Capétiens directs (1226-1328). Vol. 3, part 2, of Histoire de France ilustrée. Edited by Ernest Lavisse. Paris, 1911. La Roque, Gilles André de, sieur de La Lontiére. Trazté de la Noblesse et de toutes ses differentes especes. Nouvelle Edition, augmentée des Traités de Blason des Armoiries

de France: de lV Origine des Noms Sur-Noms: G du Ban @ Arriere-Ban. 2 vols. Rouen, 1734. Latouche, Robert. La vie en Bas-Quercy du XIVe au XVIIIe siécle. Bibliotheque méridionale, 2nd ser., no. 19. Toulouse, 1923. Laval, Victorin, and Hyacinthe Chobaut. “Le consulat seigneurial de |’Isle-en-Venaissin (XIIe—XIle siécles).” Mémozres de l’Académie de Vaucluse, 2nd ser., 13 (1913), 1-42. Lea, Henry Charles. A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages. 3 vols. New York, 1887-88. Lefevre, André. “Les finances de la Champagne aux XIIle et XIVe siécles.” Bzbliothéque de l’Ecole des Chartes, 4th ser., 4, vol. 19 (1858), 409-47, and 4th ser., 5, vol. 20 (1859), 40-80. Lehugeur, Paul. Histoire de Philippe le Long, rot de France (1316-1322). 2 vols. Vol. 1: Le régne. Vol. 2: Le mécanisme du gouvernement. Paris, 1897-1931. _ Lemaire, André. Les lois fondamentales de la monarchie francaise d’aprés les théoriciens de l’Ancten Régime. Paris, 1907. Leroi, Antoine. Histotre de Notre-Dame de Boulogne. 9th ed. Boulogne-sur-Mer, 1839. Leroux, Alfred. Recherches critiques sur les relations politiques de la France avec PAllemagne de 1292 & 1378. Bibliotheque de l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes, Sciences philologiques et historiques, no. 50. Paris, 1882. Le Roux de Lincy, Antoine-Jean-Victor. Histoire de P’ Hotel de ville de Paris, suivie d’un essai aur (ancien gouvernement municipal de cette ville. Paris, 1846.

302 , BIBLIOGRAPHY Leroy, Béatrice. “A propos de la succession de 1328 en Navarre.” Annales du Midi 82 (1970), 137-46.

Lestang, G. de. “Noms et qualités des habitants du Maine et de l’Anjou qui, en année 1301, appelérent au Parlement aprés avoir été condamnés par la cour de leur comte comme ayant refusé de fournir l’aide levée pour le mariage d’Isabelle de Valois.” Bulletin de la Société d’agriculture, sciences et arts de la Sarthe \7 (186364), 504-22. Lillich, Meredith Parsons. “European Stained Glass around 1300: The Introduction of Silver Stain.” In Europdische Kunst um 1300. Akten des XXV. Internationaler Kongress fiir Kunstgeschichte. CLHHA. Wien 4.-10.9.1983. Vienna, 1986. Vol. 6, pp.

45-60. Little, Lester K. “Saint Louis’ Involvement with the Friars.” Church History 33

(1964), 125-48. ,

Lizerand, Georges. Clément V et Philippe IV le Bel. Paris, 1910. Llobet, Gabriel de. Fotx médiéval. Recherches d’histoire urbaine. Saint-Girons, n.d.

, Loeb, Isidore. “Les expulsions des Juifs de France au XIVe siécle.” In Jubelschrift zum stebzigsten Geburtstage des Prof. Dr. H. Graetz. Breslau, 1887. Reprinted as Jubelschrift zum 70. Geburtstag des Professors Dr. Heinrich Graetz. Hildesheim, 1973. Pp. 39-56. Lot, Ferdinand, and Robert Fawtier. Histotre des institutions francaises au Moyen Age.

3 vols. Paris, 1957-62.

Lot, Henri. “Essai d’intervention de Charles le Bel en faveur des chrétiens d’Orient tenté avec le concours du pape Jean XXII.” Bibliotheque de ’Ecole des Chartes 36 (1875), 588-600.

——. “Projets de croisade sous Charles le Bel et sous Philippe de Valois.” Bzbliothéque de [’ Ecole des Chartes, 4th ser., 5, vol. 20 (1858-59), 503-9. Maddicott, J. R. Thomas of Lancaster, 1307-1322: A Study in the Reign of Edward II. Oxford Historical Monographs. Oxford, 1970.

Maillard, Francois. “A propos d’un ouvrage récent. Notes sur quelques officiers royaux du Languedoc vers 1280-1335.” Actes du 96e Congres national des Soctétés savantes. Toulouse, 1971. Section de philologie et a’histotre jusqu'a 1610. Vol. 1: France du Nord et France du Midi: Contacts et influences réciproques. Paris, 1978.

Pp. 325-58. ——. “L’extension de la prévété de Paris et des chatellenies de |’Ile-de-France au XIVe siécle.” Actes du 100e Congrés national des Soctétés savantes. Paris, 1975. Section de philologie et d’histoire jusqu’a 1610. Vol. 2: Etudes sur Vhistoire de Paris et de l’Ile-de-France. Paris, 1978. Pp. 19-58. ——. “Noms de personnes du Lyonnais en 1307.” Bulletin philologique et historique (jusqu’a 1610) du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques (1964), 735-70.

Martens, Mina. “A propos des testaments d’Henri II (22 janvier 1248) et d’Henri III (26 février 1261), ducs de Brabant.” Revue belge de philologie et d’histotre 23 (1944), 289-94, Maubourguet, J.-M. Le Périgord méridional des origines a Pan 1370. Etude d’bistotre

politique et religieuse. Cahors, 1926. ,

McKisack, May. The Fourteenth Century, 1307-1399. Vol. 5 of The Oxford History of England. Edited by George Clark. Oxford, 1959.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 303 Meiers, E. M. Etudes d’histotre du droit. 4 vols. Edited by R. Feenstra and H. F. W. D. Fischer. Leiden, 1956-73. Ménard, Léon. Histotre civile, ecclésiastique et littéraire de la ville de Nismes, avec des notes et les preuves; suivie de dissertations historiques C critiques sur ses antiquités,

| ¢ de diverses observations sur son histoire naturelle. 7 vols. Paris, 1750-58. Michaud-Quantin, Pierre. Sommes de casuistique et manuels de confession au moyen age (XII-XVI siécles). Analecta mediaevalia namurcensia, no. 13. Louvain, 1962. Mirot, Léon. “Isabelle de France, reine d’Angleterre, comtesse d’Angouléme, duchesse d’Orléans, 1389-1409. Episode des relations entre la France et l’Angleterre pendant la Guerre de Cent Ans.” Revue d’histoire diplomatique 18 (1904), 545-

73; 19 (1905), 60-95, 161-91, 481-522. ——. “Un trousseau royal a la fin du XIVe siécle.” Mémoires de la Société de histoire de Paris et de ['Ile-de-France 29 (1902), 125-58. Mitchell, Sydney Knox. Taxation in Medieval England. Edited by Sidney Painter. New Haven, 1951. Monboisse, René. L’ordre féodal des “Montagnes d'Auvergne” du XIIe au XVe siecle. Aurillac, 1966.

Monzat, Annie. “Gourdon-en-Quercy du milieu du XIIIe a la fin du XIVe siécle. Naissance et développement d’un consulat.” Posztions des théses de [Ecole des Chartes (1970), 141-50. Moranvillé, Henri. “Rapports a Philippe VI sur l’état de ses finances.” Brbliothéque de l’Ecole des Chartes 48 (1887), 380-95. Odolant Desnos, Pierre-Joseph. Mémoires historiques sur la ville d’Alencon et sur ses sergneurs. Précédés d’une dissertation sur les peuples qui ont habité anciennement le duché d’Alencon et le comté du Perche, et sur l'état ancien de ce pays. 2 vols. Alencon, 1787.

Olivier-Martin, Frangois-Jean-Marie. Histoire de la coutume de la prévoté et vicomté de Paris. 2 vols. Paris, 1922-30. ——. “Le roi de France et les mauvaises coutumes au Moyen Age.” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fiir Rechtsgeschichte, Germanistische Abteilung 58 (1938), 10837.

Ourgaud, Jacques. Notice historique sur la ville et le pays de Pamiers, ancien royaume de Frédelas. Paris, 1865.

Paris, Paulin, and Gaston Paris. “Jehan Maillart, auteur du Roman du comte d’Anjou.” Histoire littéraire de la France 31 (1893), 318-50. Pasquet, D. An Essay on the Origins of the House of Commons. Translated by R. G. D. Laffan. Cambridge, Eng., 1925. Pasquier, J. “Cession définitive du Val d’Aran a l’Aragon.” Revue de Comminges 7 (1892), 100-113. Perroy, Edouard. “Une émeute fiscale 4 Montbrison sous Philippe le Bel.” Bulletin de la Diana 27 (Mélanges offerts a M. Jean Dufour) (1939), 61-70. Reprinted in idem, Etudes d’histotre médiévale, pp. 131-40. ——. Etudes @histoire médiévale. Edited by Robert Fossier. Paris, 1979. Petit, Ernest. Histozre des ducs de Bourgogne de la race capétienne. 9 vols. Paris, 18851905.

Petit, Joseph. Charles of Valois (1270-1325). Paris, 1900.

304 BIBLIOGRAPHY Petot, Pierre. “Le droit commun en France selon les coutumiers.” Revue historique de droit francais et étranger, 4th ser., 38 (1960), 412-29. Phillips, J. R. S. Aymer de Valence, Earl of Pembroke, 1307-1324: Baronial Politics in the Reign of Edward IT. Oxford, 1972. Plancher, Urbain, and Zacharie Merle. Histotre générale et particuliére de Bourgogne, avec des notes, des dissertations et les preuves justificatives. Composée sur les auteurs, les titres originaux, les registres publics, les cartulaires des églises cathédrales C collégales, des abbaies, des monasteres, [sic] @ autres anciens monuments. 4 vols. Dijon,

1739-81. Pocquet du Haut-Jussé, B.-A. “Prétendue cession de la Bretagne a l’Angleterre par Philippe le Bel.” In Recueil de travaux offert 4 M. Clovis Brunel, membre de l’Institut, directeur honoraire de l’Ecole des Chartes, par ses amis, collégues et éléeves. 2 vols. Mémoires et documents publiés par la Société de l’Ecole des Chartes, no. 12. Paris, 1955. Vol. 2, pp. 381-89. Portejoie, Paulette. “Le régime des fiefs d’apres la Coutume de Poitou.” Mémoztres de la Société des antiquatres de ’Ouest, 4th ser., 3 (1959), 51-218. Post, Gaines. Studies in Medieval Legal Thought: Public Law and the State, 11001322. Princeton, 1964. Powicke, Maurice. The Thirteenth Century, 1216-1307. 2nd ed. Vol. 4 of The Oxford History of England. Edited by George Clark. Oxford, 1962.

Prou, Maurice. “Les coutumes de Lorris et leur propagation aux XIle et XIlIlIe siécles.” Nouvelle revue historique de droit francais et étranger 8 (1884), 139-209,

267-320, 441-57, 523-56. Ralegh, Sir Walter. The Works.... 8 vols. Oxford, 1829. Ramet, Henri. Un coin de Quercy: Martel. Paris, 1920. Régné, J. “Amauri II, vicomte de Narbonne (1260?-1328), sa jeunesse, ses expéditions, son gouvernement, son administration.” Bulletin de la Commission archéologique de Narbonne 10 (1908[-1909]), 37-130, 189-279, 367-465, 521-86; 11 (1911[-1912]), 47-130, 301-63. ——. Etude sur la condition des Juifs de Narbonne du Ve au XIVe siécle. Narbonne, 1912.

Renan, Ernest. “Un publiciste du temps de Philippe le Bel (1300-1308).” Revue des deux mondes 91 (1871), 620-46; 92 (1871), 87-115. Reprinted in Histozre littéraire de la France 26 (1873), 471-536. Rey, Maurice. Le domaine du roi et les finances extraordinaires sous Charles VI, 13881413. Bibliotheque générale de |’Ecole pratique des Hautes Etudes, Ve section.

Paris, 1965. ,

——. Les finances royales sous Charles VT. Les causes du déficit, 1388-1413. Bibliotheque

générale de l’Ecole pratique des Hautes Etudes, Vle section. Paris, 1965. Reynolds, Susan. Kingdoms and Communities in Western Europe, 900-1300. Oxford,

1984. ,

Richard, Jean. “Droit d’indire et subvention ducale au début du XIVe siécle.” Mémotres de la Société pour l'histoire du droit et des institutions des anciens pays bourguignons, comtois et romands 14 (1952), 173-81. Richardson, H. G., and G. O. Sayles. “The Parliament of Carlisle, 1307—Some New Documents.” English Historical Review 53 (1938), 425-37. Reprinted in eidem, The English Parliament in the Middle Ages. London, 1981. No. 12.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 305 Rogozinski, Jan. “Ennoblement by the Crown and Social Stratification in France,

| 1285-1322: A Prosopographical Survey.” In Order and Innovation in the Middle Ages: Essays in Honor of Joseph R. Strayer. Edited by William C. Jordan, Bruce McNab, and Teofilo F. Ruiz. Princeton, 1976. Pp. 273-91, 500-15. ——. Power, Caste, and Law: Social Conflict in Fourteenth-Century Montpellier. Medieval Academy Books, no. 91. Cambridge, Mass., 1982. Rothwell, H. “Edward I’s Case against Philip the Fair over Gascony in 1298.” English Historical Review 42 (1927), 572-82. Rubner, Heinrich. Untersuchungen zur Forstverfassung des mittelalterlichen Frankreichs. Vierteljahrschrift fiir Sozial-und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Beiheft 49. Wiesbaden, 1965. Sahuguet, Léonard de, Abbé d’Espagnac. Histoire de Brive-la-Gaillarde et de ses en-

virons.... Brive, 1810. Saige, Gustave. Les Juifs du Languedoc antérieurement au XIVe siécle. Paris, 1881. Sautel, Gérard. “Note sur la formation du droit royal d’amortissement (XII Ie—XIVe siecles).” In Etudes d’histotre du droit canonique dédiées a4 Gabriel Le Bras. 2 vols.

Paris, 1965. Vol. 1, pp. 689-704. Schein, Sylvia. Fideles Crucis: The Papacy, the West, and the Recovery of the Holy Land,

1274-1314. Oxford, 1991. ——. “Philip IV and the Crusade: A Reconsideration.” In Crusade and Settlement: Papers Read at the First Conference of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East and Presented to R. C. Smail. Edited by Peter W. Edbury. Cardiff,

1985. Pp. 121-26. Schmidt, Tilmann. Der Bonifaz-Prozess: Verfahren der Papstanklage in der Zeit Bontfaz’ VIII. und Clemens’ V. Forschungen zur kirchlichen Rechtsgeschichte und zum Kirchenrecht, no. 19. Cologne, 1989. Schneider, Jean. “Les villes du royaume de France au temps de saint Louis.” Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Comptes rendus des séances (Jan.—March 1971),

45-49. Scholz, Richard. Die Publizistik zur Zeit Philipps des Schinen und Bonifaz’ VIII. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der politischen Anschauungen des Mittelalters. Kirchenrechtliche Abhandlungen, no. 6./8. Stuttgart, 1903. Schottmiiller, Konrad. Der Untergang des Templer-Ordens. ... 2 vols. Berlin, 1887. Schramm, Percy Ernst. “Der Konig von Navarra (1305-1512). Mit einem Anhang: Die baskischen Provinzen in ihrem Verhaltnis zu den Konigen von Navarra und Kastilien.” Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung fiir Rechtsgeschichte, Germanistische Abtetlung 68 (1951), 110-210. Searle, Eleanor. “Possible History.” Speculum 61 (1986), 779-86. Secousse, Denis-Frangois. “Mémoire sur Punion de la Champagne et de la Brie 4 la couronne de France.” Mémoires de littérature tirés des registres de l’'Académte royale des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres depuis année M.D.CCXLLI, jusques et compris Pan-

née M.D.CCXLII 17 (1751), 295-315. Sivéry, Gérard. Marquerite de Provence: une reine au temps des cathédrales. Paris, 1987.

—. Saint Louis et son siécle. Paris, 1983. Spufford, Peter. “Assemblies of Estates, Taxation and Control of Coinage in Medieval Europe.” X/Ie Congrés International des Sciences Historiques, Vienna, 1965.

SPICHRPI, no. 31. Louvain, 1966. Pp. 113-30.

306 BIBLIOGRAPHY ——, with Wendy Wilkinson and Sarah Tolley. Handbook of Medieval Exchange. | Royal Historical Society Guides and Handbooks, no. 13. London, 1986. Stein, Henri, and Léon Le Grand. La frontiére d’Argonne (843-1659). Procés de Claude de la Vallée (1535-1561). Paris, 1905. Stephenson, Carl. Mediaeval Institutions: Selected Essays. Edited by Bryce D. Lyon. Ithaca, 1954. Strathman, Ernest A. “Ralegh’s Discourse of Tenures and Sir Roger Owen.” Huntington Library Quarterly 20 (1957), 219-33. Strayer, Joseph R. “La conscience du roi: les enquétes de 1258-1262 dans la sénéchaussée de Carcassonne-Béziers.” Recueil de mémoires et travaux publié par la Société d'histoire du droit et des institutions des anciens pays de droit écrit 9 (Mélanges Roger Aubenas) (1974), 725-36.

—. “Consent to Taxation under Philip the Fair.” In Joseph R. Strayer and Charles H. Taylor. Studies in Early French Taxation. Harvard Historical Monographs, no. 12. Cambridge, Mass., 1939. Pp. 1-105. —. “The Costs and Profits of War: The Anglo-French Conflict of 1294-1303.” In The Medieval City. Edited by Harry A. Miskimin, David Herlihy, and A. L. Udovitch. New Haven, 1977. Pp. 269-91. ——. “The Crusade against Aragon.” Speculum 28 (1953), 102-13. Reprinted in

idem, Medieval Statecraft, pp. 107-22. ——. Les gens de justice du Languedoc sous Philippe le Bel. Cahiers de l’Association Marc Bloch de Toulouse. Etudes d’histoire méridionale, no. 5. Toulouse, 1970. ——. “Knight Service in Normandy.” In Anniversary Essays in Mediaeval History by Students of Charles Homer Haskins Presented on his Completion of Forty Years

, of Teaching. Edited by Charles H. Taylor and John L. La Monte. Boston, 1929. Pp. 313-27. ——. Medieval Statecraft and the Perspectives of History: Essays by Joseph R. Strayer.

Edited by John F. Benton and Thomas N. Bisson. Princeton, 1971. ———. “Pierre de Chalon and the Origins of the French Customs Service.” In Festschrift Percy Ernst Schramm zu seinem siebzigsten Geburtstag von Schilern und Freunden zugeeignet. Edited by Peter Classen and Peter Scheibert. 2 vols. Wies-

baden, 1964. Vol. 1, pp. 334-39. Reprinted in idem, Medieval Statecraft, pp. , 232-38. Strickland, Agnes. Lives of the Queens of England from the Norman Conquest, from the Official Records and other Private and Public Authentic Documents. Vol. 2. Philadelphia, 1902.

Sutherland, Donald W. “Conquest and Law.” Studia Gratiana 15 (Post Scripta) (1972), 33-51. Tanon, Louis. Histoire des justices des anciennes églises et communautés monastiques

de Paris.... Paris, 1883. Taylor, Charles Holt. “Assemblies of Towns and War Subsidy, 1318-1319.” In — Studies in Early French Taxation. By Joseph R. Strayer and Charles Holt Taylor. Pp. 107-200. ——. “The Assembly of 1312 at Lyons-Vienne.” In Etudes d’histotre dédiées a la mémoire de Henri Pirenne par ses anciens éleves. Brussels, 1937. Pp. 337-49. ——-. “Some Aspects of Early Representative Institutions in France.” Paper delivered at the Annual Meeting of the American Historical Association, 27 December 1935.

BIBLIOGRAPHY 307 Tessier, Georges. Diplomatique royale francaise. Paris, 1962. ——. “Lettres de justice.” Bibliothéque de [’Ecole des Chartes 101 (1940), 102-15. Timbal, Pierre-Clément. “Les villes de consulat dans le Midi de la France. Histoire de leurs institutions administratives et judiciaires.” Recuezls de la Société Jean Bodin. Vol. 6: Les villes. Part 1: Institutions administratives et judiciaires. Brussels, 1954.

Pp. 343-70. Toubeau de Maisonneuve, E. “Aides royales et impositions municipales dans la ville de Bourges.” Mémoires de la Société des antiquaires du Centre 6 (1875-76), 129281.

Tyerman, Christopher J. “Marino Sanudo Torsello and the Lost Crusade: Lobbying in the Fourteenth Century.” Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser., 32 (1982), 57-73. ——. “Philip VI and the Recovery of the Holy Land.” English Historical Review 100 (1985), 25-52. ——. “Sed Nihil Fecit? The Last Capetians and the Recovery of the Holy Land.” In War and Government in the Middle Ages: Essays in Honour of J. O. Prestwich. Edited by John Gillingham and J. C. Holt. Cambridge, Eng., 1984. Pp. 170-81. Vaillant, Pierre. Recueil de documents relatifs a Vhistotre du droit municipal en France des origines a la Révolution. Les libertés des communautés dauphinoises (des origines

au 3 janvier 1355). Société Vhistoire du droit. Paris, 1951. Valois, Noél. “Etablissement et organisation du régime municipal a Figeac.” Bzbliothéque de [’Ecole des Chartes 40 (1879), 397-423.

Van der Straeten, Josephus. “Une charte de pays. La charte de Cortenberg en Brabant.” Schweizer Beitrdge zur allgemeinen Geschichte. Etudes suisses d'histoire génévale. Studi svizzeri di storia generale 12 (1954), 147-61.

——. Het Charter en de Raad van Kortenberg. SPICHRPI, nos. 12-13. 2 vols. Brussels, 1952. Van Werveke, H. “Les charges financieres issues du traité d’Athis (1305).” Revue du Nord 32 (1950), 81-93. Verdier, Philippe. ““Témoignages artistiques des mariages franco-anglais au début du XIVe siecle.” Bulletin monumental 131 (1973), 137-45. Verriest, Léo. Institutions médiévales. Introduction au ‘Corpus des records de coutumes et des lois de chefs-lieux de ancien comté de Hainaut’. Vol. 1. Mons, 1946. Vic, Claude de, and Jean-Joseph Vaissete. Histotre générale de Languedoc. ... Edited by Auguste Molinier. 15 vols. Toulouse, 1872-93. Vidal, Jean-M. Bernard Saisset, évéque de Pamiers. Toulouse and Paris, 1926. Vuitry, Adolphe. Etudes sur le régime financier de la France avant la Révolution de 1789. New series. Philippe le Bel et ses trois fils, 1285-1328. Les trois premiers Valois, 1328-1380. 2 vols. Paris, 1878-83. Wauters, Alphonse. Le duc Jean Ter et le Brabant sous le régne de ce prince (12671294). Mémoires couronnés et autres mémoires de |’Académie royale des sciences,

des lettres et des beaux-arts de Belgique, Bruxelles. Collection in 8°, no. 13. Brussels, 1862. Wenck, Karl. Clemens V. und Heinrich VII. Die Anfange des franzisischen Papstthums. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des XIV. Jahrhunderts. Halle, 1882.

——. “Franzésische Werbungen um die deutsche Konigskrone zur Zeit Philipp’s des Schénen und Clemens’ V.” Historische Zeitschrift 86 (1901), 253-69.

308 BIBLIOGRAPHY ——. Philipp der Schine von Frankreich, seine Persinlichkeit und das Urteil der Zeitgenossen. Im Anhang: Urkundliche Bettrige zur Geschichte der Erwerbung Lyons fiir Frankreich. Marburg, 1905. Wilkinson, Bertie. Constitutional History of Medieval England, 1216-1319. 3 vols. London, 1948-58.

Wolff, Philippe. “Les luttes sociales dans les villes du Midi frangais, XIle-XVe siecles.” Annales: Economies-Soctétés-Crvilisations 2 (1947), 443-54. ——. “Réflexions sur histoire médiévale de Montauban.” Actes du Dixiéme Congres d'Etudes de la Fédération des Sociétés académiques et savantes Languedoc-PyrénéesGascogne (Montauban 29-31 mai 1954). Montauban, 1956. Pp. 9-22. Wolffe, B. P. The Royal Demesne in English History: The Crown Estate in the Governance of the Realm from the Conquest to 1509. London, 1971.

Wood, Charles T. The French Apanages and the Capetian Monarchy, 1224-1328. Harvard Historical Monographs, no. 59. Cambridge, Mass., 1966. ——. “Where Is John the Posthumous? Or Mahaut of Artois Settles Her Royal Debts.” In Documenting the Past: Essays in Medieval History Presented to George Peddy Cuttino. Edited by J.S. Hamilton and Patricia J. Bradley. Wolfeboro, 1989. Pp. 99-117. Wormald, Jenny. Lords and Men in Scotland: Bonds of Manrent, 1442-1603. Edinburgh, 1985. _ Wright, Martin. An Introduction to the Law of Tenures. 2nd ed. London, 1734. Zeck, Ernst. Der Publizist Pierre Dubois, seine Bedeutung im Rahmen der Politik Philipps IV. des Schinen und seine literarische Denk- und Arbeitsweise im Traktat “De recuperatione Terre Sancte.” Berlin, 1911. Zeller, Gaston. “Les rois de France candidats 4 l’Empire. Essai sur l’idéologie 1mpériale en France.” Revue historique 173 (1934), 273-311, 492-534.

Index Individuals who lived before 1500 are listed under their given names. Latin names of places are included when they are unusual or when their interpretation may be confusing or is controversial; identifications of place-names that are questionable are indicated by (?) following the modern locations given after the French or Latin names. In alphabetizing items, articles and prepositions in hyphenated names are enerally disregarded, as are articles (/’, /a, /e, Jes) preceding the names.

8 y 8 ’ » 4a, Pp 3

accounting: by royal officials (1308), 80; aid: reform of procedures for (1310), 164, —crusading, of Alfonse of Poitiers, 48-53;

167; (1323), 205 of Charles IV, 213; of Louis IX, 54-56,

accounts, municipal fiscal: Martel, 77 n. 23, 197-98 n. 48, 204; of Philip VI, 214,

101, 209; Millau, 209; Najac, 74 nn. 12- 216

13, 209 —knighting, of Alfonse of Poitiers, 48; of

Adam Boucher, 145 Edward I of England, 44-45; of Eudes IV Adele (Alix), daughter of Count Thibaud IV — of Burgundy, 218 n. 119; of Henry IIT of

of Champagne and Mahaut of Carinthia, England, 44 n. 34; of Louis IX, 54-56,

wife of Louis VII, 21 n. 37 197-98 n. 48, 204; of Philip IH, 57-61,

Adémar, bishop of Rodez, 75 n. 15 197, 198 n. 48; of Philip IV, 82 n. 52, 91 Adémar Fabri, proctor of confederation led n. 92, 187-207, 208-9 esp. n. 96, 211,

by Brive, 131-32, 144, 267, 270 221-22; of Philip VI, 190 n. 10, 214-16

Adémar de Girbert (Gilleberti), proctor of —marriage, of Charles VI, 217-18; of confederation led by Martel, 129, 130, Charles of Valois, 61-68, 166 n. 78, 219, 131, 132, 135, 152, 160 n. 48, 257, 261, 229-32; of counts of Rodez, 25 n. 51,

265. 266. 268. 270 47; of Edward I of England, 44 n. 35, 45

Adjots, Les (Charente, ar. Angouléme, c. of i of menty r or England * n. ra

Ruffec), rector of church of, proctor of i ey cB ng ‘ih “Mee 183 Be ¢

abbot of Nanteuil, 98, 268 TL 214 n 113: or Lovis IX. $4. $5:

administratio, libera et generalis, meaning of, J ‘ Mt h, cA ? 5 F 48 183: of 107-8. See also agency; procurations, OF oy SAAUE OF ATTOIS, £2 De Oy 1925 O

forms of and terms in Philip IV, 71-75, 112-42, 147-85, 208 Adolph, king of the Romans, 21 n. 35 n. 0, 209, 210, 211, 219-21, 222, 233-

Aegidius Romanus. See Giles of Rome Sey oes osy ok 8D oe eee on Aemtum (Aenitum), 98 n. 3, 111, 132 n. 95, 266-67, 269, 270-71, 274s of Philip V, 267, 270. See also Adémar Fabri; Ayen (?)s 207-13; of Philip VI, 214-17, 222; of

Empeau (?); Emptum

age calculation of 1-12 11 igpand V, count of Champagne, 191 n. __ Agen (Lot-et-Garonne), 50, 51 n. 62; —for ransom, of Alfonse of Poitiers, 48; of

. seneschal of, 105 n. 24 John II, 188, 217, 222, 226

Agenais, 16, 5 0-52, 56 aids. See also cens; domain, royal; agency, principles of, 7-8, 107-9, 112 ecclesiastics

Agnes, daughter of Louis IX and Marguerite = _basis for imposition of, 4-6, 63 n. 114, of Provence, and wife of Robert II, duke 65, 196 n. 41, 214-16. See also levy of,

of Burgundy, 207 n. 91 from subjects of subjects

Ahenri, lord of Castelmary, proctor of —cancellation of, 46, 61, 188, 216, 222

Najac, 234. See also Castelmary —in Champagne, 191-95

Ai de Cahors, deputy of Martel, 77 n. 23 —consent to, 36-43, 48, 184. See also gifts Aicardus, abbot of Tulle, 264-66. See also —and custom, 3-4, 5-6, 35, 39, 40, 42, 43,

Tulle 46, 48-53, 55, 56, 58, 59, 60, 64, 67, 309

310 INDEX 68-69, 78, 183, 185, 214, 216, 218, 219, | —in Provence, 47

222-23, 224, 273. See also custom; —renunciation of, 45-46

Normandy, custom of —resistance to, 7-8, 49, 51, 54-56, 57, 58—customary, 2, 4, 7, 36-40, 45-47, 61-69, 69, 71, 73, 74-77, 78, 82, 88, 90, 93-95,

YODauphine, Cb; , 97,499, 147, 154-57, 159, 161—in 63,112-42, 169-75, 183-84, 185, 187, 193-95, —exemption from, 192-93, 195, 197-99, 196-204, 206, 209-212, 214, 215, 219con calms fo anc grounds for, Veo ye” 22, 224, 225-26, 227-32, 237-70, 277-

n. rT, ’ ’ ’ ) ’ ’ ’ 78

108. 314 Ne sa oy os oe OTL, ND. —_restitution of, 37, 41, 61, 78, 180, 209, » 214-16, 218, 221, 225, 228, 271; 216, 227, 229 P lee (on 212-1 ; See also charters; —royal commissioners for collecting, 71,

ea. ‘. vilep fiefs ; , 84-92, 93-95, 99, 116, 151-53, 155-56,

“histor of ee ty ay whem dern. 218 159-60, 167-69, 173, 176, 182, 209, TY O8 CarlYs 15 Cably-modems 216, 220, 224, 266-68, 273-75 n. 119 —in Scotland, 44 n. 34 —justification for, 2, 3-6, 12, 25, 35, 36- en

—levy of, for acquisition of fief or land, 5,

38, 41, 42, 47, 49, 65, 67: for army —tailles and, 55, 64, 171-72, 196 n. 39, service (auxilium exercitus), 41, 42, 56, 57 197-98 n. 48, 211, 232 n. 92, 79 n. 36, 212; for crusading, 5, 6, —theory of, 2, 35-43 36, 42, 47, 48-55, 56-57, 196 n. 41, 213, —types of, 5, 36, 38, 40, 41-43, 44-48, 53216; for defense, 42; for journeys, 5, 36, 54, 61, 65, 67, 157 n. 33, 196 n. 41 42, 45 n. 38, 47; for knighting of lord, —yield of, 44, 62 n. 108, 177-80, 203, 206,

47, 65, 190-91, 196, 227-29; for 212, 221

knighting of lord’s son, 38, 40, 42,44 n. | Aimeri de Cros, 175-77 34, 47, 49, 61, 65, 67, 79, 190-91, 196, Aiotis, church of, 268. See also Les Adjots 212; for marriage of daughter, 38, 40, 42, | Aire(-sur-la-~Lys) (Pas-de-Calais, ar. Saint-

47, 49, 61, 65, 67, 79, 182-83, 196 n. Omer), 218 n. 119 | 41, 212; for marriage of sister, 46, 47 n. Aizie (Fsze) (Charente, ar. Angouléme, c.

47, 183-84; for payment of ransom, 5, 6, Ruffec), 268 36, 40, 41, 42, 47, 48, 49, 61, 65, 67, 68 Alain de Lamballe, bishop of Saint-Brieuc,

n. 136, 79, 188, 196 n. 41, 217; for 175-77

payment of relief, 61, 65, 196 n. 41; for Albas (Abbais, Abbars, Albars) (Lot, ar. pilgrimage, 5, 45 n. 38, 47; postponement Cahors, c. Luzech), 97 n. 1, 111, 119-20, of, 60, 78-80, 151-53, 170-72, 196-98, 266 n. 3, 267, 269; procuration of (1309), 200, 202-3, 214, 220, 236-37. See also 119-20, 137 n. 109, 139-40 esp. n. 114,

. . que

under aid 141 esp. n. 124, 243-44. See also Etienne

—levy of, in Anjou and Maine, 61-69, 73, Delgua |

78, 166 n. 78, 191 n. 15, 219-20, 221, sgypterng Sep Aubeterre 229-32; in Artois, 25 n. 48, 183, 218 n. Albenca. See Lalben 119; in Brabant, 45-46; in Burgundy, 46, Albi (Tarn), 157, 170 n. 96. See also

183-84, 218 n. 119; in Dauphiné, in ; ; Toulouse and Albi,47; seneschalsy of

England, 44-45; in Forez, 46, 47 n. 44; Albias (Bastita dalbi T G

in Gascony, 44 n. 34; in Narbonne, 46- tas (Bastita da a) ( lise as 6 47, 172 n. 106; in Poitou, 196 n. 41; in Albigeois SL c. Négrepelisse), 111, 27

Rouergue, 25 n. 51, 47, 52 n. 67, 157 n. ,

33, 227- 29; in the Toulousain, 50-51 alengons 165-67, ev’ hee 184. a also —levy of, from subjects of subjects, 42, 51- aries, count OF Valois, and collection 53, 58, 59-61, 62, 63, 64-65, 66, 71, 78- of royal marriage aid in; Jean II, count of; 80, 155, 158-59, 165-67, 171-72, 174, Normandy, custom of, and 181, 182-84, 190-93, 195, 196, 199-203, Ales (Gard), 56 n. 90 . 206-7, 209, 214-18, 219, 221, 224, 225, Alet(-les-Bains) (Aude, ar. Limoux), 60 . 227-29, 231-32, 236-37, 272-73, 277- Alfonse, count of Poitiers, brother of Louis

78 IX, 48-54, 56, 58, 77, 156, 184. See also

—limitation and restriction of, 4-6, 35-47, under aid

69, 214-27, 222-23, 226 alliances. See confederations

INDEX 311 Almont (Tarn-et-Garonne, ar. Montauban, arpentages, 63 n. 114, 231-32 c. Caussade, cne. Réalville), 103, 110, Arras (Pas-de-Calais), 66 n. 128

233 Artois, 1 n. 3, 207 n. 93, 218 n. 119. See

Alone, lord of Montmoreau, proctor of also aids, levy of, in; Mahaut, countess of communities of Saintonge, 98, 268. See assemblies:

also Montmoreau —baronial, 164 71, 172 n. 106 n. 88, 176-77, 213, 229-31

Amauri, viscount of Narbonne, 46-47, 86 n. —local, 76-77, 83 n. 55, 99, 100-101, 168

Ameédée of Savoy, 13 n. 4 —central. See under Bourges; Lyon; Paris; Amiens (Somme), 32, 92 n. 95, 178 n. 128, Tours; Vienne

204, 208 n. 96, 278-79. See also Galeran Astesanus of Asti, 37 n. 4 de Vaux; Lienars le Sec; Simon de Billy Athis (Marne, ar. Chalons-sur-Marne, c.

amortissement, policy of Philip [V Ecury-sur-Coole), 195 n. 34

concerning, 226 n. 2 Athis(-Mons, -sur-Orge) (Seine-et-Oise, ar. Andeliacum. See Andilly Corbeil-Essonnes, c. Longjumeau), 202 n. Andilly (Andeliacum, Anliacum) (Seine-et- 70; treaty of, and its consequences, 26, 81 Oise, ar. Pontoise, c. Montmorency), 278 n. 46, 164 Anet (Eure-et-Loir, ar. Dreux), 55 n. 83 Aubazine (Corréze, ar. Brive-la-Gaillarde, c. Angers (Meuse-et-Loire), 64, 65, 67-68, Beynat), abbey and abbot of (Raymond III

230-31 de Pleaux), 98, 130-31, 132, 136, 138-

Anglars (Lot, ar. Figeac, c. Lacapelle- 39, 152, 268

Marival), 100; parish of, 111, 113, 116, Aubert de Hangest, 92 n. 95 126, 135, 136, 152, 267, 269; procuration Aubert, Félix, 102-3 n. 20

of (1309), 138, 140, 145, 238-40; Aubeterre(-sur-Dronne) (A/baterra) parishioners of, listed in, 238-39; (Charente, ar. Angouléme), 268 proctors of, listed in, 239. See also Auliacum. See Andilly (Anliacum) Géraud d’; Hugues de Cazals; Hugues Aurea practica, of Pierre Jame, 42 Operari; Philippe d’Eudes; Pierre d’ Aurillac (Cantal), 77 n. 25, 89-90, 132; Angouléme (Angoumois) (Charente), 87, 92 abbot of (Drago), 98 n. 3, 113, 146 n. 14, n. 95, 160 n. 47, 178; bishop (Foulques 237-38, 269. See also Gualhard de de La Rochefoucauld), dean, and chapter Castronovo; Guillaume Durand, prior of of, 98, 152, 268. See also Geffroy de Monsempron; Guillaume Ysnard, rector

Raymond; Helie de Girennia of Notre-Dame of; Philippe d’Eudes

Anjou: bailli of 63-64, 231. See also aids, Auvergne, 27, 48-49, 77, 81 n. 49, 84, 88-

levy of, in Anjou and Maine 89, 92 n. 95, 178 n. 128, 205 n. 86;

Anliacum. See Andilly constable of, 49

Ansel de Morgnevalle, 179 n. 133 Auvers, prévot of. See Nicolas de Luzarches

Anselme, le Pere, 11 n. 1 Auxerre (Yonne), bishop of (Pierre de apanages, 23-25, 62 n. 111, 93 n. 100, Grez), 192 n. 19

165-66, 214 auxilium exercitus. See aids, for army service Apt (Vaucluse), 47 n. 47 Ay), abbey of, 195 nn. 36-37 appeals, 63, 230, 239, 279 Avenay(-Val-d’Or) (Marne, ar. Reims, c.

Aragon, 33, 56-57, 62 n. 111, 156 Averton (Mayenne, ar. Mayenne, c.

Archiac (Charente-Maritime, ar. Jonzac), Villaines-la-Jubel), lord of, 231-32

268 Ayen (Corréze, ar. Brive-la-Gaillarde), 132

Armand du Saud (Sa/tu), 98, 268 n. 95. See also Aemtum

Arnaud de Coloniis (Colhuenha, Colonia), Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke, 173,

proctor of confederation led by 180 Montauban, 122, 125, 246-53, 256, 262, 267, 269

Arnaud de Cumbellocavo, 254-55, 262-63 Barbezieux (Brebezallum) (Charente, ar. Arnaud Navar, proctor of confederation led Cognac), 268. See also Oduin de by Cajarc, 127-28, 253-54, 259-61, 267, Barcelona, 62 n. 111

270 Barthélemy de Pantin, of Castelnau233 Bastide-l’Evéque, La (Aveyron, ar.

Arnaud de Rotland, of Cahors, 102 n. 19, Montratier, 121, 124, 125, 245, 254, 262 Arnaud de Verneuil, lord of Payrac, proctor Villefranche-de-Rouergue, c.

of Gourdon, 133-34, 255, 267, 269-70 Rieupeyroux), 75

312 INDEX Bastit, Le (Lot, ar. Gourdon, c. Gramat), Bertrand Agace, seneschal of Saintonge, 93,

1ll n. 1, 115. See also Bastita domini 99

Fortaneriu Bertrand de Gourdon, 134 n. 101

Bastita dalbiars. See Albias Bertrand de Pibrac, 163 n. 59 Bastita domini Fortanerit, 111 n. 1, 276. See —_ Bertrand de La Tourette, 83

also Labastide-Murat (?), Labastide-du- Béthisy(-Saint-Pierre) (Oise, ar. Senlis, c.

Vert (?), and Le Bastit (?) Crépy-en-Valois), 210 n. 100 ,

Bastita de Saluitate. See La Salvetat(-Bel- Béthune (Pas-de-Calais), 73 n. 10

montel) Béziers (Hérault), 40 n. 18. See also Simon

Tulmont Bigorre, 215 |

Bastita Sancti Stephani. See Saint-Etienne de Briseteste

Bautier, Robert-Henri, 59 n. 102, 165 n. 69 ~—_Bioule (Tarn-et-Garonne, ar. Montauban, c.

Beatrice, countess of Provence, daughter of Négrepelisse), 105 and 107 n. 27, 110, Raymond Bérenger V, count of Provence, 123, 233, 268, 269, 276; procuration of

and Beatrice of Savoy, and wife of (1309), 137 n. 108, 139, 145, 251-52; Charles, count of Anjou, brother of Louis four consuls of, listed in, 251. See also

IX, 21 n. 35 Arnaud de Coloniis; Gualhard Fabri

Beaucaire (Gard, ar. Nimes), 190 n. 7; Bisson, Thomas N., 50 n. 58, 56 n. 88, 83 seneschalsy of, 30, 80 n. 44, 81, 82, 83, n. 55

84, 92 n. 95, 178 n. 128, 215 Blanc, Le (Indre), 196

Beaulieu(-sur-Dordogne) (Corréze, ar. Blanche, daughter of Louis VIII and Brive-la-Gaillarde), 98 n. 3, 100, 105 and Blanche of Castile, 179 n. 133 107 n. 27, 111, 133, 144, 268, 270; abbey Blanche, daughter of Othon, count of and abbot (Bernard IV) of, 98, 136, 153, Burgundy, and Mahaut, countess of 270. See also Gui de Pannac; Raymond de Artois, and wife of Charles IV, 24-25

Curamanno Blanche, daughter of Philip IV and Jeanne

Beauregard (Belloregardum) (Lot, ar. Cahors, of Champagne and Navarre, 11

c. Limogne), 103, 110, 232-33 Blanche, daughter of Robert II, duke of Beautemps-Beaupré, Charles-Jean, 66 n. 128 Burgundy, and Agnes (daughter of Louis

Beauvais (Oise), 32; bishop of (Jean de IX and Marguerite of Provence), and wife

Marigny), 209 of Edouard, count of Savoy, 183-84

Belachessargne (Bella cassanha), 98 n. 3, 111, Blanzac (Blandiacum) (Charente, ar.

132 n. 95, 267, 270. See also Adémar Angouléme), 268 Fabri; La Cassagne (Lacassagne) (?); Bléneau (Yonne, ar. Auxerre), 88-89 n. 78

Chassancet (?); Le Chastang (?) Boniface VIII, 12-13, 40, 81 n. 46, 113 and Belaye (Lot, ar. Cahors, c. Luzech), 102 n. 116 n. 42 18, 111, 117-19, 275-76, 266 n. 3, 267, Bordeaux (Gironde): archbishop of (Arnaud

269; procuration of (1309), 137 n. 109, IV de Chanteloup, Junior), 94 n. 102, 98, 140, 141 n. 124, 243. See also Etienne 132, 152, 163, 268; province of, 93 n.

Delgua 98, 163 n. 61. See also Ranulf de Brya

Belfort(-du-Quercy) (Lot, ar. Cahors, c. Boulbonne (Haute-Garonne, ar. Muret, c.

Lalbenque), 110, 233, 276 Cintegabelle), abbey and abbot (Arnold II Belloregardum. See Beauregard Guillaume) of, 98, 132, 152, 268

Benedict XI, 81 n. 46 Boulogne(-sur-Mer) (Pas-de-Calais), 16

Benton, John F., 27 n. 61 Bourg, Le (Burgus sancti Saturnint) (Lot, ar.

Béraud de Mercoeur, 27 Figeac, c. Lacapelle-Marival), 111, 116 n. Bérenger d’Aigues-Vives, abbot of Figeac, 43, 127-28, 267, 270; procuration of

153 n. 20. See also Figeac, abbot of (1309), 137 n. 108, 141, 260-61; juratz

Bérenger de Prelan, 60 n. 106 | of, listed in, 260. See a/so Arnaud Navar Bérenger de Prolano, judge of Carcassonne, Bourges (Cher), 55, 84, 92 n. 95, 178 n.

60 n. 106 128, 210-11; batllage of, 197; royal

Bérenger de Prouille, 60 n. 106 assembly at, 102 n. 20. See also Pierre de Bernard, count of ’Isle-Jourdain, 134 n. Prunet; Simon de Saint-Benoit

101 Bouteville (Charente, ar. Cognac, c.

Bernard Fabri, of Cahors, 102 n. 19, 233 Chateauneuf-sur-Charente), 268 Bernard du Meix, 85-86, 91, 161 n. 52 Bouvancourt (Marne, ar. Reims, c. Fismes), Bernard de Serinhac, proctor of Najac, 234 195 n. 37

INDEX 313 Brabant: duchess of (Aleyde), 38; dukes of, Cajarc (Lot, ar. Figeac), 98 n. 3, 107 n. 27, 45-46. See also aids, levy of, in Brabant; 111, 116 n. 43, 127-28, 135, 267, 270, Henri I, Henri III, Jean I, Jean II, dukes 275-76. See also Arnaud Navar

| of Calciata. See Caussade Braux-Sainte-Cohiére (Marne, ar. and c. Calesium. See Chalais .

Sainte-Menehould), 194 n. 33 Camboulit (Lot, ar. Figeac, c. Figeac-

Brebezallum. See Barbezieux Ouest), 111, 116 n. 43, 118 n. 51, 127,

Bretenoux (Bretanone, Bretenos, Orlanda) 134, 139-41, 267, 270; procuration of (Lot, ar. Figeac), 100, 111, 128 n. 82, (1309), 137 n. 110, 145 n. 10, 253-54; 129, 133, 135, 140, 152, 268, 270, 276; five proctors and two consuls of, listed procuration of (1309), 137 n. 109, 141 n. in, 253-54, See also Arnaud Navar

124, 256-57; six proctors of, listed in, Caorsins, 45 n. 39 .

257. See also Adémar de Girbert capitalization, medieval practice of, 9 Bréval (Seine-et-Oise, ar. Mantes-la-Jolie, c. Capot, Gratian, 227, 234, 275

Bonniéres-sur-Seine), 55 n. 85 Carcassonne (Aude), 32, 71, 72-74, 83 n. Brice Guy (Briccius Guidi), 208 n. 94 53, 147, 219; seneschalsy of, 60, 81, 83,

Brie, 22 n. 38 J? - p:

Bridlington canon of. 20 85, 86, 91,also 151 n.Guillaume 15, 170 nn. 96-97, . ’ 175-76, 180, 215. See de ©| Brittany, 16 n. 13. See also Jean III, duke of Bercelt nc aerre Paris; Pierre Raymond; Brive(-la-Gaillarde) (Correze), 98 n. 3, 100, Carennac (Lot, ar. Gourdon, c. Vayrac), 98 101, 103, 105 and 107 n. 27, 109 n. 32, 11. 131-32. 136. 179 n. 131. 267. 270 n. 3, 111, 129, 133, 152, 268. See also

, , ye ’ ,Adémar : AdémarFabri de Girbert See also ;;

233, 276 ” ’ an os

Bruniquel (Tarn-et-Garonne, ar. ae Parliament of, 14-15 asl{h/ucium. See Caylus

Montauban, c. Monclar-de-Quercy), 110, Cassagne, La (Dordogne, ar. Sarlat, c

; ; Terrasson). See Belachessargne

Bures( sur Y verte) (eine-er nse ar. Castelfranc (Castrum francum) (Lot, ar.

B nd Ss c. Palaiseau), 202 n. 70 Cahors, c. Luzech), 102 n. 18, 110, 117-

urgundy: 18, 119, 233, 266 n. 3, 267, 269, 276;

conn of rae 25 ne 207 n. 93. See procuration of (1309), 137 n. 109, 140,

a’so Otnon iY, count o 141 n. 124, 243. See also Etienne Delgua

auehy of #6, “ 5 i oe also euaes IV, Castellum Reginaldi. See Chateau-Renaud

ugues V, Kobert Ll, dukes 0 Castelmary (Aveyron, ar. Rodez, c. La

Burgus sancti Saturnini. See Le Bourg Salvetat-Peyrales). See Ahenri, lord of Castelnau-Montratier (Castrum novum [raterii] de vallibus) (Lot, ar. Cahors),

. . 110, 121, 124-26, 134 n. 105, 233, 254,

Cabenesium. See Chabanais 267, 269, 276; procuration of (1309), 137 Caen (Calvados), batlliage of, 91, 154, 177 108. 262-63: eigh Is of. listed Cahors (Lot), 4, 83 n. 53, aiso 90 n. 85 562. § al de ae ‘ Cotoniis; 4 de Cole 9 ee , . a727n.in, . vee Arnaud 97 n. I, ware 105, 109, 153, 232-33; Barthélemy de Pantin; Gualhard Fabri

activities of (1309-10), 116-21, 128-29, Castelsagrat (Castrum sacratum) (Tarn-et-

13 . 1 ‘ , | , , i ; fh 569: (131 1) 103, I Garonne, ar. Castelsarrasin, c. ValenceA. 195 9 007975 j ’ ’ d’Agen), 111, 275-76

105, 161, 275-77; (1334), 215; bishop of Castile, 11 n. 1, 14 n. 7, 22, 56, 79 n. 36. (Raymond III Pauchelli), 32, 72 n. 4, 90 See also Sancho IV, king of

n. 85, 103, 117, 139, 153, 161, 244, 252, castrum, definition of, 97 n. 1 275-76; diocese of, 237, 241, 242, 244, Castrum francum. See Castelfranc

) ) ) ’ ) ) ’ } Charente

ea’ see ee a 30 ae soe one Castrum novum. See Chateauneuf-surLivre nouveau of, 151 n. 16, 266-68; Castrum novum [raterii] de vallibus. See

official of, 120, 244; procuration of Castelnau-Montratier (1309), 139-40, 141, 258-59; Castrum podii domini Episcopi caturcensis. See procurations drawn up at (1309), 232-33, Puy-l’Evéque 243, 244, 258-59. See also Arnaud de Castrum sacratum. See Castelsagrat Rotland; Bernard Fabri; Etienne Delgua; Caussade (Calciata) (Tarn-et-Garonne, ar.

Jacques de Jean Montauban), 97 n. 1, 110, 123, 233, 267,

314 INDEX 269, 275-76; procuration of (1309), 137 and Philip IV, 28-29, 65-66, 68, 166-67 n. 108, 249-50; six consuls of, listed in, n. 80. See also aid, marriage; aids, levy of, 249. See also Arnaud de Coloniis; Gualhard in Anjou and Maine; inquests, held by

Fabri charters, municipal, 49 n. 52, 50 n. 59, 57-

Caux (Seine-Maritime), baz/liage of, 91 n. 58, 75, 77, 89-90, 197, 202-3, 210, 211, 90, 154, 178. See also Guillaume de Bois 215, 223, 224, 225, 271. See also Caylus (Casl{h/uctum) (Tarn-et-Garonne, ar. privilege, charters of Montauban), 97 n. 1, 100, 102 n. 18, Chartres (Eure-et-Loir), 165 n. 75, 166 n. 110, 117 nn. 47-48, 118-19, 128 n. 82, 78; vidame of, 92 n. 95. See also Nicolas

139, 233, 266 n. 3, 267, 269, 275-76; de Luzarches procuration of (1309), 137 n. 109, 141. n. | Chassancet (Corréze, ar. Brive-la-Gaillarde).

124, 241-42, 243. See also Etienne See Belachessargne

Delgua Chastang, Le (Corréze, ar. Tulle, c. Tulle-

cens, and aid, 49-50 n. 57 Sud). See Belachessargne

cessante causa, principle of, 26, 30, $6 n. 90, Chateaufort (Seine-et-Oise, ar. Versailles, c.

189-90 Palaiseau), 199 n. 54, 203; castellany of,

Chabanais (Cabenestum) (Charente, ar. 199 n. 55, 205-6 n. 87

Confolens), 268 Chateau-Landon (Seine-et-Marne, ar. Angouléme), 268 Chateauneuf (-sur-Charente) (Charente),

Chalais (Calestum) (Charente, ar. Melun), 198 n. 48, 201-2 n. 68 Chalons-sur-Marne (Marne), 32, 195 n. 37 268

Chalons-sur-Vesle (Marne, ar. Reims, c. Chateauneuf (-en-Tymerais) (Eure-et-Loir,

Fismes), 195 n. 37 ar. Dreux), 203 n. 76

Chalop, 162-63 n. 57 Chateau-Renaud (Castellum Reginald:)

Chamber of Accounts (Chambre des (Charente, ar. Angouléme, c. Mansle, cne.

comptes), 8, 57 n. 95, 78 n. 33, 167, 170, Fontenille), 268

200, 205, 209, 212 n. 107, 214, 215, Chateauroux (Indre), 197

273-75 Chateau-Thierry (Aisne), 195

Champagne, 22 n. 38, 72, 91, 92 n. 95, Chatelet (Paris), imprisonment in, 204 n. 190-95, 197, 215-16; fairs of, 204 n. 82, 82, 279 279. See also Jeanne, wife of Philip IV, Chatres(-sous-Montlhéry) (Arpajon, Seinecountess of; Lombards; Louis X, king of et-Oise, ar. Corbeil-Essonnes), 202 France, count of; Philip [V; Philip V; Chaumont (Haute-Marne), bailliage of, 91,

Thibaud V, count of 178 n. 128, 191, 193-94

Champcueil (Seine-et-Oise, ar. and c. Chelles (Seine-et-Marne, ar. Meaux, c.

Corbeil-Essonnes), parish of, 201 Lagny-sur-Marne), 199 n. 56

Chaource (Aube, ar. Troyes), 194 n. 28 Chevreuse (Seine-et-Oise, ar. Rambouillet), Charles, count of Anjou, king of Naples, castellany of, 199 nn. 54-55 Sicily, and Jerusalem, son of Louis VIII Chilly(-Mazarin) (Seine-et-Oise, ar.

and Blanche of Castile, 62 n. 111 Corbeil-Essonnes, c. Longjumeau), 202; Charles IV, king of France and Navarre, castellany of, 199 n. 55 count of La Marche, 18 n. 27, 24-25, Choiseul (Haute-Marne, ar. Chaumont, c. 182 n. 141, 188-89, 201 n. 66, 205, 213 Clefmont), lord of, 193-94 Charles V, king of France, 163 n. 59 Choisy(-en-Brie) (Seine-et-Marne, ar. Charles VI, king of France, 217-18 Provins, c. La Ferté-Gaucher): prior of, Charles II, king of Naples, Sicily, and 199 n. 56; priory of, 195 n. 37 Jerusalem, son of Charles, count of Clement V, 11 n. 1, 14, 31-32 n. 81, 33,

Anjou, and Beatrice, countess of 81 n. 46, 103, 105, 163-64, 167 n. 82,

Provence, 61, 62 n. 110 275-77

Charles II, count of Provence, 217 n. 115 Clericis latcos, 40 Charles, count of Valois, brother of Philip Clermont(-Ferrand) (Puy-de-Déme), diocese IV, 28 n. 64, 213 n. 111; archives of, 165 of, 113 n. 75; and collection of royal marriage aid _ climate, problems of, 79-80, 170-71, 210in Alencgon, 165-67, 181; and collection 11, 221 of royal subsidy for war (1313), 191 n. Cluny (Sadne-et-Loire, ar. Macon), abbot of 13; and dowries, 21; and Empire, 29, 81 (Henri de Fautriéres), 183 n. 46; and Enguerran de Marigny, 166; coalitions. See confederations

INDEX 315 Cognac (Charente), 268 n. 22. See also Corbeil(-Essonnes) (Seine-et-Oise), 199 n.

Conzillacum 54, 203; castellany of, 199 n. 55, 200 n.

Coiffy(-le-Bas) (Haute-Marne, ar. Langres, 62, 203 n. 76, 205-6 nn. 86-87 c. Varennes-sur-Amance), prévoté of, Cordes (Tarn, ar. Albi), 32, 92 n. 93

193-94 n. 28 coronation: of Edward II and Isabelle, 17;

coinage: mutation of, 1, 155, 169, 213; expenses of Philip IV’s, 57 n. 93 reform of, 26, 29-30, 32, 72, 83; value Cortenberg. See Kortenberg

of, x. See also fouage; mints Coutances (Manche), bailliage of, 91, 154, Coincy (Aisne, ar. Chateau-Thierry, c. 177 Fere-en-Tardenois), 195 n. 36 Craon (Mayenne, ar Chateau-Gontier), lord Combellis. See Gueri de Cumbelas; Hugues of, 231-32 de Cumbelas; Raymond de Cumbelas Crécy(-en-Brie) (Seine-et-Marne, ar.

commissioners, royal: Meaux), castellany of, 199 n. 55, 205-6

—on coinage, 83-84 n. 87

—for finance, 29-31, 71, 84-95, 159-60, Crépy(-en-Laonnois) (Aisne, ar. and c. 161-63, 167-68, 175, 205, 220, 273-75. Laon), 190 n. 9, 203-4 See also Hugues de La Celle; aids, royal crisis, financial (1310), 33, 163-66; (1314-

commissioners for collecting 15), 205 n. 84 —on forests, 81-82 Croix(-Saint-Ouen), La (Oise, ar. and c.

common law, 54, 55 Compiégne), 210 n. 100

commune pacis (tax for peace), 58-59, 76 crusades, 28, 97, 166-67 n. 80, 213, 214 n.

nn. 19-20 113; Charles of Valois and, 166-67 n. 80.

Compiegne (Oise), 210 n, 100 See also aid, crusading; aids, for crusading; compromise, 30, 54, 63, 68, 72-74, 90 n. Philip IV, and crusade; Philip V, and

88, 108, 118 n. 49, 125, 127, 129-30 n. crusade | 89, 130, 141, 150, 151, 153, 154-55, currency, value of, x 157-59, 172-73, 177, 181, 185, 219-21, custom: bad, 75, 223; general, of country,

224, 226, 266, 267, 271-73. See also 35, 49, 50 n. 57, 55, 58, 64-65, 67, 214, procurations, forms of and terms in 217, 219, 223-24; significance and

37 custom of

Comtat Venaissin, 31 | importance of, 3-4, 185, 224-25, 227-

Condé (Aisne, ar. Chateau-Thierry), 195 n. 28. See also aids, and custom; Normandy,

Condilhac (Charente, ar. Confolens, c. customs duties, administration of, 71-72, 84 Chabanais, cne. Excideuil), 268 n. 22. See also Conzillacum

confederations, 99-107, 109 n. 32, 225,

232-33, 275-77; of 1309, 112-39, 220. Dammartin(-en-Goéle) (Seine-et-Marne, ar.

See also movement of 1314-15 Meaux), castellany of, 199 n. 55, 201 n. Confolens (Confulancum) (Charente), 268 65 Conques (Aveyron, ar. Rodez), 74 n. 13; Dauphiné, aids in, 47 abbey and abbot of (monasterium Delmas, Claire, 234 n. 1 Conchense), 60, 228. See also Nanthensis Delpech, royal procurator, 234

villa Denis de Sens, 92 n. 95

conquest, rights based on, 64-65, 68, 78, De regimine principum. See Giles of Rome

219 Digne (Alpes-de-Haute-Provence), 47 n. 47

constable: of Auvergne, 49; of France, 232 dispensation, papal, for marriage, 13 n. 3 Constance, daughter of Frederick III of Dixmont (Yonne, ar. Sens-sur-Yonne, c. Sicily, fiancée of Robert, son of Philip IV Villeneuve-sur-Yonne), 198 n. 48 and Jeanne of Champagne and Navarre, Doat, Jean, 227, 234, 275

24 Dollot (Yonne, ar. Sens-sur-Yonne, c.

Consulancum (for Confulancum [?]). See Cheroy), 198 n. 48

Confolens domain, royal, and aids, 214-17

Conzac (Charente, ar. Cognac, c. Baignes- dominus, as title, 113 n. 41 Sainte-Radegonde), 268 n. 22. See also Domme (Dordogne, ar. Sarlat), 32

Conzillacum dos, 14 n. 6, 15 n. 9, 25 n. 51, 47 n. 47,

Conzillacum, 268 n. 22. See also Cognac (?); 240, 241, 242, 257, 259, 261. See also

Conzac (?); Condilhac (?) dotalicium; dowry

316 INDEX dotalictum, 13, 14 n. 6, 15 n. 9, 20-21, 25 Eudes IV, duke of Burgundy and count of

n. 51. See also dowry Artois, husband of Jeanne, daughter of

dower, 13-16, 17-18, 21-25, 207; of Philip V, 207-8, 212, 218 n. 119; son of

Isabelle, 16-18, 25 (Philippe-Monsieur), 218 n. 119

dowry, 2, 12, 13, 15-16, 17-25, 47 n. 45, Exchequer, English, 13 n. 4 180, 207-8, 212 n. 107, 218 n. 116 Exchequer, Norman, 79 n. 36, 154-55,

Dun-le-Roi (Dunum) (Dun-sur-Auron, 236-37, 271-72

Cher, ar. Saint-Amand-Montrond), 55 excusatio, definition of, 118 n. 49

Dupuy, Pierre, 143, 145-46 exemption. See aids, exemption from export, regulation of, 83 ecclesiastics, liability of, for aid, 159, 171-

72, 180-81, 200-201, 221 Faremoutiers (Seine-et-Marne, ar. Melun, c.

Edouard, count of Savoy. See Blanche, Coulommiers), abbey of, 193, 199 n. 56 daughter of Robert II, duke of Burgundy, _—_ Favier, Lucie, 264

and Agnes (daughter of Louis IX and Fawtier, Robert, 59 n. 102, 83 n. 55, 92 n.

Marguerite of Provence), wife of 94,132 n. 95

Edward I, king of England, 12-15, 21 n. Ferriéres(-en-Brie) (Seine-et-Marne, ar.

35, 25, 44-45. See also under aid Meaux, c. Lagny-sur-Marne), 205 n. 86 Edward I, king of England, 2, 12-21, 25, fet, definition of, 65 n. 122

182, 188-89 feudal law, 7

Edward III, king of England, 45 fiefs: acquisition of, fines for, 30, 71 n. 1,

Effermier de Beaulieu, 130 86 n. 71, 88, 91, 93-94, 116, 121, 134, Eleanor of Provence, daughter of Raymond 137, 139, 140, 150, 153, 159, 161-63,

Bérenger V, count of Provence, and 168-69, 173, 175-76, 182 n. 141, 220, Beatrice of Savoy, and wife of Henry III, 263-64, 269, 273-75; and aids, 7, 94,

king of England, 21 n. 35 154, 155, 165-66, 196 n. 41, 230-32,

Empeau (Corréze, near Tulle), 132 n. 95. 272-73; of minors, 235-36; ordonnance

See also Aemtum on alienation of, 162 n. 54; references to,

Empire, 29, 41, 42-43, 47, 81 n. 46 in procurations and decrees of 1309, 245, Emptum, 132 n. 95. See also Aemtum 273, 269; renting of, 112, 161. See also England, 1, 26, 44-45, 54, 64-65, 82 n. 51, vassals 109 n. 33, 180, 218. See also aids, levy of, — Figeac (Lot), 100, 102 n. 20, 105, 107 n.

in; Edward I, Edward IH, Edward III, 27, 109, 110, 113, 126-28, 134-35, 152,

Henry III, John, kings of 215, 233, 253, 267, 269, 276; abbot of

Enguerran de Marigny, 148, 155 n. 27, 166, (Bérenger d’Aigues-Vives), 98, 126, 132,

196, 202 135, 153, 270; (Géraud IV), 139 n. 116;

enquéteurs(-réformateurs), 29-31, 43 n. 31, procuration of (1309), 90 n. 88, 138, 58 n. 98, 72, 81-82 n. 49, 85 n. 64, 86, 263-64, 267, 269; seven consuls and

87-92, 175-76, 182, 220. See also eleven proctors of, listed in, 263. See also commissioners, royal, for finance Bérenger d’Aigues-Vives; Philippe

Epinay-sur-Orge (Seine-et-Oise, ar. d’Eudes

Corbeil-Essonnes, c. Longjumeau), parish _ finances: reform of, by Charles IV and

of, 202 n. 70 Philip VI, 205-6; royal commissioners on

Erard de Breuil, 202 n. 71 (1309-10), 90-91, 93 n. 98, 273-75; state Erart d’Alemant, bailli of Meaux, 191 n. 13 of (1308), 2, 26-33, 80-82; (1310), 33,

Esie, 268. See also Aizie 164-69

espouse, definition of, 16 n. 16 fines, 87; imposed by the Parlement, 278Etienne de Borret, subdean of Poitiers, 82 79; imposed on towns and ecclesiastics,

n. 51, 91 n. 92, 192 nn. 18-19 32, 112, 116-17, 130 n. 90; and

Etienne Delgua (De/ga/), proctor of monetary ordonnances, 83. See also under confederation led by Cahors, 98 n. 3, fiefs; Parlement of Paris 101-2, 117, 119, 120, 128, 135, 144, Firestone Library, Princeton University, 27

153, 232-33, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, n. 61

266 n. 3, 267, 269 Fismes (Marne, ar. Reims), 195

Etienne Motel, 92 n. 95, 168 n. 87 Flagy (Seine-et-Marne, ar. Melun, c.

Etsi de statu, 40 Lorrez-le-Bocage), 198 nn. 48, 50

INDEX 317 Flanders, 1, 26, 29, 81 n. 46, 157, 164, 167, | Geste des Chiprois, 19 n. 30 169, 187, 189-91, 207, 208, 213 n. 111. gifts, in lieu of subsidies, 5, 43 n. 31, 44 n.

See also Athis, treaty of; Mons-en-Pévele; 34, 48-49, 51-52, 54, 56-57, 60-61, 73,

Robert III de Béthune, count of 75, 197-98, 202, 204, 210 n. 100, 213,

Flaugnac (Flaounhacum) (Lot, ar. Cahors, c. 216, 219, 223

Castelnau-Montratier), 111, 276 Giles of Rome, 21-22, 28, 39-40

Fleurey(-sur-Ouche) (Cote-d’Or, ar. Dyon, Gilles de Maubuisson, baz/li of Macon, 165

c. Diyjon-Ouest), 46 n. 41, 183-84 Gilles de Sergines, 192 n. 18

86 n. 71 of Macon, 165

Foix (Ariége), 32, 234; count of (Gaston X), | Girard de Chateauneuf, guardian of bazlliage

| Fons (Fontes) (Lot, ar. Figeac, c. Figeac- Girard Tronquiére, 178-79 Ouest), 110, 116 n. 43, 127-28, 233, Giraut Gayte, 208, 210 n. 99 260-61, 267, 270, 276; procuration of Gisors (Eure, ar. Les Andelys), bazlliage of,

(1309), 137 n. 108, 141, 144, 145 n. 10, 58, 91 n. 90, 178

259-60; three consuls of, listed in, 259. Godefroy, Théodore, 143, 145 nn. 12 and See also Arnaud Navar; Renaud Gramavi 14, 146 Fontfroide (Aude, ar. Narbonne, c. Bazes), Gonesse (Seine-et-Oise, ar. Pontoise),

abbey of, 172 n. 106 castellany of, 199 n. 55, 200 n. 57, 205-6 Fontes. See Fons n. 87 Forcalquier (Alpes-de-Haute-Provence), 47 Gourdon (Lot), 100, 101, 105, 107 n. 27,

n. 47 111, 133-34, 135, 145, 267, 279, 276;

forests: royal, in Midi, 81; sale of rights to, lords of (Bertrand and Fortanier), 134 n. 82; royal enquéteur for, in Normandy, 81 101; procuration of (1309), 137 n. 109, n. 49; royal master of, in Normandy, 210 255. See also Arnaud de Verneuil

n. 100. See a/so Oudart de Creux Gouvieux (Oise, ar. Senlis, c. Creil), 171 Forez, 46. See also Renaud, count of grace, letters of, 82, 108, 117, 118, 125,

Fortanier de Gourdon, 134 n. 101 137 n. 109, 140-41, 148, 150, 161, 233,

fouage, 80, 237 235, 240, 241, 243, 244, 257, 259, 260,

164 n. 67 of

Frémin de Coquerel, dai/li of Vermandois, 261, 263, 267, 276. See also justice, letters Gramat (Lot, ar. Gourdon), 110, 232-33, 276

G. Jolias, of Martel, 77 n. 23 Gregory, Saint, feast of, 66 n. 128 G. Lacosta. of Martel. 160 Gualhard de Castronovo, prior of SaintGaillac (Tarn, ar. Albi), 32 Privat, 113 n. 38, 237-38. See also SaintGaleran de Vaux, bai/li of Amiens, 204 n. Privat

82, 278 Gualhard Fabri (Gatllardus/Gathardus/

Gascony, 17, 20 n. 33, 44 n. 34, 157. See Guathardus), consul of and proctor of

also Guyenne, duchy of confederation led by Montauban, 122,

Gatinais, 58 125, 246-52, 256, 262, 267, 269

Gautier de Alterchiaco, 229-32 Gueri de Cumbelas (Combellis), of Najac, 74

Gautier d’Arzilliéres, 91 n. 14, 75-76

Geffroy Coquatrix, 72 n. 2, 91 Guerout, Jean, 143 n. 1, 144 n. 9 Geffroy de Fleury, royal argentier, 208 n. Gui Florent, 203 n. 77

94 Gui de Pannac (Paonnaco), proctor of town

Geffroy of Paris, rhymed chronicle of Beaulieu, 133 n. 98, 268, 270 attributed to, 185, 189 n. 2 Gui de Pree, guardian of seal of Charles of Geffroy de Raymond, proctor of bishop, Valois at Le Mans, 229, 231-32 dean, and chapter of Angouléme, 268 Gui de Villers, 92 n. 95, 164 n. 68

Geoffrey le Baker, 19 n. 30 Guibert Cubrieire, notary of Najac, 235 Gérard Baleine, 30 n. 76 Guilhem Bonmassip, judge of Pamiers, 60

Gérard de Courtonne, bishop of Soissons, n. 106

85-86, 91 Guillaume d’Adémar, dominus and knight of Gérard de Tyais, 91 n. 90 Anglars, 116, 238 Géraud d’Anglars, 113-16, 137 n. 109, 138, | Guillaume d’Arrenard, 192 nn. 18-19 140, 238-40 Guillaume de Bercellis, of Carcassonne, 73Géraud de Sabanac, 90, 94, 99, 245, 266-68 74

318 INDEX Guillaume de Bois, bailli of Caux, 91 n. 90 homage, of Edward II for Guyenne and

Guillaume des Buissons, 81 n. 49, 88-89, Ponthieu, 17

162-63 Hospitaliers, 213 n. 111

Guillaume de Chanac, 81-82, 85-86, 87, hospites, 174

162-63 Hostiensis, 38-39, 41

Guillaume de Chatenay, 81 n. 46 Hugues V, duke of Burgundy, 46, 183-84. Guillaume Courteheuse, 91 nn. 90-91 See also under aid Guillaume Durand, bishop of Mende, 41 Hugues d’Adémar, donzel of Anglars, 116,

Guillaume Durand, prior of Monsempron, 239

113 n. 38, 237-38. See also Monsempron — Hugues de Cazals, notary for Anglars, 113,

Guillaume d’Espouville, 91 n. 90 238-40

Guillaume de Gilly, canon of Autun and Hugues de La Celle, 81-82, 85-86, 87-88,

Langres, 165 93-95, 99, 156, 159-60, 163 n. 61, 167-

Guillaume-Jourdain, viscount of Saint- 68, 170-71, 173, 178-79, 181, 182, 268

Antonin, 75 n. 15 Hugues de Cumbelas (Combellis), of Najac,

Guillaume de Marcilly, 72 n. 2, 91, 198-99 234

n. 53, 199 n. 55, 205 n. 86 Hugues Fabrefort, 101, 102, 109, 116, 117,

Guillaume de Merlana, 121, 244-45 118 n. 51, 120, 127, 128, 135, 233, 239, Guillaume de Nangis, continuator of 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 253, 259

chronicle of, 16 n. 15 Hugues Operariz, notary of seneschalsy of

Guillaume de Nogaret, 81 n. 46, 85 n. 64, Périgord and Quercy, proctor of Anglars, 126 n. 74, 148-49, 157, 172, 220; papers 116, 127-28, 239, 259-61

of, 143-44, 269 nn. 1-2, 270 n. 5 Hugues de Pairaud, 32 n. 81 Guillaume de Plaisians, 14 n. 6, 86-87; Humbert Jaucelin, proctor of Saint-Cirgues,

papers of, 143-44 237-38 Guillaume de Viry, 162 n. 57, 163, 165 Guillaume Ysnard. rector of church of inquests: into accounts of royal officials, 80 Guillaume of Rennes, 37-38, 39 Guillaume de Saint-Marcel, 81

Notre-Dame of Aurillac, 113 n. 38, 237 n. 43; held by Alfonse of Poitiers, 48, 49, Guyenne, duchy and duke of, 15, 17, 20 n. 50 nn. 58-59, 51, 52; held by Charles of 33, 93-94, 156, 182. See also Gascony Valois, 63-64, 65, 66-67 n. 133; at

Noyon (1320), 175; of the Parlement of Paris, 20 n. 33, 102 n. 20; Philip IV and,

Hay(-les-Roses) L’ (Layum) (Seine, ar. 65-66, 68, 229-32; regarding tax for

Sceaux, c. Villejuif), 278 _ peace, 39 n. 99

Helie de Girennia, proctor of bishop, dean, —-Mterest rates, 169-70

and chapter of Angouléme, 268 Insula madida. See Villemade

Henri II, duke of Brabant, 45 Ireland, 17

Henri III, duke of Brabant, 45. See also Isabelle, daughter of Charles VI and Isabeau

Marie of Brabant of Bavaria, wife of Richard II, king of

Henri II, count of Rodez, 25 n. 51, 58, England, 12 n. 2, 218

227-29 Isabelle, daughter of Charles, count of

Henri, lord of Sully, 208 n. 94, 212 n. 107 Valois, and Marguerite of Sicily, and wife

Henri de Baiselles, 194 n. 33 of Jean III, duke of Brittany, 62, 230 Henri of Brabant, duke of Limbourg. See Isabelle, daughter of Louis IX and

Jeanne, daughter of John II, wife of Marguerite of Provence, 55 Henricus, cardinalis Hostiensis. See Isabelle, daughter of Philip IV and Jeanne

Hostiensis of Champagne and Navarre, 2, 11-21,

Henry I, king of England, 44 n. 32 188, 189 n. 2, 235, 236, 240, 241, 242, Henry II, king of England, 44 n. 34 244, 245, 253, 255, 257, 259, 261, 263,

Hesdin, 24-25 266-67, 269, 270, 275 | Holland, count of (Florence, Floris), and his _Isarn, viscount of Saint-Antonin, 75 n. 15 son John, married in 1297 to Elizabeth, Isle-Jourdain, L’ (Vienne, ar.

daughter of Edward I), 21 n. 35 , Montmorillon). See Bernard, count of Holy Land, aids for trips to, 47. See also Isle(-en-Venaissin, -sur-la-Sorgue), L’

aids, levy of, for journeys and for (Vaucluse, ar. Avignon), 50 n. 59

pilgrimage; crusades Issoudun (Indre), 55

INDEX 319 Italian merchants of Paris, and aid, 174 Jeanne, daughter of Philip V and Jeanne of

Italy, customary law of, 228 Burgundy, countess of Artois and wife of Ivry(-sur-Seine) (Yurzacum) (Seine, ar. Eudes IV, duke of Burgundy, 207-8

Sceaux), 278 Jeanne, queen of France and Navarre,

countess of Burgundy, daughter of Othon IV, count of Burgundy, and Mahaut,

Jacobo da Certaldo, 80 n. 44 countess of Artois, and wife of Philip V, Jacques Albi of Tournus, guardian of seals 18 n. 27, 22-25, 189 n. 2

at Macon, 164-65 n. 69, 165 Jeanne, queen of France and Navarre, Jacques de Jean, consul of Cahors, 117, countess of Champagne and Brie, wife of

120, 240, 241, 242, 243, 259 Philip IV, 11, 13 n. 4, 22 n. 38, 27, 91,

Jacques de Révigny, 59 n. 104 182 n. 143, 201 n. 66

Jarnac (Charente, ar. Cognac), 268 Jeanne d’Evreux, daughter of Louis, count

Jayme II, king of Aragon, 14 n. 7 of Evreux, and Marguerite of Artois, and Jean II, count of Alengon, 12 n. 2 wife of Charles IV, 181 n. 139 Jean I, duke of Brabant, 45 n. 39 Jeanne de Machault, lady of Viarmes, 201

Jean II, duke of Brabant, 45 n. 66. See also Viarmes

Jean II, duke of Brittany, 62-63 Jerusalem, 28, 45 n. 38 Jean, lord of Joinville, 54 n. 75 Jews, 1, 31, 45 n. 39, 80 n. 44, 85 n. 65,

Jean de Anzeris, 171 n. 99 94,165 n. 69, 181, 274

Jean d’Arreblay, 90, 161 n. 49, 245 Johan Marcafava (Marcha fava), of Najac, Jean d’Auxois, 30, 32 n. 82, 71, 81 n. 47 76 n. 18, 234

Jean de Bardilly, 208 n. 96 Johan Planhas, of Martel, 160

175 John XXII, 21

Jean de Blainville, seneschal of Toulouse, Johannes de Chenoto, 8\ n. 47

Jean Blanc (Johannes Blanchus), 41-42 John, king of England, 68

Jean de Blanot, 59, 227 John II, king of France, duke of Normandy, Jean le Breton, 30 n. 76 163 n. 59, 181 n. 139, 190, 214-17. See

Jean de Busancy, 194 n. 33 also un der aid Jean Cayn, 192 n. 19 John of Trokelowe, 16 n. 15

: Sy. Ta

, jean le Charron, 199 nn. 53 and 55, 205 n. Jonzac (Charente-Maritime). See /ounzacum

Jean Chaurel, 167 jones 268. See also Jonzac (?); Juignac Jean Dessus, 199 nn. 53-55, 203 nn. 75-77 Jourdain de V'Isle, 30 n. 76, 52 n. 66

Jean de Devione, 91 n. 90 Juignac (Charente, ar. Angouléme, c.

Jean le Duc, 195 n. 34 Montmoreau). See Jountacum

Jean Fabri Johannes Faber), 99 n. 7 jus scriptum, 227-28. See also Roman law;

Jean de Grez, 201 law written Jean de Lalbugia (Lalbuga), of Cahors, 90 n. ‘ustice letters of, 108, 117, 118, 125, 137

85, 101, 102 n. 19, 116, 117, 118, 120, 719 141 148, 150, 161-63, 221, 233

233, 239, 243, 244 235, 241, 243, 244, 257, 259, 260, 261, Jean Payen (Pagani), 208 n. 96 263, 267, 276. See also grace, letters of Jean Ploiebaut (Ploiebauch), 166 n. 80, 277 , , " Brace, Jean de Rageuse, 202 n. 71, 205-6 nn. 8687

Jean Robert, 90, 161, 245 knighting: ceremonies of, 40, 42; of Louis Jean Robert, Junior (Johannes Rotberti of Navarre (1313), 187, 188-89, 191;

junior), 90 n. 88, 263 expenses of Philip IV’s, 57 n. 93. See also

Jean de Saint-Sauveur » 205 n. 86 aid, knighting; aids, levy of, for knighting “Jean” de Saint-Vérain, 81 n. 49 of lord and for knighting of lord’s son

Jean de Varennes, 92 n. 95 Knights Hospitalers. See Hospitalers Jeanne, daughter of John II and Jeanne, Knights Templars. See Templars countess of Auvergne and Boulogne, and Kortenberg, charter of, 45

wife of Henri of Brabant, duke of

Limbourg, 214 n. 113 Jeanne, daughter of Louis X and Marguerite of Burgundy, and wife of Philip, count of | Labastide-Murat (Lot, ar. Gourdon), 111 n.

Evreux, 207 n. 93 1, 115. See also Bastita domini Fortaneru

320 INDEX Labastide-du-Vert (Lot, ar. Cahors, c. Limousin, 87, 92 n. 95, 156, 160 n. 47, 179 Catus), 111 n. 1, 115. See also Bastita Linac (Lanhacum) (Lot, ar. Figeac, c.

domini Fortanerii Figeac-Est), 98 n. 3, 111, 113 n. 37, 135,

Laboulbéne (Tarn, ar. and c. Castres), 177 152, 267. See also Philippe d’Eudes

n. 122 Lixy (Yonne, ar. Sens-sur-Yonne, c. Pont-

Lacabane, Léon, 275 sur-Yonne), 198 n. 48

Lacassagne. See Belachessargne; La Cassagne _— Lizerand, Georges, 19 n. 30

Lacay, lord of, 231-32. See also Lassay Lombards: in Champagne, 193; of Paris,

Lafrangaise (Tarn-et-Garonne, ar. 174

Montauban), 90 n. 85, 110, 122-23, 139, Lombardy, 228 268, 269, 276; procuration of (1309), 137 Longjumeau (Seine-et-Oise, ar. Corbeiln. 108, 246-47; six consuls of, listed in, Essonnes), parish of, 202 nn. 70-71 246. See also Arnaud de Coloniis; Gualhard Longnon, Auguste, 194 n. 28, 199 n. 55

Fabri Lords Ordainers, 20 n. 33

Lalbenque (A/benca) (Lot, ar. Cahors), 111, Lormaye (Eure-et-Loir, ar. Dreux, c.

119, 153 n. 19, 276; procuration of Nogent-le-Roi), 55 n. 85 (1309), 98 n. 3, 137 n. 109, 141 n. 124, Lorraine, duke of (Thibaut II), 27 144, 242-43. See also Etienne Delgua Lorrez(-le-Bocage) (Seine-et-Marne, ar.

Lalou, Elisabeth, 59 n. 102, 165 n. 69 Melun), 198 n. 48

Landévennec (Finistére, ar. Chateaulin, c. Lorris(-en-Gatinais) (Loiret, ar. Montargis),

Crozon), 90 n. 84. See also Yves de privileges of, 57, 198 n. 48 Laneuvilleroy (Oise, ar. Clermont, c. Saint- Lot River, navigation of, 102 n. 19

Just-en-Chaussée), 190 n. 9, 203-4 Loudéac (Cétes-du-Nord, ar. Saint-Brieuc), Languedoc, charters to (1315-16), 105, 109, 90 n. 84

162 n. 54 Louis, lord of Beaujeu and Montferrand, Lanhacum. See Linac 210 n. 101 Laon (Aisne), 143-45, 203-4 Louis, count of Evreux, son of Philip III

Lapenche (Tarn-et-Garonne, ar. Montauban, and Marie of Brabant, half brother of c. Montpezat-de-Quercy), 103, 110, 232- Philip IV, 15, 201

33 Louis I the Pious, king of France and

Lassay (Mayenne, ar. Mayenne). See Lacay emperor, 200

Lateran Council, Third, 37 n. 3 Louis VI, king of France, 53 n. 74

Lautrec (Tarn, ar. Castres), 176-77; Louis VII, king of France, 21-22 n. 37,

viscount of, 54 n. 79 200

Lauzerte (Tarn-et-Garonne, ar. Louis IX, king of France: aids and taxes Castelsarrasin), 100 n. 12, 105, 109 n. 32, levied by, 53-56, 65 n. 122, 69, 164 n.

110, 121, 124-26, 142, 233, 268, 269, 67, 197-98 n. 48, 219, 223-24; and 275-76; procuration of (1309), 137 n. Charles of Anjou, 62 n. 111; enquéteurs109, 140, 142, 257-58; royal seal at, 102 réformateurs of, 43 n. 31; and general nn. 18-19. See also Pierre de Siorac custom of the realm, 55, 61, 69, 187,

Laval (Mayenne), lord of, 231-32 188, 217, 223-24; Philip the Fair and, law: common, 59, 228; customary, 59, 227- 184-85, 223-24. See also under aid 28; written, authority of, 41, 59-60, 223, Louis X, king of France and Navarre, count 227-28, 277-78; Chamber of Requests of Champagne, 19 n. 30, 187, 205 n. 84, of, 162. See also jus scriptum; Roman law 207

Layum, 278. See also L’Hay —and Champagne, 25 n. 49, 91, 182, 191leagues of 1314-15. See movement of 1314- 92, 193 n. 23, 195-96

15 —charters of, to Languedoc (1315-16), 105,

Lenoir, Dom, 78 n. 33, 166 n. 77 109, 162 n. 54; to Normans (1315), 79Lézignan(-Corbiéres) (Aude, ar. Narbonne), 80 n. 40

143-45 —knighting of (1313), 188-89, 190, 191, Libri feudorum, 42-43, 228 196 Lienars le Sec, guardian of bailliage of —marriage of, 23-24

Amiens, 204 n. 82, 278-79 —and Navarre, 27-28

life rents, 169 Louvre, 28, 66 n. 128, 198 n. 53, 199 n. Limoges (Haute-Vienne): diocese of, 103, 54, 204 n. 82, 208 n. 94, 279

131, 136, 265; viscounty of, 156. See also Luxeuil(-les-Bains) (Haute-Saéne, ar. Lure),

Saint-Martial abbey of, 193, 194 n. 28

INDEX 321 Luzarches (Seine-et-Oise, ar. Pontoise), 201 | Marguerite, daughter of Philip V and

Luzech (Luzegtum) (Lot, ar. Cahors), 110, Jeanne of Burgundy, 208 n. 94 117-19, 139 n. 114, 267, 269, 276; Marguerite, daughter of Robert II, duke of procuration of (1309), 102 n. 18, 137 n. Burgundy, and Agnes (daughter of Louis 109, 140, 141 n. 124, 243. See also IX and Marguerite of Provence), and wife

Etienne Delgua of Louis X, 24, 165 n. 70, 182, 193 n.

Lyon (Rhone), 27, 178 n. 128; assembly of 23, 212 n. 107

(Lyon-Vienne, 1312), 105, 109 Marguerite of Provence, daughter of

Lyonnais, 165 Raymond Bérenger V, count of Provence, and Beatrice of Savoy, and wife of Louis IX, 21 n. 35, 62 n. 108

Macon (Saéne-et-Loire), bazlliage of, 84, 92 Marie, daughter of Philip VI and Jeanne of

n. 95, 163, 164-65, 178 n. 128. See also Burgundy, 214 Gilles de Maubuisson; Girard de Marie, princess of Antioch, claimant to

Chateauneuf Jerusalem, 62 n. 108

Maene. See Mayenne Marie, countess of Provence, 47 n. 47

Magna Carta, 44 Marie of Brabant, daughter of Henri III,

Mahaut, countess of Artois, daughter of duke of Brabant, and Alix of Burgundy, Robert II, count of Artois, and Amicie de and second wife of Philip II, 178, 181Courtenay, lady of Conches, and wife of 82 Othon IV, count of Burgundy, 22, 24-25, marriage: advantages gained from, 13, 18-

183, 207 n. 93. See also Blanche and 19, 40; cost of, 2, 12, 21, 25, 40, 41, Jeanne, daughters of; Othon IV, count of 180, 208, 218 n. 116, 219; of Edward I

Burgundy and Marguerite, 13, 18; of Edward II and

Maillard, Francois, 59 n. 102, 89 n. 79, 93 Isabelle, 13-14 n. 99, 103 n. 20, 139 n. 118, 165 n. 69 Martel (Lot, ar. Gourdon), 77 n. 23, 100Maine, bailli of, 63-64, 231. See also aids, 101, 102 n. 19, 105, 107 n. 27, 109 n.

levy of, in Anjou and Maine 32, 111, 116, 128-29, 130-31, 132, 133-

maimmorte, 171-72 34, 135, 138-39, 140-41, 152, 160, 190

Mainsacum. See Meyssac ; n. 7, 209, 268, 270, 276; procuration of Mairy(-sur-Marne) (Marne, Chalons-sur- (1309), 137 n. 109, 141 n. 124, 145 n. Marne, c. Ecury-sur-Coole), 195 n. 37 10, 261-62; six proctors of, listed in, mandatum speciale, 233, 238, 239, 240-41, 261. See also Adémar de Girbert; Ai de 242, 244, 245, 253, 254, 258, 262, 264, Cahors; G. Jolias; G. Lacosta; Jac 265, 267, 276, 279; meaning of, 107-8, . 121. See also agency; plena (et Libera) Albi; Johan Planhas

. ;G. > G. ; Jacques

50 agency P f e f ‘ Martin des Essarts, 203 n. 76

Pens procurations, forms of anc’ terms Matefelon (Mathefelon/Matheflon; Maineet-Loire, near Seiches-sur-le-Loir [ar.

Mans, Le (Sarthe), 63, 64, 68 n. 138, 230- Angers]), lord of, 231-32

Marche, La, 87, 16 n. 30,160 n.47. See Mayenne (Maene) (Mayenne), lord of, 231— Navarra count of of France and Meaux (Seine-et-Marne), 199 nn. 54-56;

Marchegay, Paul, 66 n. 128 bailliage of, 178 n. 128, 190-91, 192 nn. Marcoussis (Seine-et-Oise, ar. Rambouillet, 18-19, 193 nn. 23-24, 194 nn. 30-32;

c. Limours), 202 n. 70 bishop of (Simon Festu), 199-200 n. 56.

Mareuil(-lés-Meaux) (Seine-et-Marne, ar. See also Erart d’Alemant; Raoul de Paray

and c. Meaux), 200 n. 56 Mende (Lozére). See Guillaume Durand, Marguerite, daughter of Charles II, king of bishop of Sicily, and Marie of Hungary, and wife of — #67575 Paschae, meaning of, 66-67 n. 133

Charles, count of Valois, 61, 62 n. 111, mesurages (masurages), 63 n. 114, 231-32

166 n. 78 Meyssac (Mainsacum) (Corréze, ar. Brive-

Marguerite, daughter of Philip III and la-Gaillarde), prior of, 129-30, 137 n. Marie of Brabant, half sister of Philip IV, 110, 264-65. See also Adémar de Girbert;

13-14, 18, 19 n. 30 Raoul de Maycha; Effermier de Beaulieu;

Marguerite, daughter of Philip IV and Raymond de Vigier Jeanne of Champagne and Navarre, 11 Mignon, Robert. See Robert Mignon

322 INDEX Millau (Aveyron), 31 n. 79, 52 n. 70, 71 n. 49; six consuls of, listed in, 248. See also 1, 74. n. 13, 89, 156, 162-63, 168, 190 n. Arnaud de Cofonius; Gualhard Fabri

7, 209, 215 Montauban (Tarn-et-Garonne), 56, 73 n.

Minervois, judicature of, 86. See a/so Pierre 10, 100-101 esp. n. 12, 105, 110, 120,

Roche 121-26, 135, 139, 140, 161, 233, 267,

mints, 83 269, 275-76; procuration of (1309) 137

Mirabel (Tarn-et-Garonne, ar. Montauban, n. 108, 256; ten consuls of, listed in, 256.

7268, g aussade), 107 n. 27, of yaa 2 vee137 aise. Arnaud de Coons Gualhard 269, 276; procuration (1309), abri, Fierre-Arnaud basteri

Fabri 268

n. 108, 247-48; six consuls of, listed in, Montausier (Mons auserius) (Charente, ar. 248. See also Arnaud de Coloniis; Gualhard Cognac, c. Baignes-Sainte-Radegonde),

Mirebeau (Vienne, ar. Poitiers), lord of Montbrison (Loire), 32

(Thibaud de Bomez), 57 n. 92 Montbron (Mons Berulphi) (Charente, ar. Moissac (Moystacum) (Tarn-et-Garonne, ar. Angouléme), 268

Castelsarrasin), 100 n. 12, 110, 233, 276 Montchauvet (Seine-et-Oise, ar. Mantes-la-

Moissy(-Cramayel) (Seine-et-Marne, ar. Jolie, c. Houdan), 55 n. 85 Melun, c. Brie-Comte-Robert), 200 n. 62 Monreug (Lor, ar Cahors) 5 are

Moliéres (Tarn-et-Garonne, ar. an n. 27, 110, 121, 232-33, 268,

Montauban), n. 85, 97 n. 1, 110, sor ate procurarion of 309) 137 139, 268, 269,90276; procuration o n. 123, 110, 141 n. 125, 142, 244-45; seven (1309), 137 nh. 108, +47. six consuls of, consuls of, listed in, 245. See also Pierre

listed in, 247. See also Arnaud de Colonits; Ma ae ac£U3— 5 ). 203-4 Gualhard Fabri ontdidier (somme), Monclar(-de-Quercy) (Tarn-et-Garonne, ar. ontegnacum. See Monregnacum,

Montauban), 111, 125 n. 72, 268, 269, Montignac 276; procuration of (1309), 137 n. 108, Monten oe n. he Mon 1 20% 270. 145 n. 10, 252-53; six consuls of, listed >) émar Fabri; Mons (?); Les Monts

in, 252. See also Arnaud de Coloniis;

Guulhord Fabre; NL OLDE Montferrand (Clermont-Ferrand, Puy-de-

Mondenard (Mons lanardus, lenandus) Dome), 77, 210 ,

(Tarn-et-Garonne, ar. Castelsarrasin, c. ere Bare ue, at ‘simon 19 usignyLauzerte), 98 n. 3, 111, 124-25, 126, . , ’ : 144, 268, 269. See also Pierre de Siorac Montignac( Charente) (Charen le Bo; . money. See coinage; currency; mints NgoUleMe, C. aint AMant-Ce~ DONC),

Monregnacum 156 n. See also (for29. Montegnacum |?]), 156 Monregnacum n. Montlhéry (Se; 0; Corbeil

29, 268. See also Montignac (?) ontlhery ( eine-et-W1Se, ar. Orbe

’ , : Essonnes, c. Arpajon), 199 n. 54, 203;

Mons (Corréze, ar. Brive-la-Gaillarde, c.

, - castellany of, 199 n. 55, 202, 205-6 nn.

Donzenac, cne. Sainte-Féréole). See 86-87

ye “us. See M , Montmoreau (Mons Maurilii, Maurelit)

ons ausertus. see Niontausier (Charente, ar. Angouléme), 268. See also

Mons Berulphi. See Montbron Alone. lord of

Mons lanardus ) lenandus . See Mondenard Montmorency (Seine-et-Oise, ar. Pontoise), Mons Maurilit, Maureti. See Montmoreau castellany of, 199 n. 55, 200 n. 57 Mons THCOSUS. See Montricoux — Montmorillon (Vienne), 191 n. 15, 196 Mons-en-Pévele (Nord, arr. Lille, c. Pont-a- Montpellier (Hérault), 102 n. 20

Marcq), 169 Montpezat(-de-Quercy) (Tarn-et-Garonne,

Monsempron (Lot-et-Garonne, ar. ar. Montauban), 98 n. 3, 110, 120, 233, Villeneuve-sur-Lot, c. Fumel), prior of 266 n. 3, 267, 276. See also Etienne

(Guillaume Durand), 113 n. 38, 237-38 Delgua Montagnes d'Auvergne, 81 n. 49, 88-89 Montreuil(-sous-Bois) (Seine, ar. Sceaux),

gu ercy

Montaigu(-de-Quercy) (Tarn-et-Garonne, 201 ar. Castelsarrasin), 100 n. 12 Montreuil(-sur-Mer) (Pas-de-Calais), 13, 16,

Montalzat (Tarn-et-Garonne, ar. 18; treaty of, 13, 16-17

Montauban, c. Montpezat-de-Quercy), Montricoux (Mons ricosus) (Tarn-et-

110, 123, 139, 232-33, 268, 269, 276; Garonne, ar. Montauban, c. procuration of (1309), 137 n. 108, 248- Négrepelisse), 110, 233, 276

INDEX 323 Monts, Les (Dordogne, ar. Périgueux, c. Nimes (Gard), 56 n. 90, 65 n. 122, 149, Hautefort, cne. Sainte-Eulalie-d’Ans). See 157

Montes Niort (Deux-Sevres), 191 n. 15, 196

Monzat-Charnay, Annie, 134 n. 101 Nogent(-l’Artaud) (Aisne, ar. ChateauMorimond (Haute-Marne, ar. Langres, c. Thierry, c. Charly), 200 n. 56 Montigny-le-Roi, cne. Fresnoy-en- Nogent(-en-Othe) (Aube, ar. Troyes, c.

Bassigny), abbey of, 193-94 Aix-en-Othe), 191 n. 13

movement of 1314-15, 1, 105, 107 n. 27, Nogent(-le-Rotrou) (Eure-et-Loir), priory

109, 185, 206 of, 166 n. 77

Moystacum. See Moissac Nogent(-sur-Seine) (Aube), 207 n. 91; Mureaux, Les (Seine-et-Oise, ar. Mantes-la- prévoté of, 193 n. 25

Jolie, c. Meulan), 202-3 nonprejudice, letters of, 6, 39 n. 15, 44 n.

Mutigny (Marne, ar. Reims, c. Ay), 195 n. 34, 50-51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 140, 156, 273

37 Nontron (Nantronium) (Dordogne), 268 Normandy. See also Exchequer; fouage;

Oudart du Creux; Rouen; wardships

_ Nayac (Aveyron, ar. Villefranche-de- —aids, levy of, by Philip IV in, 71, 78-80, Rouergue), 74, 75-76, 168-69, 190 n. 7, 154-55, 219-20, 221, 235-37, 272-73; 209, 233-34; four consuls and seventeen levy of, by Philip VI in, 190 n. 10, 214; proctors of (1308), listed, 234. See also liability for, in, 171, 172, 181, 184; Ahenri, lord of Castelmary; Bernard de protests against, in, 154-55, 214 Seirinhac; Gueri de Cumbelas; Guibert —baillis of, 236-37 Cubrieire; Hugues de Cumbelas; Johan —custom of, 237; and Alengon, 165-66 Marcafava; P. Maioral; Pons Carrieira; —ecclesiastics of, 155, 159

Sarrus —royal forests in, 81 n. 49, 155 villa 120, 121-25, 127, 128-29, 130; practices

Nant (Aveyron, ar. Millau). See Nanthensis notaries: activities of (1309), 113, 117-19,

Nanteuil(-en-Vallée) (Charente, ar. of (Figeac), 127, 134; (Millau), 128 n. 78; Angouléme, c. Ruffec), abbot of JJean I royal, 168 n. 88, 175 n. 116. See also

de Lincha |?]), 152, 268 procurations, forms of and terms in; sign Nanthensis villa, 228. See Nant (?) manual Nantronium. See Nontron Notre-Dame of Paris, 172, 200-201, 277Narbonne (Aude), 46-47, 56 n. 90, 85 n. 78; chanter of, 230 65, 93 n. 99, 157; viscount of, 86. See Notre-Dame of Reims, Hétel-Dieu of, 195

also Amauri, viscount of n. 37

Navarre, 23, 27-28. See also Jeanne, queen Noyon (Oise, ar. Compiégne), 175,

of; Louis X, king of 203-4

necessity, as justification for taxation, 3638, 41-43, 48, 49, 64, 217, 218, 223. See

also cessante causa

Négrepelisse (Nigra pellicia, Virga pellicia) Obazine. See Aubazine (Tarn-et-Garonne, ar. Montauban), 105 Oduin de Barbezieux (Brebezallo), proctor of

and 107 n. 27, 111, 123, 250-52, 268, communities of Saintonge, 98, 268 269, 275-76; procuration of (1309), 137 Oraison (Alpes-de-Haute-Provence, ar. n. 108, 250-51; six consuls of, 251. See -~—- Digne, c. Les Mées), 47 n. 47 also Arnaud de Coloniis; Gualhard Fabri Orbais(-l’Abbaye) (Marne, ar. Epernay, c.

Neuf-Marché (Seine-Maritime, ar. Dieppe, Montmort), abbey of, 195 n. 37

Cc. Gournay-en-Bray), 235-37 Ordainers, Lords, 20 n. 33

Nevers (Niévre), diocese of, 172. See also Orlanda, 257. See Bretenoux

Pierre Fauvel Orléanais, 171 n. 102, 215

Nicolas de Fréauville, 189 Orléans (Loiret), bailliage of, 92 n. 95, 171, Nicolas de Luzarches, prévot of Auvers in 178, 181, 184, 208 n. 96 the church of Chartres, 30, 32 n. 82, 71, Othon IV, count of Burgundy, son of

81 n. 47 Hugues of Chalon and Alix of Méranie,

Nicolas de La Poterie, 204 n. 82, 208 n. 96, count and countess palatine of Burgundy,

278-79 and husband of Mahaut, countess of

Nigra pellicia. See Negrepelisse Artois, 22, 24. See also Blanche and

324 INDEX Jeanne, daughters of; Mahaut, countess of peace: organizations to preserve, 100; tax

Artois imposed for, 58-59, 76 nn. 19-20, 157 n.

Oudart du Creux, master of royal forests in 33. See also commune pacts

Normandy, 210 n. 100 peers of France, rights of, 46, 183 Owen, Sir Roger, 218 n. 119 Pepin, king of France, 228

Ozil d’Autéjac, 83-84 Perche, county of, 166 nn. 77-78

Périgord: collection of aids in, 225; count of, 90 n. 85, 139; lord of, 102 n. 20; protests from and relating to (1309-10),

P. Maioral, of Najac, 76, 234 112, 152, 161-62; representative

Pamiers (Ariége), 60, 157; bishop (Bernard traditions in, 99, 136, 225. See also Saisset) and chapter of, 86 n. 71. See also Périgord and Quercy; Périgueux

Guilhem Bonmassip; Pons Bruni Périgord and Quercy, seneschalsy of, 102, pariage, 58, 194, 215-16; with bishop of 268; (1305), 30; collection of aids in, 92 Cahors, 72 n. 4, 161 n. 49; with viscount n. 95, 151-53, 160-61, 178 n. 128, 215, of Narbonne, 86; with bishop and chapter 225; designation of, 30 n. 75; financial

of Pamiers, 86 n. 71 commissioners in, 90, 93 n. 98, 94, 233,

Paris: aids paid in, 5, 71, 78, 82, 177-78, 255; notary of, 240, 245, 254, 255, 260, 179, 180, 190, 200-201, 209, 210 n. 99; 261, 263, 266; protests from (1309), 97assembly at (1308), 72; (1323), 213; 98, 135-36, 147-51, 220; (1334), 215;

bailliage of, 198 n. 52; bishop of royal forests in, 81-82; royal procurator (Guillaume Baufet), 200; chanter of (P.), of, 103, 276; seneschal of, 273-77. See 229, 230-32; documents issued at, 266- also Hugues Operari; Périgord;

68, 271-72, 272-73, 273-75, 278-79; Perigueux; Quercy knighting celebration at, 187, 188-89; Périgueux (Dordogne), 32, 82 n. 51, 100 n. palace of Philip IV in, 28, 189; prévét of, 11, 103 n. 22, 109, 112, 136, 214, 225;

84, 277-78; prévoté of, 84, 198 n. 52; diocese of, 103 treaties of (1303), 14, 15, 17, 82 n. 51; personnes de poste, 193 viscounty of, 180, 193 n. 25, 198-200, Peter the Spaniard, cardinal bishop of Santa 205, 208 nn. 95-96; water merchants of, Sabina, 14-15 174. See also Chamber of Accounts; petitions: to Charles of Valois, 231-32;

Italian merchants of; Lombards of; from Charles of Valois, 166-67 n. 80; Louvre; Notre-Dame of; Parlement of; instructions regarding, in Gourdon’s Saint-Eloi of; Saint-Germain-des-Prés; procuration (1309), 134, 137 n. 109; to Saint- Maur-des-Fossés; treasury | king, 78, 170; from Martel, 30 n. 77; Parlement of Paris, 64, 77 n. 25, 82 n. 51, from Millau, 89, 156-57; process of 93 n. 98; activities of (1278), 79 n. 36; submitting, 147-48, 150; from Rouergue, (1281), 100 n. 12; appeal to, 63, 230; and 58-60, 227-29; from Saint-Quentin, 169Cahors, 116-17; cases concerning aids 70. See also inquests; Quercy, protests heard in, 54-61, 65 n. 122, 69, 172-75, from (1309); procurations, forms of and 183, 184, 187-88, 201, 206, 210-11, 212 terms in n. 106, 214-17, 221, 222-23; fines Petrus Jacobus. See Pierre Jame imposed by, 32, 112, 278-79; and fines Peyrusse(-le-Roc) (Aveyron, ar. for alienation of fiefs, 153, 161-63; and Villefranche-de-Rouergue, c. Normans (1309-10), 157-58, 159; and Montbazens), 168 n. 88

Périgueux, 112; protests to, 170; Philip II Augustus, king of France, 53 n. references to (curia regis), in procurations, 74, 68, 204 233, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 246, Philip III, king of France, 54 n. 77, 55-57, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 253, 254, 255; 79 n. 36, 219. See also under aid regulation of commissioners by, 164. See Philip IV, the Fair, king of France:

also under inquests character of, 12, 22, 25, 28-29, 33, 57 n.

Parliament, 14-15, 44-45 92, 224, 225-26; and Boniface VIII, 116 Passavant(-en-Argonne) (Marne, ar. and c. n. 42; and Champagne, 182, 191-92; and

Sainte- Menehould), 27 Charles of Valois, 166-67 n. 80; and

Payrac (Lot, ar. Gourdon), 98 n. 3, 111, construction in Paris, 28; and crusade, 28, 133-34, 153, 270. See also Arnaud de 188-89; death of, 187; and dowry of

Verneuil Isabelle, 14-15, 18-20; and Edward I,

INDEX 325 12-15; and Edward II, 17, 19 n. 29; and Pierre de Blanot, 81 n. 46, 82 n. 51, 92 n.

Empire, 29; itinerary of, 59 n. 102, 66 n. 95 128; knighting of, 57; and Louis IX, 184- Pierre de Chalon, dean of Saint-Martin of

85, 223-24; mandates of (texts), 230-31, Tours, 58, 72 n. 2

235-37, 266-68, 271-75, 277-79; Pierre Dubois, 29

marriage of, to Jeanne of Champagne and _— Pierre d’Etampes, 144, 146, 166 n. 80

Navarre, 22 n. 38; nature of rule of, 1-2, Pierre Fauvel, canon of Nevers, 168 219-26; protest to pope in name of, 276; _—- Pierre de Feligni, 193

and protesters from Midi (1309-10), Pierre de Ferriéres, seneschal of Rouergue,

149-52; and reform, 83-84, 85, 93-94; 71

reign of, referred to in texts, 234, 238, Pierre de Grez, bishop of Auxerre, 192 n. 245, 252, 253, 254, 259, 260, 262, 266. I See also amortissement; Montreuil, treaty Pierre Gros, 75 n. 15

of; Paris, treaties of; reform, great Pierre Jame, 41 n. 21, 42-43 ordonnance of. See also under aid; aids; P ler re de Latilly, 92 n. 95

coronation; knighting; seal; testaments Pierre Martial, royal and apostolic notary, Philip V, king of France and Navarre, count 130, 264-66

of Poitiers and Burgundy: and > lerre ce Nmont, a n. 133 60 Champagne, 182 n. 141; and crusade, lerre de raris, notary at Tarcassonne,

188-89, and Eudes IV of Burgundy, 207- n. 106 212; and by, Figeac (1318),18126 127 here bagimevane on.8,77; grant to wife, n. n. 27;74,grant odes,IV36, OU, - i bishop of to, Fie Louie of Navarre, 25 n. 4. Pierre de Prunet, canon of Bourges, 211 n.

knighting of (1313), 188-89; marriage of, 104

23; marriage aid, attempt to gain Pierre Raymond, juge-mage of Carcassonne,

exemption from, made by (1311), 196; 60 n. 106 marriage aid levied by, 187, 207-13, 222. _ Pierre Roche, judge of Minervois, 32 n. 82 See also under aid Pierre de Sainte-Croix, 92 n. 95

Philip VI, king of France: knighting of Pierre de Sanoos, notary public of (1313), 68, 188-89; taxes and aids seneschalsy of Périgord and Quercy, 127,

imposed by, 77 n. 29, 79 n. 36, 180, 293-94 . . 187-88. 190 n. 10. 213-17. 222-23. See Pierre de Siorac (Szoraco, Siouraco, Surraco, also un der aid , Syoraco, Syouraco), proctor of

Pippy son of Eudes IV deo nf Ie Lauer 1 028.

Burgundv, and Jeanne, countess of Artois, 3 69. 37 6 , ’ ’ , ,

Philippe fe ‘lavean 88-89 n. 78. See also ere de Villeblevin, seneschal of Poitou, Philippe de Saint-Vérain, lord of Bléneau Pierre-Arnaud Basterii, notary of

Philippe le Convers, 81, 155 Montauban. 121-23. 246-53

Philippe (Othonis), proctor of ; . } i. c. PP Myd’Eudes P Pierrefonds (Oise, ar. Compiégne, confederation led by Figeac, 98 n. 3, 113, Attichy), 59 n. 102 116, 134-36, 152, 237, 239, 263, 267, Piers Gaveston, 17

269 Piquecos (Tarn-et-Garonne, ar. Montauban,

202 144, 268

| Philippe de Marigny, archbishop of Sens, c. Lafrancaise), 98 n. 3, 111, 122-23,

P hilippe de Mornay, 89 , plena (et libera) potestas, 233, 238, 239, 240Philippe de Saint-Vérain, lord of Bléneau, 41, 242, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 81 n. 49, 88-89, 90 n. 83, 162-63, 168 250, 251, 254, 256, 258, 260, 262, 264,

n, 88 265, 266, 267, 276, 279; meaning of,

Picacos (Picatos), 268, 269. See also Piquecos 107-8, 121. See also agency; mandatum

Pierre II, count of Alengon, 12 n. 2 speciale; procurations, forms of and terms

Pierre VI, lord of Chambly, 201 in

Pierre, lord of Fontenay, 211 n. 104 Plivot (Marne, ar. Epernay, c. Avize), 195 Pierre, viscount of Saint-Antonin, 75 n. 15 n. 34

Pierre d’Anglars, 113 n. 39 Podtomissis (Podtonussis), 98 n. 3, 111, 132 Pierre de Belmont, 93 n. 98, 159 n. 44, 163 n. 95, 267. See also Adémar Fabri; Puy-la-

n. 61 Mouche (?); Puy-de-Noix (?)

326 INDEX Podium bruni. See Puybrun forms of and terms in, 107-8, 113, 117Podium garde, \10, 233, 276. See also 22, 124-31, 136-37, 139-42, 177, 220-

Puygaillard (?); Puylagarde 21, 225; effect of local politics on, 108, Podium ruppis. See Puylaroque 220; open-ended, 47 n. 47, 113, 116; Poissy (Seine-et-Oise, ar. Versailles), preservation of, in royal archives, 143-46; castellany of, 198 n. 53, 199 n. 54, 205 n. references to fines for acquiring fiefs in,

86 136, 139, 245, 263; references to

Poitiers (Vienne), 74 n. 13, 83 n. 53; marriage aid in, 136, 139, 141-42, 233bishop of (Arnaud d’Aux), 93, 163 n. 61, 35, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 253, 197; castellany of, 191 n. 15, 196. See also 255, 257-58, 259, 261, 263, 265;

Etienne de Borret; Philip V, king of restrictions in, 68 n. 136, 107-8, 139-42,

France 150-51, 153 n. 19, 158, 220-21, 267;

Poitou: and Alfonse of Poitiers, 49-50, 53 unused, 76, 103; use of (in 1307, 1311), n. 73; collection of aids in, 92 n. 95, 156, 101-3, 107; validation of, 117, 119, 120178-79, 196; collection of war subsidy in 22, 127. See also under seal; sign manual (1313), 190 n. 7; and conquest, 64-65; property, seizure of, 80 n. 44 fines for acquisition of fiefs in, 93, 168; protests to king, 31, 75-77, 92-93, 97-142, mandates to seneschal of, 93 n. 98, 156, 147-81, 193, 196-97, 215-17, 220-21,

167, 273-75; and Philip, count of 227-29. See also procurations, addressed Poitiers, 196; royal commissioners in, 81, to king 87-88, 93, 159-60, 163, 167-68; royal Prou, Maurice, 205 n. 86 forests in, 81-82. See also Hugues de La Provence, 47 n. 47, 116 n. 42, 217 n. 115.

Celle; Pierre de Villeblevin See also Beatrice; Charles II; Raymond

Pons (Charente-Maritime, ar. Saintes), 268 Bérenger V; countess and counts of

Pons Bruni, of Pamiers, 60 n. 106 Provins (Seine-et-Marne), 182, 191 n. 13,

Pons Carrieira, of Najac, 76 n. 22 192-93

Pons Raymond, 83 punctuation, medieval practice of, 9 Ponthieu, 16-18 Puybrun (Podium bruni) (Lot, ar. Figeac, c.

Pontoise (Seine-et-Oise), 161 n. 49, 204, Bretenoux), 111, 276

277-78 Puy-de-Noix (Corréze, ar. Brive-la-

n. 100 Podtomissis

Pont-Saint-Maxence (Oise, ar. Senlis), 210 Gaillarde, c. and cne. Beynat). See

Pont(-sur-Seine) (Aube, ar. and c. Nogent- Puygaillard (Podium Garde [?]) (Tarn-et-

sur-Seine), prévoté of, 193 n. 25 Garonne, ar. Montauban, c. Monclar-depopes: aids for visits to court of, 47; Quercy). See Puylagarde endorsement of aid by, 50. See also Puylagarde (Podium Garde) (Tarn-etBenedict XI; Boniface VIII; Clement V; Garonne, ar. Montauban, c. Caylus), 110,

dispensation; John XXII; tenths 233, 276

Port-Sainte-Marie (Lot-et-Garonne, ar. Puy-la-Mouche (Corréze, ar. Brive-la-

Agen), 51 n. 62 Gaillarde, c. Beynat, cne. Lanteuil). See

potestas, plena. See plena (et libera) potestas Podiomissis . .

privilege: abolition of, concerning aids Puylaroque (Podium ruppis, Ruppis |?]) (1333-34), 187, 217, 222-23; charters of, (Tarn-et-Garonne, ar. Montauban, c. 1, 47 n. 47, 50 n. 59, 57, 75, 77, 78, 79- Montpezat-de-Quercy), 110, 233, 275-76 80 n. 40, 82-83, 89, 92 n. 93, 102 n. 19, Puy-PEvéque (Castrum podit domini Episcopi

105, 109, 162 n. 54, 174, 200-201, 204, caturcensis) (Lot, ar. Cahors), 102 n. 18, 206, 214-18, 223, 224, 225, 228, 277- 110, 117-18, 119, 139 n. 114, 232-33, 78. See also charters; Languedoc; Louis X, 266 n. 3, 267, 269; procuration of (1309),

charters of 137 n. 109, 140, 141 n. 124, 243. See also proctors: expenses of, 105, 109 n. 33, 118, Etienne Delgua 125-28, 129 n. 85, 137-38, 139, 152, 160 n. 48; responsibilities of, 150-51; revocation of, 75, 234-35, 264; sufficient Quercy: and aids of Alfonse of Poitiers, 51,

instruction of, 231 52, 56; inquest in, 59 n. 99; protests from

procurations, 232-35, 237-66, 275-77; of (1307), 30-31 esp. n. 79, 101-5, 107, 1309, 7-8, 8-9; addressed to king, 233, 108, 109, 110-11, 232-33; (1309), 97240, 241, 242, 243, 255, 257, 259, 261; 99, 110-11, 112-42, 147-51, 220, 225;

INDEX 327 (1311), 103, 105-8, 109, 110-11, 161, restitution, 61, 78, 92 n. 92, 216, 230-31 275-77; (1334), 215; representative retrodecima, 73-74, 172 n. 106 traditions in, 99-103, 105, 107-9, 112, Richard II, king of England, 12 n. 2, 218 136, 225. See also Cahors; Périgord and Richard of Middletown (Ricardus de Media :

Quercy, seneschalsy of Villa), 43 n. 29 quod omnes tangit, 231, 264 47 n. 47

quettes, definition of, 75 esp. n. 15 Riez (Alpes-de-Haute-Provence, ar. Digne), Riom (Puy-de-Déme), 49, 56 n. 90, 77, 89, 213, 215

Ranfredus (Rafredus). See Roffredo of Robert, son of Philip IV and Jeanne of

Benevento Champagne and Navarre, 24

Ranulf de Brya, proctor of archbishop of Robert II, count of Artois, 13 n. 4

Bordeaux, 268 Robert II, duke of Burgundy, 183. See also

Raoul de Maycha (Moyschr), proctor of the Blanche, daughter of prior of Sainte-Féréole, 130, 131, 153, Robert, count of Provence, 47 n. 47

265, 270 Robert III de Béthune, count of Flanders,

Raoul de Paray, chanter of Meaux, 179 n. 164

133 Robert Mignon, 8, 81-82 n. 49, 82 n. 52,

Raoul Rousselet, 91 n. 92 89-90 n. 83, 91, 92 n. 95, 168 n. 87, Raymond VI, count of Toulouse, 75 177-80, 204 n. 82

Raymond VII, count of Toulouse, 39 n. 12, Robert Sanson, 199 n. 55, 202 n. 71, 203

50, 51, 52, 56 nn. 76-77, 208 n. 96 244 Gourdon, c. Gramat), 98 n. 3, 100, 105,

Raymond de Bello podio, notary of Cahors, Rocamadour (Ruppis amatoria) (Lot, ar.

Raymond Bérenger V, count of Provence, 110, 113, 129-30, 131, 132, 138, 144,

21 n. 35 152, 233, 264, 266, 268, 270, 275-76.

Raymond de Cumbelas (Combellis), 75 n. 16, See also Adémar de Girbert

76 nn. 19-20, 234 Rochandry, La (Ruppis Chaudent) (Charente,

Raymond de Curamanno, proctor of the ar. Angouléme, c. Blanzac, cne.

town of Beaulieu, 133 n. 98, 270 Mouthiers-sur-Boéme), 268

Raymond de Lautrec, bishop of Toulouse, Rochebeaucourt(-et-Argentine), La (Ruppzs

75 n. 15 Bouiscourti) (Dordogne, ar. Nontron, c.

Raymond of Penyafort, 36-37, 38, 40 Mareuil-sur-Belle), 268

Raymond de Vigier, prior of Meyssac, 129- = Roche(-Chalais), La (Ruppis) (Dordogne, ar.

30, 264-65 Périgueux, c. Saint-Aulaye), 268

Réalmont (Tarn, ar. Albi), royal prévét of, Rochefoucauld, La (Ruppis Fulcaudt) |

176 (Charente, ar. Angouléme), 268

Réalville (Tarn-et-Garonne, ar. Montauban, Rochelle, La (Charente-Maritime), 173, |

c. Caussade), 110, 276 197, 211-12, 216

rear-ban, 79 Rochereau, Le (Vienne, ar. Poitiers, c. reform, 83-84, 85, 87, 93-94; great Vouillé), 196

ordonnance of (1303), 83 n. 53; by royal Rodez (Aveyron): bishop and chapter of, officials, 29-30, 58 n. 98, 71-72, 86, 88- 58-60, 75 n. 15, 227-29; counts of, and

89, 93 aids, 25 n. 51, 47, 52 n. 67, 58-60, 157

reforming commissioners. See enquéteurs(- n. 33, 227-29. See also Adémar, bishop

réformateurs) of; Henri IJ, count of; Pierre IV Pleine-

Reillane (Alpes-de-Haute-Provence, ar. Chassagne, bishop of

Forcalquier), 47 n. 47 Roffredo of Benevento, 40-41, 59-60, 227-

Reims (Marne), 195 n. 37. See also Notre- 28

Dame of; Saint-Remi of Rogozinski, Jan, 103 n. 20 Renaud, count of Forez, 46 Roman church, 228

61 written

Renaud Barbou, 191 n.13 Roman law, 4, 41; influence on agency law Renaud Gramavi, of Fons, 127, 144, 259- of, 107. See also jus scriptum; law,

Renaud de Roye, 179 n. 133 Rosay (Marne, ar. Vitry-le-Frangois, c. representation: traditions and types of, in Heiltz-le-Maurupt), 195 n. 37 Périgord and Quercy, 99-103, 105, 107- Rouen (Seine-Maritime), 154-55, 270-72; 9, 112; virtual, 98, 99, 127, 133, 135 baillt of, 79, 235-36; bailliage of, 91 n.

328 INDEX 90; bridge of, custom of, 154-55, 270- Saint-Léonard-de-Noblat (Haute-Vienne, ar.

72; collection of aid in, 79-80, 154-55, Limoges), 170

178 n. 128, 180, 270-72 Saint-Lumier(-en-Champagne) (Marne, ar.

Rouergue: and Alfonse of Poitiers, 51-52; and c. Vitry-le-Francois), 195 n. 37 collection of aids in, 58-60, 75-76, 89, Saint-Maixent(-l’Ecole) (Deux-Sévres, ar.

92 n. 95,178 n. 128, 215, 227-29; Niort), 191 n. 15, 196 collection of war subsidy in (1313), 190 Saint-Martial, abbey of, 112 n. 7; knighting aid, protest against, in, Saint-Martin-des-Champs (Seine-et-Oise, ar. 58-60, 227-29; royal commissioners in, Mantes-la-Jolie, c. Houdan), prior of, 163 30, 165, 168-69; seneschal of, 84, 162. n. 59. See also Bertrand de Pibrac See also aids, levy of, in; Pierre de Saint-Martin(-du-Tertre) (Seine-et-Oise, ar.

Ferriéres; Rodez Pontoise, c. Luzarches), parish of, 204

royal rights: defense of, 30, 175-76; Saint-Martin of Tours, 193 usurpation of, 168, 175-76, 235-36 Saint-Maur-des-Fossés (Paris), abbot of

Ruffec (Roufiacum) (Charente, ar. (Jean II), 200

Angouléme), 268 Saint-Médard (Dordogne, ar. Périgueux, c.

Ruppis. See Puylaroque (?), La Roche(- Excideuil), 98 n. 3, 111, 132 n. 95, 267,

Chalais) 270. See also Adémar Fabri

Ruppis amatoria. See Rocamadour Saint-Memmie of Chalons-sur-Marne Ruppis Bouiscourti. See La Rochebeaucourt (Marne), 195 n. 37 Ruppis Chaudent. See La Rochandry Saint-Ouen (Seine, ar. Saint-Denis), 161 n.

Ruppis Fulcaudi. See La Rochefoucauld 49

Saint-Pierre-le-Moutier (Niévre, ar. Nevers), house of, 143, 145

Saint-André (-de-Roquepertuis) (Gard, ar. Saine Privat(-des Pres) Dordogne, ar £

Nimes, c. Pont-Saint-Esprit), 40 n. 18 crigueux, c. Sainte-Aulaye), prior of,

Saint-Antonin(-Noble-Val) (Tarn-et- pn 237-38. See also Gualhard de

n. 1S 205 n. 84 |

varonne, “9 Montauban), 7 an oe * Saint-Quentin (Aisne), 164, 169-70, 204, Saint-Brieuc (Cétes-du-Nord). See Alain de Saint-Quentin-les-Marais (Marne, ar. and c.

Lamballe Vitry-le-Frangois), 195 n. 37

Saint-Cirgues (Lot, ar. Figeac, c. Saint-Rem1 of Reims, 195 n. 37 Latronquitre), 98 n. 3, 111, 152, 267; Saint-Thierry (Marne, ar. Reims, c.

prior and priory of, 98 n. 3, 113, 116, Bourgogne), 195 n. 37 131, 135-36, 137 n. 108, 152. See also Saint-V érain (Niévre, ar. Cosne-sur-Loire, Humbert Jaucelin; Philippe d’Eudes C Saint-Amand-en-P uisaye). See Philippe

Saint-Cirg-Lapopie (Sanctus Cyricus de de; Jean” de

Popia) (Lot, ar. Cahors, c. Saint-Géry), Saintes (Charente~Maritime), 156

110, 232-33, 276 Saintonge: and Alfonse of Poitiers, 49-50;

Saint-Denis (Seine-Saint-Denis), abbey of, appeal to Paris from (1309), 147-51, 152,

173, 199-200 225; collection of aids in, 92 n. 95, 93,

Saint-Eloi of Paris, priory of, 174 156, 159, 178-79, 195-96; organization Saint-Etienne-de-Tulmont (Bastita Sancti for resistance to aid in (1309), 98-99, Stephani, Thulmone, Tulmone) (Varn-et- 225, 268; protests from (1309), 98-99,

Garonne, ar. Montauban, c. 163, 220, 225; royal commissioners and, Négrepelisse), 110, 232-33, 276 81, 87-88, 93-94, 151-52, 163, 167-68;

Sainte-Féréole (Corréze, ar. Brive-la- royal forests in, 81-82; seneschal of, 87, Gaillarde, c. Donzac), priory of, 98, 131, 196, 268. See also Bertrand Agace;

132, 136, 144, 153, 270 Hugues de La Celle

Saint-Germain-en-Laye (Seine-et-Oise, ar. Saltu. See Le Saud

Versailles), 199 n. 54, 205 n. 86 Salvetat(-Belmontel), La (Bastita de

Saint-Germain-des-Prés (Paris), abbey of, Salvitate) (Tarn-et-Garonne, ar.

200 n. 56 Montauban, c. Monclar-de-Quercy), 111,

Saint-Jean-d’Angély (Charente-Maritime), 276

receiver of, 160 n. 46 Salviac (Lot, ar. Gourdon), 111, 276

INDEX 329 Sanchia, daughter of Raymond Bérenger V, sign manual, facing 1 (plates), 10 (plates), count of Provence, and Beatrice of Savoy, 113 n. 41, 116 n. 43, 121 nn. 58 and 60,

21 n. 35 124 n. 71, 127 n. 76, 128 n. 78, 130 n.

Sancho IV, king of Castile, 11 n. 1, 22-23 91; validation of procuration by, 234-35, Sanctus Cyricus de Popia. See Saint-Cirg- 238-240, 244-46, 251-52, 253-55, 259-

Lapopie 61, 264-266; validation of procuration by

Sarlat (Dordogne), 76-77, 100 n. 11, 103, seal and, 234-35, 244-46, 254-55, 262-

109, 110, 112, 133, 233 63. See also procurations, validation of

Sarrus, procurator and judge at Najac, 234 Sillie (Silly) (Sillé-le-Guillaume) (Sarthe, ar.

Saud, Le (Charente, ar. Angouléme, c. Le Mans), lord of, 231-32 Montmoreau, cne. Saint-Amant), 98, 268. | Simon de Billy, dailli of Amiens and of

See also Sa/tu; Armand du Saud Senlis, 208 n. 96, 209-10

Sauveterre (Tarn-et-Garonne, ar. Simon Briseteste, seneschal of Carcassonne Castelsarrasin, c. Lauzerte), 111, 124, and Béziers, 60 n. 106 142, 268, 269, 276; procuration of Simon de Saint-Benoit, canon of Bourges, (1309), 137 n. 108, 142, 145 n. 10, 254- 168 55. See also Pierre de Siorac Sisteron (Alpes-de-Haute-Provence, ar. Savigny(-sur-Orge) (Seine-et-Oise, ar. Forcalquier), 47 n. 47 Corbeil-Essonnes, c. Longjumeau), parish Sogny(-aux-Moulins) (Marne, ar. Chalons-

of, 202 n. 70 sur-Marne, c. Ecury-sur-Coole), 195 n.

Savoy. See Blanche, daughter of Robert II, 37 duke of Burgundy, wife of Edouard, Soissons (Aisne): bishop of (Gui de La

count of Charité), 229-31; dean of, 191 n. 13;

seal: of abbot of Aurillac, 238; of Amiens, immunity from levies purchased in, 212. 278-79; of bailliage of Amiens, 278-79; See also Gérard de Courtonne, bishop of of barons of Anjou and Maine, 231; of Solhacum. See Souillac Charles of Valois at Le Mans, 229, 231- Somme-Yevre (Marne, ar. Sainte32; of prévét of Paris, 277-78; of Rouen, Menehould, c. Dommartin-sur-Yévre), 271, 272; royal validation by, 173, 182 n. 194 n. 33 143, 273; secret, of Philip IV, 166-67 n. Souhiéres (Haute-Saone, ar. Lure, c.

80; validation of procurations by, 119, Mérisey), 194 n. 28 120, 123, 145, 232-33, 234-35, 237-38, Souillac (Solhacum) (Lot, ar. Gourdon), 100,

240-51, 252-53, 254-59, 261-64, 275- 111, 276 277; validation of procurations by sign Soyers (Haute-Marne, ar. Langres, c. manual and by, 234-35, 244-46, 254-55, Laferté-sur-Amance), 193, 194 n. 28

of specie, export of, 83 Seneliacum. See Senlisse Strayer, Joseph R., 27 n. 61, 32 n. 82, 60 n. 262-63. See also procurations, validation speciale mandatum. See mandatum speciale

Senlis (Oise), 61 n. 108, 171, 229, 231; 106, 155 n. 27 bailliage of 81, 92 n. 95, 178 n. 128, 208 —- Strickland, Agnes, 19 n. 30

n. 96, 209-10. See also Simon de Billy subjects of subjects. See aids, levy of, from

Senlisse (Sexeliacum) (Seine-et-Oise, subjects of subjects Rambouillet, c. Chevreuse), 278 : subsidies. See taxes

Sens(-sur-Yonne) (Yonne): bazlliage of, 84, Suippes (Marne, ar. Chalons-sur-Marne),

92 n. 95, 197-98; collection of aids in, 195 n. 37 178, 197~98 n. 48; province of, 205 n. 86; voluntary payments from, 54 n. 77,

57, 197-98 n. 48. See also Philippe de Tauriac (Lot, ar. Figeac, c. Bretenoux), 118

Marigny; Denis de n. 51. See also Tauriacum; Toirac

Septfonds (Tarn-et-Garonne, ar. Tauriacum, 118 n. 51. See also Tauriac (?); Montauban, c. Caussade), 110, 123, 233, Toirac

268, 269, 276; procuration of (1309), 137 taxation, legitimacy of, 35-43 n. 108, 250; consuls of, listed in, 250. See _ taxes: collection of outstanding, 164-65, | also Arnaud de Coloniis; Gualhard Fabri 167, 168-70; hearth, 51, 52, 67, 157 n. sergeants, royal, 168 n. 88, 203; regulation 35, 165 n. 69; municipal, (Aurillac) 89-

of, 72 90, (Carcassonne) 73-74, (Montferrand)

Siena, merchants of, 80 n. 44 77 n. 28, (Provins) 182; postponement of

330 INDEX payment of, 196, 200, 201, 204, 211, treasury, royal, 80 n. 43, 209 n. 99; appeals 236-37; retrodecima, 73-74, 172 n. 106; to, 194-95, 197-98, 200, 203, 273-75, tolls, 38, 169 n. 89; for repair of roads 279. See also Chamber of Accounts and bridges, 39 n. 11; for war, 30, 56, Trésor des chartes, inventories of, 143-46 61, 79 n. 36, 97, 156, 178-79, 181, 187, Troyes (Aube), 193 n. 24; bailliage of, 178 189-91, 205 n. 84, 206, 207, 208 n. 96, n. 128, 191 n. 13, 194 n. 30; prévoté of, 210 n. 100, 211 n. 104, 212, 213. See also 191 n. 13

cessante causa; restitution uue correzek abbey and aie mean) Taaid; lor,aids; Charles H., 89 n. 79, 132 n. 95, Ol, 129- ’ I ’ I ’ I ’ ’ 6-6 ’

48, 251 270; procuration of (1309), 98 n. 3, 137

Templars, 1, 19 n. 30, 31, 32 n. 81, 72, 81 n. 110, 138, 140, 141-42, 145, 264-66.

n. 46, 88 n. 77, 143, 213 n. 111 See also Adémar de Girbert; Raymond de

tenths, clerical, 80 n. 45, 167, 189 n. 2, 275 roe cer Saint-Ftienne-de-Tulmont

Terrasson (Dordogne, ar. Sarlat), abbot of T . Corre Brive-Ip-Gaillard

(G.), 98, 112, 131, 132, 136, 153, 270 urenne ( orreze, ar. Brive. “s aillarde, c. testaments, 39 n. 12, 189 n. 2; execution of, eyssac), viscount of, 138204-5 esp. n. 84, 205; of Philip [V, 91 n. 91, 204-5 esp. n. 84, 208 n. 94;

renunciation i aids in, 46 usury, 45 n. 39; violation of ordinances Thauriacum, 118 n. 51. See also Tauriacum against, 103, 108, 275-77 Thibaud V, count of Champagne, 191 n. 14 Thomas Aquinas, 38

‘Thomas de Marfontaines, 178 Val-Secret (Notre-Dame de) (Aisne, ar. and

Thomas Gui, Walsingham, 16 n. 15 Yean i GanevVBoe cne. Brasles), abbot Thote 80 n. 44 , of [F]),

Thoury-Férottes (Seine-et-Marne, ar. — Valencia, 62 n. 111 Melun, c. Lorrez-le-Bocage), 198 n. 48 Valois: county of, f° n. 77. See also Thulmone. See Saint-Etienne-de-Tulmont aries, Count OF © Toirac (T/hJ/auriacum) (Lot, ar. Figeac, c. vassals, pabnity Jor aes o% 1, : iv 40-41, Cajarc, cne. Saint-Pierre-Toirac), 111, 43, 54, 63, 79, 154, 155, 165-66, 191 n.

118-19, 266 n. 3, 267, 269; procuration 3 a n. 41, 207, 214, 217,221, 227,

1309), 118-19, 137 n. 109, 141 n. -

i , , ey ee also ae cum: a Vendéme (Loir-et-Cher), count of, 231-32 T quria c; Etienne Delgua , Ventelay (Marne, ar. Reims, c. Fismes), 194

rors 38, 109 n. 89 Verberie (Oise, ar. Senlis, c. Pont-Sainte-

oulouse (Haute-Garonne), 81 n. 46, 83 n. Maxence), 210 n. 100 «93, 86 1. oe 100-101; bishop of, 75 n. Vermandois: bailli of, 164, 169; baillage of, 15; counts 0 ? 59, 228. See also Raymond 194-95; collection of aids in, 82 n. 52, de Lautrec, bishop of; Raymond VI, 92 n. 95, 169, 178, 204; private war in,

T Naymond ans o ley of. 30 81. See also Frémin de Coquerel , OUTOUSE aNd AMIE SENESCAAUSY Oly V3 Verneuil(-sur-Avre) (Eure, ar. Evreux),

collection of aids in, 51, 52 n. 72, 91-92; viscounty of, 178 ,

royal commissioners in, 93 n. 98, 175-76; Verteuil(-sur-Charente) (Charente, ar. royal forests in, 81-82. See also Jean de Angouléme, c. Ruffec), 268

Blainville . Viarmes (Seine-et-Oise, ar. Pontoise, c.

Touraine, conquest and aids in, 64-65 Luzarches). See Jeanne de Machault, lady Tours (Indre-et-Loire): assembly of (1308), of 72, 73, 74, 102 nn. 19-20, 103, 109, 122 Vienne (Isére), assembly at Lyon and n. 61, 129 n. 85, 143; batlli of, 65 n. 127; (1312), 105, 109 collection of aids in, 92 n. 95, 178; dean fig, definition of, 97 n. 1, 113 n. 40 of, 92 n. 95 . See also Pierre de Chalon; Villa Bovis. See Villebois

Saint-Martin of Villa francisca, francizia. See Lafrangaise

Tours(-sur-Marne) (Marne, ar. Reims, c. Villebois(-Lavalette) (Villa Bouis) (Charente,

Ay), 195 n. 34 ar. Angouléme), 268

towns: relations of, with ecclesiastics, 131, Villefranche(-de-Rouergue) (Aveyron), 74-

132-33, 135; and royal fines, 32 75, 168 n. 88

INDEX 331 Villemade (nsula madida) (Tarn-et- Voulx (Seine-et-Marne, ar. Melun, c. Garonne, ar. Montauban, c. Montauban- Lorrez-le-Bocage), 198 n. 48 Est), 111, 276 Villemoisson(-sur-Orge) (Seine-et-Oise, ar.

40 n. 18 .

vormen Essonnes, c. Longjumeau), parish war, taxation for. See under taxes Villeneuve(-lés-Avignon) (Gard, ar. Nimes), waren s, Norman, and aids, 79-80, 235—

Villeneuve(-sur-Yonne) (Yonne, ar. Sens- weather. See climate

Westminster, 17 sur-Yonne), 54 n. 77, 57, 198 n. 48 w . LS £ 44 n. 34 Vincennes (Seine, ar. Sceaux), 80 n. 45 esumunster 1, otatute Of, ‘rr n. Virga pellicia. See Neégrepelisse

Vitry(-le-Frangois) (Marne), baz/liage of, 178

n. 128, 191, 194, 195 n. 37, 201 n. 65 Yurtacum. See Ivry-sur-Seine Vitry(-sur-Seine) (Seine, ar. Sceaux, c. Ivry- | Yves de Landévennec, 20 n. 33, 90, 93 n.

sur-Seine), 278 99, 94, 99, 161, 245, 266-68

BLANK PAGE