accustomed to war with the Bretons, were better and earlier prepared for resisting the Normans, than were the populations on the Seine and the Somme. About 860 appears on the Loire Robert the Strong, from whom the Capets are said to be descended. He was no native magnate, but one who, from parentage and habits, had considerable affinity with the invaders. It was Geoffrey and Godfrey the Norman chiefs, who introduced him to Charles, as a commander well-fitted to be charged with the defence of Anjou against the Bretons. Robert was made duke of the region between Seine and Loire, and several Norman and Breton chiefs seem to have passed at the same time into the service of Charles, and received from him grants of land and authority. None of them remained true, except Robert, who, for several years, kept the Normans in check, fortified Le Mans and Tours against them, and was created by Charles abbot of the monastery of St. Martin of Tours, which shows how indispensable it had become to confer ecclesiastical authority and wealth upon the warrior, in lieu of the saint. Charles himself undertook the defence of the frontier towards Rouen, in which he was by no means so successful. He selected a spot, where the rivers Andelle on one side, and Eure on the other, run into the Seine, and here erected fortifications to bar the river. He had a palace near, called Pistres or Pistes, where he convoked several assemblies, and ordered different plans of defence. In one of the decrees thus issued, chiefs were ordered to fortify castles, and peasants were enjoined to repair to them and defend them. But when the monarch saw the result of this feudal essay in the rise of castles and fortresses all over the country, from which the holders sallied forth to plunder and oppress the land, as well as to defy the royal authority, quite as much as the Norman invaders, he published another edict, forbidding what had been previously recommended. His legis CHAP. II. CHAP. II. lation was, indeed, opposed to the formation of small feudal chieftaincies, and his edicts for either armament or taxation were after the imperial model. He could not, however, but favour what was the great tendency of the time, the formation of princedoms, duchies, and counties, and their growth into almost independent states. The south of France became earliest divided amongst a princely aristocracy. The counts of Poictiers, of Auvergne, of Toulouse, and a score of others, soon appear as independent, and, of course, hereditary potentates; their chief possessions were not held as benefices, but as allodial property*, so that to dispossess of authority the great proprietor of the land of a district was impossible. There were, however, some counties, those especially which formed the frontier, and exposed to the attack of a foe, to govern which it was imperative to appoint the bravest and the fittest; and of these the chieftains could not thus be hereditary. Robert the Strong was one of these counts of Anjou. The county of Paris was in the same category. To find revenues and followers for such chiefs, beneficial or fiscal property being all appropriated, Charles was obliged to create them abbots of the great monasteries. Thus, to Robert was given the monastery of St. Martin of Tours, and the convent of St. Denis was bestowed in the same manner; but great holdings like these could not of course be allowed to pass from father to son. When Robert the Strong perished in battle with the Normans of the Loire, his sons, Odo and Robert, were too young to succeed; so that his abbey and his duchy were given to a relative of his, named Hugh. The lands of the lesser monasteries also became divided amongst local chiefs, who made allodial possessions of them, as the capitularies complain. This subsequently formed the great source of quarrel between the clergy and the no * This is evident from the agreement between Charles and Louis in 980, at Confluentes, or Conflans, near Paris. blesse. The rule of all holdings seemed, indeed, to be, that a martial son always succeeded to the father's county, though in default of the proper age and vigour it passed to another.* Charles the Bald's pacification of the country between Seine and Loire, had not been so complete, as his contentment of the Norman chiefs upon the Scheldt and in Belgium. Upon his death (877) these, deeming themselves free from their engagements, advanced southwards into Austrasia. The disputes which followed the death of Charles, the weakness and speedy extinction of his descendants, left the country without defence. The Normans occupied Aix, lodged their steeds in Charlemagne's cathedral, and plundered the rich cities, which had hitherto escaped them on the left bank of the Rhine. Charles the Fat, grandson of Louis the Germanic, when he succeeded to the chiefdom of the Carlovingian family, had recourse to the policy of Charles the Bald, and bestowed upon the Norman chiefs the rich countries on the Scheldt, superadding what moneyed donations he could scrape from his helpless subjects. He exhausted the wealth of the churches of east France in these endeavours, and when he found that it would not bind or satisfy the barbarians, he, in concert with Duke Henry of Austrasia, enticed the chiefs to a colloquy and slew them. This swelled the resentment of the whole people, who formed a league and summoned even their compatriots from Denmark to avenge them. In this strife, An edict of Charles the Bald, in 877, has been much quoted as establishing the hereditary right in counties and benefices. Charles was in that year about to proceed to Italy, to receive the imperial crown; his nobles made some difficulty to accompany him. To guarantee family interests during the expedition, it was enacted that, if a count VOL. I. E died during his son's absence with sence. CHAP. II. CHAP. II. in the midst of these ravages, and the resistance they provoked, the east of France became assimilated to the condition of the west. The churches were spoiled, Rheims itself not escaping; and, what was more felt than Norman plunder, the Frank chiefs took the opportunity to seize upon the deserted monasteries, and convert them into military holdings. The clergy protested, invoked the aid, and hoisted the banner of the old imperial cause, represented either by the Emperor Arnulph of Germany, or by some of the last weak infant princes of the Carlovingian stock. The first striking and effectual resistance to the ravages of the Normans was offered by Paris in 886. The brave effort was made the subject of an epic poem by Abbo, an ecclesiastic of the time, who witnessed the valour and the sufferings of the besieged; but who has so stuffed his narrative with miracles, that it is difficult to give credence to the rest. The Normans, to the number of 30,000, appeared before the city in November. They erected wooden towers, wherewith to attack those which defended the bridges of the city. The assaults of the Normans and their machines were repulsed by Archbishop Gozlyn, and by Hugh Abbot of Tours, two valiant ecclesiastics, who perished during the siege, and by Eudes, Count of Paris. Duke Henry of Austrasia came to the aid of the besieged in the ensuing summer. He proved unable to dislodge the Normans, and is said to have perished in one of their ambuscades. Charles the Fat then undertook to pay the Normans a certain sum, if they would carry their ravages higher up the river. One of the conditions of this pact was, that the Parisians should allow the boats of the Normans to pass their towers and bridges. This they nobly refused, persevering in their resistance, and compelling the Normans to withdraw on far less advantageous conditions. This defence, and its close, covered Eudes with glory, and Charles the Fat with disgrace. It apparently sent him to his grave; and no Carlovingian heir appearing to claim the succession, numbers of local chiefs assumed the dignity of king, Arnulph in Germany, Berenger in Italy, Conrad in Alpine Burgundy. Provence had already become a separate monarchy. "In these circumstances, the people of Gaul assembled in council, and with unanimity chose for their king, with the sanction of the Emperor Arnulph of Germany, Duke Eudes, son of Robert, a valiant and a clever man, surpassing all others by the beauty of his person, the height of his stature, the greatness of his wisdom and power.' "France," says Abbo, " was rejoiced, although Eudes was a Neustrian; and Burgundy, though it wanted not dukes, still did not refuse to recognise the illustrious Neustrian, who had thus the honour of placing on his head a triple crown." Eudes was far less successful and heroic as a king, than he had been as a count. In the latter capacity all had supported him; but as king, none of his neighbours adhered to him, save the Duke of Burgundy, who proved ever friendly. The Counts of Flanders and of Vermandois in the north, those of Auvergne and Poitou in the south, attacked and distracted him, so that Eudes was still unable to put an end to the incursions of the Normans. At first the Emperor Arnulph came to his aid, at least against the Normans. of the Scheldt. These, after extensive ravages, had entrenched themselves upon the Dyle, within marshes across which the German cavalry could not reach them. The Emperor Arnulph made his horsemen dismount, and at their head fought his way into the Norman entrenchment, slaughtering its occupants. The victory of the Emperor told unfavourably for Eudes. The minds and preferences of men were then hesitating between French and German. Foulques, Archbishop of Rheims, had reared young Charles the CHAP. II. |