Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:10:31.033Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ceremonial of Royal Succession in Capetian France: The Double Funeral of Louis X

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 July 2017

Elizabeth A. R. Brown
Elizabeth A. R. Brown*
Affiliation:
Brooklyn College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On 12 and 13 July 1316 the abbey of St-Denis was the scene of a curious and unusual service performed for King Louis X of France, who had died and been buried at the abbey more than a month before. As Geffroy de Paris relates, Philip, count of Poitiers, ‘made his way to St-Denis and there, grieving and downcast, he did his brother's service’; another chronicler, more explicit, says that ‘in Philip's presence were celebrated obsequies for his brother King Louis.’ Fuller information is found in the accounts kept by Geffroy de Fleury, future argentier of Philip V, for what he terms the obseque of Louis X, performed for the king's trespassement. In the account are recorded expenses for a chapelle used for the occasion, and, to make the border, cover, and ceiling of the chapel, 14 aunes of red silk worked with the royal arms and 16 double aunes, two pieces of sky-blue silk, and five black cloths; money was also spent on workmen who went to St-Denis to put the chapel in place — ‘tendre la chappelle’ — and on the nails they used to do their work. Finally, two Turkish cloths were bought ‘to put over the body,’ and the 22 1. par. paid for these cloths represented more than a third of the entire cost of the funeral, which amounted to 59 1. 6 s. par. The evidence in Fleury's account supplements the chroniclers' terse references to the ceremony, but no more than the chronicles does the account suggest the significance of the strange service: the only double funeral ever held for any king of France.

Type
Articles
Information
Traditio , Volume 34 , 1978 , pp. 227 - 271
Copyright
Copyright © 1978 New York, Fordham University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 ‘Devers Saint Denys prist sa voie / Et fist le service son frere / Molt dolent et a mate chiere; / Et les rëaus aussi i furent, / Car itele jornee surent’: La chronique métrique attribuée à Geffroy de Paris, ed. Diverrès, Armel (Publications de la Faculté des Lettres de l'Université de Strasbourg 129; Paris 1965) lines 7781–86. The continuator of Guillaume de Nangis' chronicle states, ‘die quoque sequenti celebratis obsequiis in ejus praesentia apud coenobium sancti Dionysii pro fratre suo rege Ludovico’: Chronique latine de Guillaume de Nangis de 1113 à 1300 avec les continuations de cette chronique de 1300 à 1368 , ed. Géraud, H., 2 vols. (Publications de la Société de l'histoire de France 33, 35; Paris 1843; hereafter Cont. Nangis) I 427. Geffroy de Paris (lines 7787, 7790) dates the service 14 July, saying that on the day following the ceremony, a Thursday — 15 July in 1316 — Philip entered Paris; the continuator of Nangis' chronicle (I 427) dates the ceremony 13 July, the day after Philip's arrival in Paris on 12 July. The problem of chronology is discussed below, following n. 109.Google Scholar

2 Comptes de l'argenterie des rois de France au XIV e siècle , ed. Douët-d'Arcq, Louis-Claude (Publications de la Société de l'histoire de France 64) 17–18. This section of the account is entitled ‘Pour l'obsèque le roy Loys,’ and the chapel is said to be intended ‘pour le trespassement du roy Loys.’ For Fleury's career, see Douet-d'Arcq, Louis-Claude, ed., Nouveau recueil de comptes de l'argenterie des rois de France (Publications de la Société de l'histoire de France 170) xiii and Comptes de l'argenterie ii–iii and 1–2. Fleury was not the first person to have the title of argentarius; for Jean Billouart's service to Louis X as argentarius regis during the spring of 1316, see Comptes du Trésor (1296, 1316, 1384, 1477) , ed. Fawtier, Robert (Recueil des historiens de la France, Documents financiers 2; Paris 1930) no. 854; see also n. 115 below.Google Scholar

3 The aune was approximately a meter in length, although its precise length varied from region to region: Machabey, Armand, La métrologie dans les musées de province et sa contribution a l'histoire des poids et mesures en France depuis le treizième siècle (Paris 1962) 17, 87, 127, 131. See Comptes de l'argenterie xix and also 333–38 for a useful table of prices of cloth listed in Fleury's account.Google Scholar

4 Ibid. 17–18 and cf. 4–5 for the valuation in 1. par.Google Scholar

5 Félibien admitted to confusion concerning the nature of the ceremony, which he dated 13 July 1316; Nangis' continuator, he suggested, assumed that the funeral was deferred until the return of Philip of Poitiers from Lyon: Félibien, Michel, Histoire de l'abbaye royale de Saint-Denys en France (Paris 1706) 266.Google Scholar

6 The accounts for Louis' funeral and the execution of his will, prepared by Gencien de Pacy, changer of the treasury, are found in Comptes royaux (1314–1328), ed. Maillard, François, 2 vols. (Recueil des historiens de la France, Documents financiers 4; Paris 1961) II 189–93; cf. I li L. Pacy's account was appended to the post mortem inventory of Louis' property and the record of its disposal. The inventory was prepared by his executors immediately after his death; objects were disposed of during the following years, and the account was submitted on 13 March 1321; B.N., Clairambault 832, 399; Rouen, B.M., MS 3406 (Leber 5870, Menant 9) 51v: B.S–G., MS 786, 688, 715v. Another copy of the inventory exists in a rich seventeenth-century collection of household ordinances (B.N., fr. 7855, 157–88), and extracts from the inventory were copied by DuCange (B.N., fr. 9497, 339–43).Google Scholar

7 Comptes royaux (1314–1328) nos. 14448–51, 14463, 14465, 14466, 14471, 14475, 14476, and cf. no. 14547 for the expenses discussed below.Google Scholar

8 Guillaume Baldrich, a dependent of the king of Majorca and an eye-witness of Philip's funeral, reported that when the body was carried from Notre-Dame to St-Denis, it was draped in a golden cloth and garbed in a chlamys adorned with ermine; on the head was an impressive gold crown, in the right hand a golden scepter, and in the left a black staff surmounted by a small white hand: de Mony, Charles Baudon, ‘La mort et les funérailles de Philippe le Bel d'après un compte rendu à la cour de Majorque,’ Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes 58 (1897) 11. A group of Flemish chroniclers reported that the body was placed on a rich litter, clothed in royal apparel and decked with a rich crown and a scepter: Istore et croniques de Flandres , ed. Kervyn de Lettenhove, J -M.-B.-C., 2 vols. (Brussels 1879–1880) I 302, 510; Anciennes chroniques de Flandre, in Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, 24 vols. (Paris 1738–1904; hereafter HF) 22.329; Chronographia regum Francorum , ed. Moranvillé, H., 3 vols. (Publications de la Société de l'Histoire de France 252, 262, 284; Paris 1891–1897) I 219.Google Scholar

9 Geffroy de Paris lines 7719–24; cf. Jean de St-Victor, HF 21.663.Google Scholar

10 The rod with hand first appeared on the great seal during the reign of Louis X: Pinoteau, Hervé, ‘Quelques réflexions sur l'œuvre de Jean du Tillet et la symbolique royale française,’ Archives héraldiques suisses 70 (1956) 8, 15, 21, but cf. de Montfaucon, Bernard, Les monumens de la monarchic françoise, 6 vols. (Paris 1729–1733) I, pl. xxxiii–1, and p. 369 for the seal of Hugues Capet. Not only was Philip IV's body displayed with a staff with hand, but on the tomb later erected for his heart at Poissy he was depicted with a similar rod in his left hand: Montfaucon, , Monumens II pl. xxxviii–1; Erlande-Brandenburg, Alain, Le roi est mort: Etude sur les funérailles, les sépultures et les tombeaux des rois de France jusqu'à la fin du XIII e siècle (Bibliothèque de la Société française d'archéologie 7; Geneva 1975) 22, 41, 122.Google Scholar

11 At Louis' death, a number of pieces of his silverplate were in the hands of Daumas, who seems to have been Louis' specially favored goldsmith: see the inventory of Louis' movables prepared by his executors soon after his death: B.N, Clairambault 832, 401, 439–41; Rouen, B.M., MS 3406 (Leber 5870, Menant 9) 52v, 72v, 73v, 74; B.S–G., MS 786, 689. Thibaut continued to serve Philip V, and in the will he completed on 26 August 1321 Philip mentioned the sum of money he owed to ‘Thibaut de Damart orfeure & bourgeois de Paris pour joyaus & pluseurs autres choses que nous avons euz de li’; noting the damage Thibaut had suffered through delays in payment, Philip commanded that he be repaid fully and quickly ‘par quoy nostre ame nen puisse estre chargiee’: A.N., J 404, no. 26.Google Scholar

12 For a fifteenth-century miniature showing Philip's burial in robes and crown, see Giesey, , Funeral Ceremony fig. 4; cf. p. 23 (B.N., fr. 6465, 23, attributed to Nicolas Fouquet). When Philip's body was exhumed in 1793 the coffin contained his skeleton, a gold ring, the remains of a diadem ‘d’étoffe tissue en or,' and a scepter of bronze doré five feet long, which was surmounted with leaves and a bird: G. d'Heilly (pseudonym for E.-A. Poinsot), Extraction des cercucils royaux à Saint-Denis en 1793 (Paris 1868; hereafter Poinsot, , Extraction) 117, cf. 214–16; the account of the exhumations was prepared by Dom Druon, a religious at St-Denis, who used notes made by Dom Germain Poirier, an eye-witness of the events; the authorship of the account, long debated, is clearly established in testimony given by Lenoir, Alexandre on 8 January 1817: A.N., AE I 15, no. 126, 4; cf. A.N., 03527, liasse Exhumations, 2e cahier, 11 (see n. 171 below); see also Billard, Max, Les tombeaux des rois sous la Terreur (Paris 1907) 20–21, especially n. 2, and Formigé, Jules, L'abbaye royale de Saint-Denis: Recherches nouvelles (Paris 1960) 157. Lenoir's sketch of the terminal of the scepter, which he made before it was destroyed in 1793, is reproduced in Rey, Jean, Histoire du drapeau des couleurs et des insignes de la monarchic française, 2 vols. (Paris 1837) pl. xxii–286 and cf. II 37–38; see also Pinoteau, , ‘Tillet’ 14–15; Erlande-Brandenburg, , Le roi 41 and 203; Billard, , Les tombeaux 64; and Lenoir, Alexandre, Musée des monumens français, 5 vols. (Paris 1800–1806) II cxviii. In 1793 Louis X's tomb contained only his skeleton, a scepter, and a rusted bronze crown; the meagerness of the cache may indicate that some of the objects adorning his corpse were removed before burial. Although I do not believe that his place of burial was ever radically altered, it is possible that his coffin was disturbed and some of its contents removed at the time of the burial of his son Jean (later in 1316) or his daughter Jeanne (in 1349); Poinsot, , Extraction 113, 214; Erlande-Brandenburg, loc. cit.; see also my forthcoming study of Capetian burial at St-Denis.Google Scholar

13 Comptes royaux (1314–1328) no. 14466. This remarkably large sum of money, almost half the total amount used for the funeral, was expended at Paris and St-Denis between Saturday and Monday ‘pour causes de son obit.’ Such funeral meals were not unprecedented. In the wills she drew in 1307 and 1318, Mahaut of Artois stipulated ‘quod omnibus presbiteris Clericis / Religiosis / et omnibus aliis honeste conuersationis et status paretur par executores meos et ministretur prandium sufficiens prout decenter viderint expedire die Sepulture mee’: Pas-de-Calais, A.D., A53, no. 27, and A63, no. 18, although it is noteworthy that this provision was not included in her final will, drawn in 1329 and published in Le Mire, Aubert, Opera diplomatica et historica, ed. Foppens, J. F., 4 vols. (Louvain 1723–1748) IV 267–70. Giesey (Funeral Ceremony 166) comments on the amount of money spent in 1498 at the funeral of Charles VIII; he suggests that the provision of lavish meals in the days immediately following the ruler's death may have foreshadowed the later service of meals for the dead king in effigy. Paey's account shows that the custom found in the late fifteenth century was already established almost two hundred years earlier; Mahaut's wills show that the custom was not restricted to royalty.Google Scholar

14 The accounts of the funeral of Philip the Fair found in the chronicles of the Flemish school (n. 8 above) state that 400 burgesses of Paris accompanied the king's body with torches on its way from Paris to St-Denis. Similarly, when Louis IX was buried, there was spectacular illumination at Notre-Dame and on the procession from Notre-Dame to St-Denis: see the account in the Grandes chroniques de France, HF 20.486–87. In accounts of the reign of Charles IV, the structures used at Philip V's funeral are clearly and succinctly described as ‘capell[ae] ad ponenda luminaria’: Les journaux du Trésor de Charles IV le Bel, ed. Jules-Édouard, M. Viard (Paris 1914) no. 1882; see also Giesey, , Funeral Ceremony 43–44 especially n. 13. A full description of the ‘chapelles de bois’ used at Charles VI's services at Notre-Dame and St-Denis in 1422 appears in the funeral account copied by Menant and found in Rouen, B.M., MS 3405 (Leber 5870, Menant 8) 158–62; most of the important sections are printed in Prost, B., ‘Quelques documents sur l'histoire des arts en France, d'après un recueil manuscrit de la Bibliothèque de Rouen,’ Gazette des Beaux-Arts 35 (1887) 327–29 and in ‘Mélanges artistiques,’ Archives historiques, artistiques et littéraires 1 (1889–1890) 213. See n. 106 below for the cost of the two chapels used for Louis' funeral.Google Scholar

15 Comptes du Trésor nos. 644–47, 1100–1104, 1131–34; cf. Comptes royaux (1314–1328) no. 14542. Gencien de Pacy obtained money from many additional sources, including the sale of horses and other objects in Louis‘ estate; 5000 l.t. were paid by Guillaume de Conques, a merchant of Montpellier who had run afoul of Louis’ officers: Comptes royaux (1314–1328) nos. 14436–47, cf. no. 13533; Comptes du Trésor no. 505; see also Philip V's codicil of 2 January 1322, in which Philip ordered an investigation to determine that the money Louis had received from Conques had been justly obtained: A.N., J 404, no. 27. The Parisian and Italian merchants lent approximately 1500 l.t. for the funeral. The sum following no. 14467 in Comptes royaux (1314–1328) does not include no. 14467, 150 1. allotted to Queen Clementia.Google Scholar

16 Geffroy de Paris lines 7717–18.Google Scholar

17 Giesey, , Funeral Ceremony 43–44.Google Scholar

18 Philip's strategy is examined only cursorily by Lehugeur, Paul, Histoire de Philippe le Long, roi de France (1316–1322), I, Le règne (Paris 1897) 28–78.Google Scholar

19 Anselme de Sainte-Marie, Le P., Histoire généalogique et chronologique de la maison royale de France, edd. les Ange, PP. and Simplicien, , 3rd ed., 9 vols. (Paris 1726–1733; reprinted 1967) I 89–91; Cont. Nangis I 275.Google Scholar

20 Anselme I 89. On Philip's death and will, see my ‘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, edd. Jordan, William C., McNab, Bruce, Teofilo, F. Ruiz (Princeton 1976) 365–83.Google Scholar

21 Geffroy de Paris lines 7687–91, and Jean de St-Victor, HF 21.663, who remarked ‘et ita vix per triennium miles fuit.’ Google Scholar

22 Geffroy de Paris lines 7673–86, and Jean de St-Victor loc. cit.; cf. Anciennes chroniques de Flandre, HF 22.405; Chronique et annates de Gilles le Muisit, abbé de Saint-Martin de Tournai (1272–1352) , ed. Lemaître, Henri (Publications de la Société de l'histoire de France 323; Paris 1906) 90–91.Google Scholar

23 Gilles le Muisit loc. cit.; Chronique normande du XIV e siècle, edd. Auguste and Émile Molinier (Publications de la Société de l'histoire de France 205; Paris 1882) 32; de Godefroy Ménilglaise, M., ‘Mahaud comtesse d'Artois,’ Mémoires de la Société des Antiquaires de France, 3e sér. 8 (1865) 185, and 308–309 for Mahaut's testimony; see 214–16 for references to the evidence given by those present at Louis' death; doctors consulted by Louis X between 1 July 1315 and the following 1 January are listed in Comptes royaux (1314–1328) nos. 13589, 13627–629. Charles, T. Wood discusses the case against Mahaut in The French Apanages and the Capetian Monarchy 1224–1328 (Cambridge, Mass. 1966) 53 and n. 42; 57 n. 52, and 129–30; Wood believes that Charles of la Marche was responsible for formulating the charges against Mahaut.Google Scholar

24 Where and precisely when the testament was prepared is not known, since, exceptionally, the will does not include the exact date or place of issuance; under the circumstances, however, it must have been drawn up at Bois de Vincennes between 1 and 5 June 1316: A.N., J 404, no. 22.Google Scholar

25 See my article referred to in n. 20 above. Although I there suggested (376 at n. 73) that the settlement was probably reached at the end of December 1314, it may have been drafted somewhat earlier, for Guillaume Baldrich's account of Philip IV's death shows that on 7 December 1314 Louis was at Vincennes, where the agreement was concluded: Baudon de Mony 14.Google Scholar

26 For Boniface's bull, issued on 18 February 1300, see Extrav. comm. III, tit. vi, De Sepulturis c. 1. in Corpus iuris canonici, ed. Friedberg, Emil, 2 vols. (Leipzig 1879–1881) II 1272–73.Google Scholar

27 Louis established two chaplaincies in the church of St-Martin of Tours and two at Ste-Radegonde of Poitiers; he also provided for special masses at Ste-Catherine of Rouen. He left 300 1. to Notre-Dame of Paris and the same amount to St-Denis for anniversary masses; other religious establishments received smaller sums for that purpose: A.N., J 404, no. 22.Google Scholar

28 ‘… soit quant as luminaires / soit quant a dras dor a meitre en diuers lieus / soit quant a communes aumones a faire le premier iour de ma sepulture deuant dite / et au septime iour et au trentisme ensuianz la dite sepulture & quant as autres despenz en quel maniere que ce soit Nous commeton a noz executeurs adonques presenz’: A.N., J 404, no. 22. Although no specific provision was made in Philip the Fair's will, 360 l.t. were spent on ‘common alms’ distributed on the day of his death: Rouen, B.M., MS 3401 (Leber 5879, Menant 4) 112v, on which see Comptes da Trésor xix–xxi. Mahaut of Artois ordered in her wills that 2 d.t. be given to each poor person seeking alms on the day of her funeral: see n. 13 above.Google Scholar

29 A.N., J 404, no. 22. The sum was said to be left to Clementia ‘pour son douaire’; only in September 1318 was the money awarded her, ‘pro dote seu ratione dotis aut donationis propter nuptias’: A.N., JJ 56, 183, no. 423; cf. Registres du Trésor des Chartes, II, Règnes des fils de Philippe le Bel, lre partie, Règnes de Louis X le Hutin et de Philippe V le Long, ed. Guerout, Jean (Paris 1966; hereafter Guerout, , Registres) no. 2050.Google Scholar

30 Cont. Nangis I 40 1; Geffroy de Paris lines 5957–62, 7189; HF 20.696; HF 21.658–59. In the absence of a pope, Louis X could not obtain an annulment: Asal, Josef, Die Wahl Johanns XXII.: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des avignonesischen Papsttums (Abhandlungen zur mittleren und neueren Geschichte 20; Berlin–Leipzig 1910) 36–39; Acta Aragonensia: Quellen… mis der diplomatischen Korresponden: Jaymes II. (1291–1327), ed. Finke, Heinrich, 3 vols. (Berlin–Leipzig 1908–1922) I 357, no. 240; Geffroy de Paris fines 5970–73. In any case, the situation was complicated. In 1294 Philip IV had secured from Pope Celestine V a general dispensation for the marriages of his children, and although Boniface VIII had at his accession revoked the graces granted by Celestine, he had confirmed the privileges issued to Philip IV and his house; further, Louis X was said to have relied on Celestine's general dispensation in marrying Clementia, and he would have had difficulty denying its applicability to his marriage to Marguerite of Burgundy: Privilèges accordés à la couronne de France par le Saint-Siège , ed. Tardif, Adolphe (Paris 1855) 313, nos. V, I, and VI.Google Scholar

31 For Jeanne's birthdate see Petit, Ernest, Histoire des ducs de Bourgogne de la race capétienne. 9 vols. (Paris 1885–1905) VII 42 n. 2; Anselme I 92; Chronographia I 220 n. 4; Secousse, Denis-François, Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire de Charles II, roi de Navarre et comic d'Évreux, surnommé le Mauvais, 2 vols. (Paris 1755–1758) I 12.Google Scholar

32 Cont. Nangis I 405; less plausible is Geffroy de Paris' statement that the affair lasted for two and a half years (line 5919). since it would then have begun in November 1311, when Marguerite was three or four months pregnant with Jeanne.Google Scholar

33 Blanche was imprisoned for at least two years after John XXII annulled her marriage to Charles in May 1322: Baluze, Étienne, Vitae paparum Avenionensium, ed. Mollat, Guillaume, 4 vols. (Paris 1914–1927) III 356–71; the continuation of Géraud de Frachet, HF 22.17, 20; Richard, Jules-Marie, Une petite-nièce de Saint Louis: Mahaut, comtesse d'Artois et de Bourgogne (1302–1329) (Paris 1887) 7–8; Baron, Françoise, ‘La gisante en pierre de Tournai de la cathédrale de Saint-Denis,’ Bulletin monumental 128 (1970) 217–18. The broad terms of the general indulgence granted to kings of France and their families (n. 30 above) were well known at the papal curia, but to justify the annulment it was finally decided that ‘impedimentum cognationis spiritualis sub dicto privilegio non includi’: see the anonymous chronicle written ca. 1342 in HF 22.20–21.Google Scholar

34 Geffroy de Paris line 7713 and, more explicitly, Jean de St-Victor, HF 21.663; see also Acta Aragonensia I 210–11, no. 137, a report from Lyon to the king of Aragon dated 20 July 1316 which transmits the rumor that Louis had recognized his daughter (‘filiam recognovit’) and had decreed that she should have whatever he had inherited from his mother, including the kingdom of Navarre. The question and its implications are discussed by Wood, Charles T., ‘Queens, Queans, and Kingship: An Inquiry into Theories of Royal Legitimacy in Late Medieval England and France,’ in Order and Innovation 385–400 and especially 387.Google Scholar

35 Geffroy de Paris lines 7705–7707; Godefroy Ménilglaise 215.Google Scholar

36 ‘… cogitans quod regina Clemencia remanserat ex eo pregnans, et quod bonum est piscari in aqua turbida, et quod discencio esset inter fratres ejus, si secunda regina pareret filium, super regimine regni, et si filiam, super regno’: Du Breuil, Guillaume, Stilus curie parlamenti, éd. Aubert, Félix (Paris 1909) 117–18.Google Scholar

37 In October 1294 Philip the Fair, lauding his wife's dedication to the kingdom, her natural affection for her offspring, and the similar acts of his predecessors, had decreed that on his death his wife Jeanne, countess of Champagne and queen of Navarre as well as France, should assume direction of the kingdom until his heir reached majority: A.N., J 401, no. 4. Between 27 February and 30 May 1300, this arrangement was approved by thirteen of the chief barons of the realm, including the counts of Yalois, Évreux, and St-Pol, who gave their agreement in individual letters dated 23 and 30 May 1300: A.N., J 401, no. 54, 55, 513. The nobles stated that they were endorsing the king's plans because of their full confidence in the good faith and great loyalty of the queen. On 25 October 1300 Charles of Valois obtained from Philip IV a confirmation of his letter of endorsement and an explicit guarantee that if Philip died, he would be held to obey only the queen and the minor king; if the queen died before her son's majority, Philip declared, the young king was to be guided ‘par le conseil & par le gouuernement’ of the count of Valois until he came of age: A.N., J 401, no. 5. See Dupuy, Pierre, Traité de la majorité de nos rois et des régences du royaume (Paris 1655) 7, 18, 81–82, 196–204.Google Scholar

38 Anselme I 96, based on information in household accounts of Philip of Poitiers, of which only extracts now survive; on the extracts, published in Comptes royaux (1285–1314), ed. Fawtier, Robert, 3 vols. (Recueil des historiens de la France, Documents financiers 3; Paris 1953–1956) II 781–82, see III cx, no. 144. Jeanne, daughter of Blanche and Charles, died on 17 May 1321: Anselme loc. cit.; cf. Richard, , Mahaat 8.Google Scholar

39 For the date of the seizure of Jeanne, see the account of the count and countess of Poitiers for 1314 in Comptes royaux (1285–1314) no. 27805; whereas Philip's expenses are registered for 272 days, from 2 September 1313 through 31 May 1314, the countess' expenses terminate on 1 May 1314, having run for 156 days, from 25 November 1313: ibid. nos. 27802, 27805, and 27793, where the reading ‘2 Id’ should be corrected to ‘2 Jour’; Rouen, B.M., MS 3405 (Leber 5870, Menant 8) 120, and Leber, J.-M.-C., Collection des meilleures dissertations, 20 vols. (Paris 1838) XIX 47.Google Scholar

40 Enguerran de Marigny was charged with counseling the seizure of the countess of Poitiers: HF 20.694. See Favier, Jean, Un conseiller de Philippe le Bel: Enguerran de Marigny (Mémoires et documents publiés par la Société de l'École des Chartes 16; Paris 1963) 209–12, who argues (210) that the accusations were drafted after 1333. Whatever their date, they doubtless reflect contemporary perceptions of the circumstances leading to Enguerran's downfall.Google Scholar

41 See Geffroy de Paris lines 6009–36 for a dramatic account of Jeanne's reaction to Philip's orders, and of Philip's reassurances to her that she would be justly judged; cf. HF 22.17. Dourdan is located in Seine-et-Oise, ar. Rambouillet.Google Scholar

42 Cont. Nangis I 406; cont. Frachet, HF 21.41; cf. Geffroy de Paris lines 6047–64, and Godefroy Ménilglaise 204–205.Google Scholar

43 Geoffroy de Paris lines 6057–65; Godefroy Ménilglaise 206.Google Scholar

44 ‘… fueramus continue et eramus in bona pace, concordia, societate et dilectione absque dissencione, rancore et odio, sicut scire poterant et illi qui Nos tunc temporis frequentarant’; Godefroy Ménilglaise 203–204.Google Scholar

45 Richard, , Mahaut 10, n. 1; Petit, , Bourgogne VII 52 n. 1; cf. Anselme I 94–95, and Les journaux da Trésor de Philippe IV le Bel , ed. Viard, Jules-Édouard-M. (Paris 1940) no. 5940.Google Scholar

46 Lehugeur, , Philippe I 95, although cf. 49 n. 2, where he discusses the evidence found in the chroniclers for other dates; Bernard Gui (HF 21.726) says that the baby was born around 24 June. In 1864 Servois stated that Lacabane possessed evidence that on his trip from Lyon to Paris, Philip stopped at Gray for his son's birth: Servois, G., ‘Documents inédits sur l'avénement [sic] de Philippe le Long,’ Annuaire-Bulletin de la Société de l'histoire de France 22 (1864) 47 n. 2. To the best of my knowledge Lacabane never published his findings, nor am I aware of any evidence that Philip traveled to Gray (48 km. northeast of Dijon), which would have taken him some 100 km. away from the direct route from Lyon via Tournus (see n. 87 below) to Paris. Note, however, that at some time between 12 July and 4 November 1316 Philip's family was at Gray: Comptes de l'argenterie 40. Fleury's accounts, which begin on 12 July 1316, contain no reference to the queen's accouchement or to the birth of the ‘jeune seignour,’ whose expenses are listed in the account: ibid. 3, 31, 40–45. The household ordinances promulgated in December 1316 show that he then had four attendants, a nurse, a cradle-rocker, a valet to carry him, and an assistant to aid the valet: A.N., JJ 57, 45, 73.Google Scholar

47 Although the chroniclers call the boy Louis, Fleury's accounts refer to him as Philip: Comptes de l'argenterie 3–4 n. 1; 3, 31. The use of the combined name Louis Philippe or Philippe Louis would have been not unprecedented: see Panofsky, Erwin, Abbot Suger on the Abbey Church of St.-Denis and its Art Treasures (Princeton 1946) 60 line 16 and 76 line 27, and 180 for references to King Louis VI as Ludovicus Philippi. Google Scholar

48 A.N., J 975, no. 10, published in garbled form in du Vaucel, Louis-François, Essai sur les apanages on Mémoire historique de leur établissement (n.d., n.p, but before 1792) I 134–36 no. XIII; see also Guérin, Paul, ‘Recueil des documents concernant le Poitou contenus dans les registres de la chancellerie de France,’ Archives historiques du Poitou 11 (1881) 92–93 no. XLIV; Registres du Trésor des Charles, I, Règne de Philippe le Bel , ed. Fawtier, Robert (Paris 1958; hereafter Fawtier, , Registres) no. 2207; Wood, , Apanages 51 n. 40.Google Scholar

49 ‘… laquele chose nous ne voudriens pas ne que la conte feust en main de femele’: Favier, , Enguerran 232 and cf. 96–98. Wood, (Apanages 35–36, 47–58, 63–64) argues that Philip of Poitiers pressed for the issuance of the charter, but in the absence of supporting evidence, I am not convinced, as is he, that Philip ‘was planning his own succession to the throne at least two years before Louis X's death made that step possible,’ and that Philip IV promulgated the act as a means of indicating ‘his real attitude toward Louis Hutin's daughter.’ Google Scholar

50 Guérin, , Archives historiques du Poitou 11 (1881) 116–39, no. liii; note that on 138–39 Guérin twice has ‘Bourges’ where ‘Burgundy’ must be meant; for similar confusion, see A.N., JJ 56, 183, no. 423.Google Scholar

51 Guérin, , Archives historiques du Poitou 11 (1881) 115–16, no. lii; Guerout, , Registres no. 280; cf. Wood, , Apanages 55–56. The revocation of the male succession clause was not officially registered, as was the grant of peerage which was made at the same time; the former act survives only in a copy made on 17 April 1323 for the archives of Mahaut and her family: Pas-de-Calais, A.D., A 60, 27, no. 3103. Thus, Philip of Poitiers may have secured the letter simply as protection for himself and may have had no intention of revealing its existence unless Louis produced a male heir who ascended the throne and then attempted to deprive Philip's female heirs of their rightful succession to the county of Poitiers. Philip the Fair's restrictive letter of 29 November 1314 retained its interest for later monarchs, and on 21 June 1446 Charles VII had a transcript made of the document, ‘in thesauro Chartarum priuilegiorum et registrorum nostrorum existentes’: B.S-G., MS 786, 71–72v .Google Scholar

52 Lehugeur, , Philippe I 25; Asal, , Wahl passim and especially 47–50. On the basis of the accounts of Pierre Barrière, bishop-elect of Senlis, it has generally been believed that Philip left court soon after Barrière's departure on 26 December: Comptes royaux (1314–1328) no. 13517. Mahaut of Artois later testified, however, that on 18 January 1316 Philip and Jeanne were with her at Dole in Burgundy: Godefroy Ménilglaise 210.Google Scholar

53 On 16 March, 18 May, 2 and 30 June 1316 Philip of Poitiers was given 15,240 l.t. to cover expenses in Lyon: Comptes du Trésor no. 1120. At the same time Béraud de Mercosur received 2200 l.t.: ibid. no. 1121. In addition, the Peruzzi transferred 2800 l.t. to Lyon in May: ibid. nos. 1106–1107. See also no. 860 for 674 1. par. credited to Philip on 30 June; this sum was paid on Louis' warrant by the abbot of Mont St-Eloi, acting for Master Pierre d'Aubigny, collector of the clerical tithe in the province of Reims. For Philip's pledge to the cardinals, see Acta Aragonensia I 208, no. 136.Google Scholar

54 Ménard, Léon, Histoire civile ecclésiastique et litteraire de la ville de Nismes, 7 vols. (Paris 1750–1758) II pr. 23, no. xiii. Although thirteen days were ordinarily needed to travel from Paris to Beaucaire, a messenger could make the trip in five or six days: Robert-Henri Bautier, ‘Recherches sur la chancellerie royale au temps de Philippe VI,’ Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes 123 (1965) 400–401; Coulon, Auguste–Léonel, ed., Jean XXII (1316–1334): Lettres secrètes et curiales relatives à la France extraites des registres du Vatican (Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome 3, sér. 1; Paris, 1906–) I 58, n. 1.Google Scholar

55 Geffroy de Paris lines 7717–66, and note that on 23 June the counts of Valois and Évreux approved payment of 800 1. to Pierre Saunier, master of Clementia's household and Chambre aux deniers, for expenses incurred after Louis' death: Comptes da Trésor no. 1185 and cf. no. 851; see also Comptes royaux (1314–1328) no. 14543.Google Scholar

56 d'Hermansart, Albert Pagart, ‘Deux lettres de princes français aux échevins de Saint-Omer après la mort de Louis X dit le Hutin, pendant la vacance du trône (1316),’ Bulletin du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques: Histoire, archéologie et philologie (1894) 22–24, and see Guerout, , Registres nos. 1054 and 2548 for favors bestowed by Philip V on St-Omer in May 1317 and December 1318.Google Scholar

57 For the letter in which the phrases appear, see n. 60 below. The significance of the arrangement is discussed in François-Jean-Marie Olivier-Martin, , Etudes sur les régences, I, Les régences et la majorité des rois sous les Capétiens directs et les premiers Valois (1060–1375) (Paris 1931) 111–13, and Cazelles, Raymond, La société politique et la crise de la royauté sous Philippe de Valois (Paris 1958) 36–38. The phrase ‘grans seigneurs’ also appears in the governmental ordinance issued by Philip of Poitiers at St-Germain-en-Laye in July 1316, where ‘noz grans seigneurs dessus nommez’ were authorized, together with the clers suiuans et lays, and the members of Parlement and the Chambre des requêtes, to warrant letters of justice; the phrase very likely refers to the twenty-four members of the estroit conseil listed on fol. 40v, who were also — and exclusively — permitted to authorize letters of grace, offices, benefices, ‘et de Bois’: A.N., JJ 57, 42. The household ordinances of 2 December 1316 and 17 November 1317 provided that if the king were away and his uncles or brother or ‘nos autres grans seigneurs et nos grans dames’ were graciously accorded access to the king's hôtel, they were to be given nothing from the various offices of the household: A.N., JJ 57, 57, 74. ‘Nos grands seigneurs principaux executeurs’ of Louis X's will commissioned the inventory of his property shortly after his death: B.S-G., MS 786, 685.Google Scholar

58 On 10 June 1316 an English envoy met ‘oue le counsail de ffraunce,’ and he reported as present the counts of Valois, la Marche, and St-Pol; Louis of Clermont, the constable Gaucher de Châtillon, Mile de Noyers, ‘et autres’: London, Public Record Office, Sc. 1, 60, no. 109B; cf. Sc. 1, 35, no. 126. See also Rymer, Thomas and Sanderson, Robert, Foedera, edd. Clarke, Adam and Holbrooke, Frederick, 4 vols. (London 1816–1879) II1 292 for the special importance attributed by the English in mid-July 1316 to Miles de Noyers, Gaucher de Châtillon, and the counts of Valois, Évreux, la Marche, and Poitiers. For Louis' death, Godefroy Ménilglaise 215; for his will A.N., J 404, no. 22. See Comptes du Trésor no. 1138 for wages paid to Mile de Noyers from 1 January 1316 through 7 June, the day of Louis‘ burial; during this period Mile had spent eight days with the duke of Burgundy, who appeared in Paris after Louis’ death and was there on 16 and 17 June: Petit, , Bourgogne VII 78.Google Scholar

59 On Gaucher de Châtillon, see Legoy, André, ‘Gaucher de Châtillon, comte de Porcien et connétable de France (1250–1329),' Positions des thèses de l’École des Chartes (1928) 49–56; Pegues, Franklin J., The Lawyers of the Last Capetians (Princeton 1962) 77, 178–185, 204–206; see also my article (n. 20 above) at nn. 65 and 72 for the special responsibility with which Philip IV charged Gaucher before his death. During the reign of Philip IV Gaucher de Châtillon, Louis of Évreux, and Louis of Clermont were knights banneret of Philip of Poitiers: Rouen, B.M., MS 3401 (Leber 5870, Menant 4) 86. Gaucher de Châtillon was also godfather of Charles of la Marche: A.N., J 682, no. 2. After Louis' death, the English considered Gaucher de Châtillon the chief member of the council and addressed letters either to the council of France or to Gaucher de Châtillon, constable of France, and the other nobles of the council: Rymer, , Foedera II1 292; Calendar of Close Rolls: Edward II II 345–46, 425; Registrum Palatinum Dunelmense: The Register of Richard de Kellawe, Lord Palatine and Bishop of Durham, 1311–1316 , ed. Hardy, Thomas Duffus, 4 vols. (Rolls Series 62; London 1873–1878) IV lxxiii–lxxiv.Google Scholar

60 Isambert, F.-A., Jourdan, A.-J.-L., and Decrusy, , edd., Recueil général des anciennes lois françaises depuis l'an 420 jusqu'à la Révolution de 1789, 29 vols. (Paris 1822–1833) III 136–37; cf. Guerout, , Registres no. 373, and Dupuy, , Traité 29.Google Scholar

61 Acta Aragonensia I 210, no. 137; cf. Olivier-Martin, , Régences 110.Google Scholar

62 Geffroy de Paris lines 7734–38.Google Scholar

63 Comptes royaux (1314–1328) no. 13517. Barrière's accounts state that he was with Philip ‘quasi continue,’ that because of grave illness he stayed in Lyon after Philip's departure, and that he remained in the region until 8 August. According to the accounts, Barrière had been sent to persuade Cardinal Arnaud of Pelagrue, head of the so-called Gascon party, to support Philip's requests: ibid., and cf. Asal, , Wahl 10–11. Whatever the state of Barrière's health, his recovery and departure from Lyon occurred the day after Jacques Duèse was finally elected pope: Asal, , Wahl 69–78.Google Scholar

64 For the count of Forez, see n. 66 below; for Béraua'de Mercœur, see n. 53 above. Sully's itinerary is found in the testimony given in 1317 by Mahaut of Artois, who stated that Sully was in Bourges at Christmas 1315 and then followed her train from Bourges to Burgundy: Godefroy Ménilglaise 211. Thence, Mahaut said, he went to Lyon, where he remained continuously until 30 May. Sully is known to have been in Lyon in July 1316, and thus he probably left Lyon briefly at the end of May, returning shortly to aid Philip. On Mercœur's career, see my article ‘Royal Necessity and Noble Service and Subsidy in Early Fourteenth-Century France: The Assembly of Bourges of November 1318,’ παϱάδοσις: Studies in Memory of Edwin A. Quain (New York 1976), 134–44, 148–65; Béraud seems to have been in Lyon from at least mid-March through the end of June 1316: Comptes du Trésor no. 1121. Béraud apparently attended the papal coronation in Lyon in early September: Comptes de l'argenterie 23.Google Scholar

65 Préaux' career is discussed in Pegues, , Lawyers 233–44. See Comptes du Trésor no. 845 for expenses he incurred with Philip of Poitiers, amounting to 144 1. par.; cf. ibid. n. (b); see as well Bertrandy-Lacabane, Martin, Recherches historiques sur l'origine, l'élection et le couronnement du pape Jean XXII (Paris 1854) 14 and 54, no. IV, and also Asal, , Wahl 47, n. 153, who, following Bertrandy-Lacabane, confuses Préaux with the unfortunate Raoul de Presles. The royal household ordinance of 10 July 1319 shows that Préaux had by then been replaced in the king's service by Master Pierre Barrière: A.N., JJ 57, 85.Google Scholar

66 Menestrier, Claude-François, Histoire civile ou consulaire de la ville de Lyon (Lyon 1696) pr. 90, misdated 1317.Google Scholar

67 This title is exactly reproduced in a memorandum sent from Lyon to Jayme II of Aragon on 30 June 1316: Acta Aragonensia I 208 no. 136.Google Scholar

68 Berger, Élie, ‘Le titre de régent dans les actes de la chancellerie royale,’ Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes 61 (1900) 416–17.Google Scholar

69 A.N., K 40, no. 2, published in Bertrandy-Lacabane 70, no. VII; cf. A.N., K 39, no. 5, a similar declaration dated at Arras on 24 August 1315. Lavoûte is in the diocese of Clermont, and see Fawtier, , Registres no. 2231 for Mercosur's connections in the area; the site should be identified with Lavoûte-Chilhac (Haute-Loire, ar. Brioude, ch.l.c.) or Lavoûte-sur-Loire (Haute-Loire, ar. Le Puy, c. St-Paulien).Google Scholar

70 Asal Wahl 11, 51; Acta Aragonensia I 211, no. 137 and cf. 208, no. 136 for the numerous acts of homage and fealty received by the count of Poitiers. In February 1304 Philip the Fair, then in Nîmes, had given Napoleone Orsini a hereditary annuity of 1000 fl. and a life-time annuity of 2000 fl. On 23 March 1316 Louis X commissioned Philip of Poitiers, by then in the south negotiating with the cardinals, to assign on specific lands in the seneschalsies of Carcassonne and Beaucaire the annuities he and his father had awarded to Napoleone Orsini and Pietro Colonna. On 24 June 1314 Philip ordered the assignment to be made, and his orders were at least partially executed on 19 August 1319, after John XXII had been elected, when property was allocated to cover 1000 fl. of the life-time endowment and the same amount appropriated to fund the hereditary annuity. The actions were confirmed by Philip, , acting as regent, on 24 September 1316: Guerout, , Registres nos. 1384–85 and cf. 259; see Comptes du Trésor nos. 973, 1048, 2696 for records of payments owed to Napoleone Orsini. In 1317 Cardinal Pietro ‘de Comumpna’ was assigned 2175 1. 'surcestis firmis et aliis domaniis dicte senescalli [Carcassonne] in recompensationem 2000 flor. quos capiebat ad vitam et 1000 florinos [sic] ad hereditatem quolibet floreno estimato 14 s. 6 d. t.': B.N., fr. 32510, 116v. In the same year Cardinal ‘Pietro de Arreblay,’ the former French chancellor, was awarded 1000 1. for life on the tolls of Beaucaire, Cardinal Napoleone was given the town of Bagnols and various farms as an hereditary endowment: ibid., and cf. Guerout, , Registres no. 1385. See ibid. for the life-time donation made in 1321 to Cardinals Napoleone and ‘Pietro de Arrebalyo’ of ‘castra Furrarum et Mota’ in Beaucaire.Google Scholar

71 ‘Inter omnes, qui sibi asistunt maior est dominus Henricus de Soliaco et isti ipse magis aderet’: Acta Aragonensia I 208. For special favors granted by Philip to Sully in December and January 1317 see Guerout, , Registres nos. 288–89, 296, 322, 663; and see ibid. no. 920 for Sully's approval of an annuity of 600 l.t. awarded on 18 March 1317 to the count of Forez.Google Scholar

72 Lehugeur, , Philippe I 30; Comptes de l'argenterie 3, 4 n., 39, 40; J.-P. Moret de Bourchenu, marquis de Valbonnais, , Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire de Dauphiné (Paris 1711) 4, 151–52, 233–34.Google Scholar

73 Valbonnais, , Mémoires 4; A.N., J 277, no. 9.Google Scholar

74 B.N., fr. 32510, 113, and see 116 for the assignment to the dauphin in 1317 of two prévôtés of Auvergne, to provide income owed him on the bailliage. Google Scholar

75 Ménard, , Nismes II pr. 22–23. Lehugeur believes (Philippe I 31) that the letter was widely dispatched; he also suggests, on the basis of this letter (ibid. 20), that Philip established a personal council after hearing of his brother's death. It is clear, however, that the count already possessed a ‘grant conseil,’ referred to in the ordinance restricting his household which was issued on 24 November 1315: Guérin, , Archives historiques du Poitou 11 (1881) 136, no. LIII.Google Scholar

76 ‘… vice & nomine memorati domini Philippi, tanquam heredis jure proximitatis dicti domini Ludovici, quondam Francorum & Navarre regis, si contingat illustrem dominam Clementem [sic], reginam, quondam dicti domini Regis uxorem & relictam, filium ab eo susceptum non parere vivum; vel si filium ab eo suceptum [sic] parere contingat vivum, jure balli, & quamdiu ballum est, secundum consuetudines Francie, duraturum’: Ménard, , Nismes II pr. 23.Google Scholar

77 de Vic, Claude and Vaissete, J.-J., Histoire générale de Languedoc, ed. Molinier, Auguste, 15 vols. (Toulouse 1872–1893) X pr. 558–59, no. 192. This was not an oath of fealty but simply an avowal that the monastery of St-André was within the kingdom of France, and the abbot explicitly stated that the monastery did not owe homage, fealty, or tribute to the king of France. The oath was taken in Nîmes before various impressive witnesses.Google Scholar

78 B.N., fr. 32510, 113v, 116v. Aymer also received a pledge of fealty from the inhabitants of the French part of Montpellier: Guerout, , Registres no. 1202, a royal letter dated 22 June 1317.Google Scholar

79 See below at n. 163, and n. 163 as well.Google Scholar

80 Comptes royaux (1314–1328) no. 13522; see n. 53 above.Google Scholar

81 See, for the following, Asal, , Wahl 53–60, who relies on the reports of the Aragonese ambassadors in Lyon and whose account is hence preferable to Lehugeur's (Philippe I 31–33), which is based simply on the chroniclers' accounts.Google Scholar

82 Acta Aragonensia I 207, no. 136; Istoire et croniques I 309; HF 20.615. On 30 June 1316 the Aragonese envoy reported to Jayme II that many believed Philip of Poitiers guilty of perjury and hence excommunicate for having broken his express promise that the cardinals might leave Lyon whenever they chose. Most, however, thought that on Philip's departure the cardinals would have disbanded and perhaps thrown the Church into schism by electing two popes; therefore Philip was judged innocent of perjury and was in fact praised for protecting the Catholic faith and the universal Church: Acta Aragonensia loc. cit. Theologians in Lyon subsequently took the position that the actions violating oaths sworn by the king of France and the count of Poitiers had been taken ‘propter bonum publicum’ and to avoid schism and were therefore justifiable. An Aragonese dispatch of 20 July 1316 reported that this opinion had won common approval: ibid. I 209, no. 137.Google Scholar

83 Ibid. I 208, no. 136.Google Scholar

84 Ibid. I 209, no. 137. The Aragonese envoy believed that, although Novelli was in fact a friend of the French, Philip had intervened ‘quia ipse vel domus Francie nollent hominem ita iustum set qui eorum voluntatem in omnibus adimpleret. Aliqui eciam Gallici dixerunt, quod dictum cardinalem nimis diligit vos et dominum regem Maioricarum et totam domum vestram.’ Google Scholar

85 These rumors had reached Lyon by 20 July 1316, when they were transmitted to the king of Aragon: Acta Aragonensia I 210–11, no. 137. Later, in May 1317, Philip told Aragonese envoys that after Louis' death, Charles of Valois and his allies had agreed that if Clementia had one or more daughters, she (or they) and Jeanne of France should have Navarre and Champagne; if only one daughter survived, she should possess all these lands; a son would be king and lord of all: ibid. I 467–68, no. 312.Google Scholar

A case reported by Guillaume Du Breuil(n. 36 above) lends credence to the rumors concerning the alliances. In 1330 Bernard, count of Comminges, was accused of having attempted, after Louis' death, to profit from the general confusion by forming a sworn alliance with the specific aim of securing privileges from the future ruler: Du Breuil 118–119. Having been denounced by Renaud de Pons, who claimed that Bernard had made overtures to him, Bernard countercharged that Renaud was himself a traitor for not having revealed such a plot immediately; he denied categorically (ibid. 121) that any such invitation had ever been advanced but added that even if it had been, such action was not criminal, ‘quia ligare se pro habendo libertatem non erat res illicita: ymo sic se ligaverant et ligati venerant ad Regem Campani et Normani.’ For evidence of enmity between Bernard and Renaud in the 1320s see Actes du Parlement de Paris, 1re série, De l'an 1254 à l'an 1328, ed. Edgard Boutaric, 2 vols. (Paris 1863–1867) nos. 7174, 7730, 8011. Philip's treatment of the northern allies during the regency is discussed below, at nn. 135–36.

Jeanne of France provided a natural rallying point for Charles and his followers, and her grandmother, Agnes, dowager duchess of Burgundy, was concerned for her well-being. In early July 1316 Agnes therefore authorized two Burgundian nobles, the lords of Époisses and Molinet, to bring her safely to Agnes: Plancher Urbain and Merle Zacharie, Histoire générale et particulière de Bourgogne, 4 vols. (Dijon 1739–1781) II clxiv, no. ccxxv. Empowered on 5 July 1316, these two lords accompanied the duke of Burgundy to the royal court in the middle of the month: Côte-d'Or, A.D., B 10495.

86 Philip seems clearly to have been in Lyon on 30 June: see n. 53 above. Lehugeur (Philippe I 33, n. 4) asserts that Philip was still in Lyon on 2 July, but he gives no source for his statement, and I have found no evidence to support it. Note, however, that he is followed by Finke, , Acta Aragonensia I 208, n. 136 4 and by Asal, , Wahl 58. See n. 54 above for travel times between Lyon and Paris.Google Scholar

87 The record of the case states explicitly that Philip was acting as regent: ‘de Lugdunis discedens in franciam redeundo dum adhuc esset regna regens predicta’: A.N., JJ 69, 63v, no. 96; cf. Guerout, , Registres no. 3466. One of the members of the venerabile consilium referred to in the record may well have been Béraud de Mercœur, who seems to have left at the same time as Philip: see n. 53 above. Only on 23 September 1316 did the proctors of Tournus reach Philip at Chanceaux in Burgundy (Côte-d'Or, ar. Dijon, c. St-Seine-l'Abbaye, 32 km. northwest of Dijon). These details, and the arbitral sentence later rendered by Bertrand, bishop of Chalon, are found in a royal letter of 24 March 1321.Google Scholar

88 In May 1317 Philip, then safely king, told Aragonese envoys that his uncle Charles and certain noble followers had attempted, illicitly and unjustly, to oppose him: Acta Aragonensia I 467–68, no. 312.Google Scholar

89 Lehugeur Philippe I 14 and see n. 59 above. Louis of Évreux' mother, the dowager queen Marie of Brabant, was a supporter of Philip of Poitiers: Comptes royaux (1314–1328) no. 14080 for her gift of a ‘drap de laine marbré’ to Philip at his coronation. Consequently, at Philip of Poitiers' accession to the throne, Marie regained authority she had not enjoyed since her husband's death in 1285. When on 27 March 1318 Eudes of Burgundy and Philip V reached an agreement concerning Jeanne of France's renunciation of her rights to Champagne, Brie, Navarre, and France and her marriage to the eldest son of the count of Évreux, it was stipulated that after the marriage had been contracted, Eudes would surrender Jeanne to Louis of Évreux and his mother Queen Marie: Secousse, , Mémoires I 16, II pr. 8–9 and his ‘Mémoire sur l'union de la Champagne et de la Brie à la couronne de France,’ Mémoires de littérature tirés des registres de l'Académie Royale des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 17 (1751) 302–303, n. 1; cf. Lehugeur, , Philippe I 102–104, A.X. J 408, no. 25, and Petit, , Bourgogne VIII 233, no. 6748.Google Scholar

90 The date is not given in any source, but if Philip reached St-Denis on 12 July, he must have been at Vincennes the day before.Google Scholar

91 Geffroy de Paris lines 7759–66, who suggests that Louis of Évreux was a greater source of comfort to Clementia than was Charles of Valois; see also Jean de St-Victor, HF 21.663. Note, however, that it was the counts of Valois, St-Pol, and la Marche who intervened on Clementia's behalf to secure for her various silver vessels from Louis' executors: B.N., Clairambault 832, 445; Rouen, B.M., MS 3406 (Leber 5870, Menant 9) 75v; B.S-G., MS 786, 707.Google Scholar

92 The count of St-Pol was butler of France and a testamentary executor of Queen Jeanne of Navarre and of her eldest son Louis X, who referred to him in his will as his ‘chier oncle’: A.N., J 403, no. 16 (printed in Du Boulay, César-Egasse, Historia Universitatis Parisiensis, 6 vols. [Paris 1665–1673] 79); A.N. J 404, no. 22; cf. Lehugeur, , Philippe I 33, n. 7 and Anselme VI 95–96, 106. St-Pol was Louis' half-granduncle, since his half-sister Blanche was Louis' grandmother, his half-niece Jeanne of Navarre Louis' mother: ibid. I 382. Louis‘ high regard for the count of St-Pol was demonstrated after the death of Philip the Fair: see my article (n. 20 above) following n. 78. Louis gave St-Pol 2000 1. for his ‘gratum servitium’; in December 1315 he awarded the count an additional 2001.: Comptes du Trésor no. 984. St-Pol was not, however, singled out in Louis’ will to receive the life-time annuity of 600 1. which Louis bestowed on Gaucher de Châtillon and on Mile de Noyers: A.N., J 404, no. 22 and cf. B.N., fr. 32510, 113 for payment in 1316. Guy of St-Pol was, in addition, the half-uncle of Mahaut of Artois, daughter of his half-brother Robert II of Artois: Anselme I 382–83. Thus, in choosing to ally with Charles of Valois against Philip of Poitiers, he was acting against the interests of his half-grandniece Jeanne of Burgundy, Mahaut's daughter and Philip's wife. Perhaps it was this that led Mahaut, who had named Guy of St-Pol her testamentary executor in 1307, to revoke the commission in 1318: Pas-de-Calais, A.D., A 53, no. 27, and A 63, no. 18.Google Scholar

93 See above at n. 61, and n. 37.Google Scholar

94 For this incident see Lehugeur, , Philippe I 33–34, whose account is based on Anciennes chroniques de Flandre, in HF 22.406, and on Istore et croniques I 308; cf. Chronographia I 231–32.Google Scholar

95 Geffroy de Paris lines 7776–81, and cf. de St-Victor, Jean, HF 21.663, whose statement suggests far more formal counsel: ‘Veniens autem comes Pictavensis habuit consilium quod tanquam regem se gereret et in possessione regni se poneret, donec per barones esset aliud ordinatum.’ Close family ties bound Amé of Savoy to Philip of Poitiers. Through his brother Thomas, Amé was brother-in-law of Philip's mother-in-law, Mahaut of Artois: Cox, Eugene L., The Green Count of Savoy: Amadeus VI and Transalpine Savoy in the Fourteenth Century (Princeton 1967) 376–77. Amé's son-in-law, the husband of his daughter Marie, was brother of the dauphin of Viennois, to whose son Philip had recently affianced his daughter Isabelle: above at n. 72. These ties evidently outweighed Amé's loyalties to Eudes of Burgundy, whose sister Blanche his son Édouard had married in 1307: Petit, , Bourgogne VII 5. Louis of Évreux, another of Philip's supporters, had acted as guarantor of the dowry of 20,000 1. promised by Blanche's father Hugues V of Burgundy. In August 1316 Philip rewarded Amé's services by promising that ‘oucas que nous serons roys de France,’ he would transform a life annuity of 2500 l.t. granted to Amé by Philip IV into a heritable award, which would be held in homage and fealty ‘de nous & de noz successeurs roys de France’; A.N., JJ 54B, 8, no. 14; cf. Guerout, , Registres no. 1379. This pledge was made in the presence of the count of Évreux, the lord of Sully, and other members of the regent's ‘estroit conseil’; cf. Comptes du Trésor nos. 1027, 2675, and see no. 1115 for Amé's work for Louis X from 26 December 1315 to 10 March 1316. Amé and his son Édouard served as intermediaries between Eudes of Burgundy and Philip in 1317 and 1318: A.N., J 286, Provins no. 2; Lehugeur, , Philippe I 99–100; Acta Aragonensia I 475, no. 316.Google Scholar

96 Cont. Nangis I 427, who states that Philip received the royal horses at ‘Caceria’ on Monday 12 July: ‘acceptisque regiis equis apud Caceriam.’ See Lehugeur, , Philippe I 34, n. 2 for the correct identification of the site. The stables at Carrières had been constructed in 1301 or 1302: Viard, , Journaux du Trésor Philippe IV xxxvi–xxxvii, xli, and no. 5660; cf. Comptes du Trésor no. 826. A royal residence was also built at Carrières, but Philip IV and his sons rarely stayed there: HF 21.446, 455. In 1317, however, Philip V's first squire, Guillaume Pizdoe, arranged for the provision of supplies at Carrières ‘pro sejourno’: Journaux du Trésor Charles IV no. 594.Google Scholar

97 Lehugeur, Both (Philippe I 34, n. 2) and Giesey, (Royal Funeral 43), relying on HF 22.771, a partial edition of Louis X's post mortem inventory, assume that only four horses belonging to Louis were at Carrières. Lehugeur hypothesizes that Philip wanted the horses ‘pour entrer à Paris’; Giesey suggests that Philip took the ‘four’ horses he had seized to St-Denis to use as part of the offering of horses, cloths, and light traditionally made at funerals. The horses listed in HF 22.771, however, were randomly selected from the full list of the property of Louis X, for which see n. 6 above. The inventory shows that when Louis died, there were 33 royal horses at Carrières, which was the chief royal stable; seven additional horses were subsequently surrendered to the executors by various of the king's dependents who had been using them; still later, after the first inventory had been prepared, eight more horses came into the executors' possession: see Histoire de la guerre de Navarre en 1276 et 1277 par Guillaume Anelier de Toulouse , ed. Michel, Francisque (Paris 1856) 522–25 for the full list of horses, apparently edited from Clairambault 832. Had Philip of Poitiers actually taken horses from Carrières to Paris or St-Denis, it seems likely that the post mortem inventory would have noted the fact, particularly if they had been given to the abbey. It is surprising that so few horses are found in Louis‘ inventory, and it seems likely that the document does not include horses stabled elsewhere. The restrictive ordinance for Philip of Poitiers’ household, dated 24 November 1315, recorded that his stable of 122 horses (not including those of his ‘baneres et bachelers’) was being reduced to 76, and his wife's from 83 (not counting the 35 she used when traveling) to 46; she was to have only 19 when she was at home: Guérin, , Archives historiques du Poitou 11 (1881) 137 and cf. 125–26, a passage which indicates that the count had 21 horses for his personal use — 5 to ride himself, 7 for his chapel and chamber, and 9 for his offices; an additional 43 were allocated to the household. Philip's household ordinance of December 1316 established that there should be 49 horses in the royal stable for specific household uses and that the king should have, in addition, as many for himself as he needed, estimated at 24: A.M., JJ 57, 63v. The summary of expenses prepared in connection with the ordinance indicated that when the royal family was in residence, 80 horses were at their disposal, and that the queen had 36 horses in her stable: ibid. 46, 71v. Twenty horses were owned by the dowager queen, Clementia of Hungary, at the time of her death, although of these one belonged to her minstrel and one had been taken from a serf of the fairs of Champagne and was to be returned: Douet-d'Arcq, , Nouveau recueil 87–88.Google Scholar

98 In 1123 an elaborate memorial celebration was held at St-Denis for Charles VI on the anniversary of his burial; on the preceding day special vigils were said and special illumination was used at the tomb: Rouen, B.M., MS 3405 (Leber 5870, Menant 8) 169–71. For the anniversaries of Philip VI the surviving accounts are fragmentary, but there is no evidence that vigils were celebrated in connection with the anniversary service in September 1351, for which see Rouen, B.M., MS 3408 (Leber 5870, Menant 11) 109v. There Menant gives the date of the account as 1350, and he is followed by Leber, who printed portions of it in Collection XIX 95; see Douët-d'Arcq, , Comptes de l'argenterie 77 and Nouveau recueil xviii–xix, especially xix n. 1 for the correct date. Philip was buried on 28 August 1350, six days after his death, and it is unclear to me why his anniversary service was celebrated in September: Jules Viard, ‘Compte des obsèques de Philippe VI,’ Archives historiques, artistiques et litéraires 2 (1890–1891) 49, and see Rouen, B.M., MS 3408 (Leber 5870, Menant 11) 115v for an anniversary service held in September 1352.Google Scholar

99 See n. 1 above.Google Scholar

100 Giesey, , Funeral Ceremony 38–45; Erlande-Brandenburg, , Le roi 13–14, 16, 18–19, 21, 26.Google Scholar

101 Baudon de Mony 11; note that Baldrich remarked that ‘valde pauci interfuerunt nobiles et barones, illis de domo regis exceptis.’ The continuator of Nangis reports that there were 25 prelates at the service: I 414.Google Scholar

102 Gilles de Pontoise was abbot from 1304 to 1326, and he was exceptionally devoted to the kings of France. I discuss his relationship with them in my study of the Capetians and St-Denis.Google Scholar

103 See above, at n. 4.Google Scholar

104 The expenditures for wax for Louis X's funeral were listed separately in the account: see the special rubric preceding no. 14452 in Comptes royaux (1314–1328). No outlays for wax are listed in the accounts for the funeral of Jean of France, Philip V's son Louis, or, indeed, Philip V himself: for Jean, , Comptes de l'argenterie 18–19; for Louis, , Comptes royaux (1314–1328) nos. 14131–46; for Philip, B.S-G., MS 786, 512v–518, the argenlerie account for Philip's funeral, which I will soon publish.Google Scholar

105 For Jean, , Comptes de l'argenterie 18–19; for Louis, X, Comptes royaux (1314–1328) nos. 14448, 14468–70, 14472–74. Slightly more than 50 1. p. were spent on cloth for the funeral of Philip's son: Comptes royaux (1314–1328) nos. 14131–39.Google Scholar

106 The recorded expenses for the chapels used at Louis X's first funeral are 57 1. par. (Comptes royaux [1314–1328] no. 14449), 20 1. par. (ibid. no. 14547), and a part of the 52 1. 12 d. par. (ibid. no. 14450) spent on ‘les maisons et les chapelles ou ses luminaires furent assis en ii lieu.’ The chapels were made by Gautier l'Ouvrier, who had served Philip the Fair and who executed commissions for Philip of Poitiers and Jeanne of Burgundy soon after Philip became regent: Comptes de l'argenterie 5, 13, 17–18, 34; Comptes royaux (1314–1328) no. 24063.Google Scholar

107 Comptes de l'argenterie 18, and note that two gold Turkish cloths were put over the body of the young Jean when he was carried to St-Denis. The accounts for the anniversary service of Philip VI in 1351 (see n. 98 above) record the purchase of a ‘poille a mettre sur la sepulture,’ as well as ‘iii milliers de cire pour le luminaire pour l'anniversaire.’ Google Scholar

108 The only workmen mentioned in the argenterie accounts for the second funeral are the ‘valles qui alerent a Saint Denis tendre la chappelle.’ This does not prove, however, that masons or plasterers — whose services would have been required for disinterring Louis‘ body — were not employed, for these accounts consist primarily of expenses for cloth. The fuller accounts for Louis’ first funeral, prepared by Gencien de Pacy, list expenditures for workmen, wax, and carpentry separately from the sums spent on cloth. See Comptes royaux (1314–1328) nos. 14448–50, 14468–76.Google Scholar

When Philip the Fair visited Narbonne in 1304, he had two cloths placed on his father's entrail tomb: Comptes royaux (1285–1314) no. 23953, and, on the tomb, Erlande-Brandenburg, Le roi 172–73.

109 The site of Louis' grave is discussed in my study of Capetian burial at St-Denis.Google Scholar

110 See n. 1 above.Google Scholar

111 See n. 28 above for Louis' orders that distributions were to be made on the first, seventh, and thirtieth days of his burial; since he was buried on the third day after his death, the first of these distributions would have coincided with the first traditional memorial service, but the other two fell two days after the subsequent services. See Giesey, , Royal Funeral 159–62.Google Scholar

112 On 22 June 1316 a service was said for the dead king in Millau in Rouergue (Millau, A.M., CC 346, 72), and Philip may have ordered a memorial ceremony in Lyon. He does not, however, appear to have used such a service to attract the cardinals to the church of the Jacobins in order to imprison them there: for the allegation that he did, see the Anonymous of Caen, HF 22.26, and Lehugeur, , Philippe I 32 and cf. n. 1. The report of the Aragonese envoy shows that the cardinals customarily assembled in the house of the Jacobins and were simply following their usual practice when they met in the Dominican cloister on 28 June, the 24th day after Louis' death: see above at n. 81.Google Scholar

113 See Giesey, , Funeral Ceremony 159–164 for the appearance of this custom at the end of the fifteenth century in France; it is possible, although it seems to me unlikely, that the service for Philip VI described in n. 98 above was held to commemorate the anniversary of the king's fortieth-day service.Google Scholar

114 In the governmental ordinance prepared soon after Philip assumed control of the realm, de Fleury, Geffroy was officially accorded the position formerly held by Jean Billouart — clearly the post of royal argentier, although the title is not included in the ordinance: A.N., JJ 57, 42v; see n. 2 above.Google Scholar

115 See Fawtier, , Comptes du Trésor xxii, no. 1183, and p. 81. Relying on Lehugeur's incorrect dating of 8 January 1322 for the obsequies of Philip, V, Viard altered the initial date of Charles IV's first treasury journal from ‘vii’ to ‘viii’ January: Journaux du Trésor Charles IV no. 1 and n. 1, col. 1. A later entry in the journals (ibid. no. 1884) shows, however, that the date should not be changed and that the accounts actually began on 7 January, the date of Philip's funeral at St-Denis. The accounts of Philip VI opened on 7 February 1328, ‘qua die viscera Regis Karoli fuerunt inhumata’: Les journaux du Trésor de Philippe VI de Valois, suivis de l'Ordinarium Thesauri de 1338–1339 , ed. Jules-Édouard, M. Viard (Paris 1889) no. 1. When Jean II died in 1364, the king's demise at his funeral was still accepted doctrine: Delachenal, Roland, ed., Les Grandes Chroniques de France: Chronique des règnes de Jean II et de Charles V 4 vols. (Publications de la Société de l'histoire de France 348, 375, 391, 392; Paris 1910–1920) I 343 and especially n. 1, 344. Similar assumptions and practice are found in England: Powicke, F. M., King Henry III and the Lord Edward: The Community of the Realm in the Thirteenth Century, 2 vols. (Oxford 1947) II 589. A change in belief occurred in the mid-fourteenth century and is reflected in late additions to a fourteenth-century list of kings in a Chamber of Accounts register: B.N., lat. 12814, 223v. Whereas Philip of Valois' regency is dated from the day (given as 9 February 1327) ‘que le Roy charles son cousin fust enterres a S denis’), and whereas the rule of Jean II is dated from Philip VI's burial, the reigns of Charles V and Charles VI are said to have begun on the days their predecessors died. Earlier in the century, occasional exceptions to the conviction that the king died at his funeral can be found. The account of the Master of Waters and Forests that began on St. Andrew's day 1314, the day after Philip the Fair's death, terminated on Trinity Sunday 1316, 6 June, the day following Louis, X's death (which is wrongly dated 9 June): Inventaire d'anciens comptes royaux dressé par Robert Mignon sous le règne de Philippe de Valois , ed. Langlois, Charles-Victor (Recueil des historiens de la France, Documents financiers 1; Paris 1899) no. 2240. An account of Jean Billouart ran to 8 February 1328, the day after Charles IV's viscera were buried: Comptes royaux (1314–1328) I li.Google Scholar

Following Borrelli de Serres, Fawtier explains the termination on 31 July 1316 of a treasury journal that began on 1 June 1315 by Philip of Poitiers' institution of a reorganized system of government on 1 August: Comptes du Trésor xxii at nn. 3–4. This seems to me unlikely. Although it is true that a number of treasurers were removed on 1 August 1316 (ibid. 81), it was not uncommon for treasury records to end on 31 July: Viard, Journaux du Trésor Philippe VI lx, lxiii–lxiv.

116 Geffroy de Paris lines 7790–92.Google Scholar

117 Anciennes chroniques de Flandre in HF 22.405–406; Istore et croniques I 308–309; Chronographia I 232.Google Scholar

118 de St-Victor, Jean, in HF 21.663.Google Scholar

119 lbid., and Geffroy de Paris lines 7793–7810.Google Scholar

120 Geffroy de Paris lines 7811–39, where the currency is not specified; de St-Victor, Jean, in HF 21.663; cf. Guerout, , Registres no. 1375, Douet-d'Arcq, , Nouveau recueil v–vii, and Jean XXII: Lettres secrètes nos. 45, 66, 293, 476, 477; see finally Guerout, , Registres no. 243 and n. 29 above.Google Scholar

121 Dupuy, , Traité 18, 82–92; Berger, , ‘Le titre de régent’ 417–18; Berger does not note that Philip used the seal of the Châtelet in absentia magni sigilli (HF 21.467, on 28 August and 22 September 1316), although he remarks that between 1356 and 1358, during King Jean's captivity in England, the Dauphin Charles employed this seal as well as his father's and his own: Berger, , ‘Le titre de régent’ 418–19.Google Scholar

122 Berger, , ‘Le titre de régent’ 416–17.Google Scholar

123 According to a report sent from Lyon to Jayme II of Aragon (Acta Aragonensia I 211, no. 138), Philip of Poitiers wrote the cardinals that the barons of France had awarded him an 18 months' regency after the birth of Clementia's child; the report, however, is confused, for Philip is also said to have written that if Clementia had a daughter, he would be king (‘habeat regnum Francie iure suo’).Google Scholar

124 de St-Victor, Jean, in HF 21.663. Geffroy de Paris' chronology is garbled and difficult to reconcile with other evidence. His account suggests that all negotiations for the regency were concluded at the Palais on 16 July: then and there, he indicates, Philip was chosen guardian of the kingdom and the terms of the guardianship were defined, arrangements for dementia's dowry were made, changes in administrative personnel and policies were introduced, and, finally, oaths of fealty to Philip ‘com gardien’ were sworn: Geffroy de Paris lines 7813–70.Google Scholar

125 Listed as the regent's witnesses to his homage to the duke of Burgundy were Charles of la Marche, Louis of Évreux, Amé of Savoy, Jean dauphin of Viennois, Gaucher de Châtillon, Mile de Noyers, and Anseau de Joinville. In the duke of Burgundy's train were the lords of Rinel, of Époisses, and of Larrey, as well as Jean de Frolois, lord of Molinot: Côte-d'Or, A.D., B 10495. Witnesses to the agreement between Philip and Eudes included the councilors of the regent who are listed above, Charles of Valois and his son and namesake, Mahaut of Artois, Blanche of Brittany (Mahaut's widowed sister-in-law), Louis and Jean of Clermont. Guy of St-Pol, Henri lord of Sully, Guillaume de Harecourt, and Herpin d'Erquery: Dupuy, , Traité 210; Plancher, , Bourgogne I pr. clxiii.Google Scholar

Clementia apparently retained the residence at Bois de Vincennes as her own property until 15 August 1317, when, at Poissy and in the presence of many of Philip's adherents, she agreed to exchange it for the great house of the Temple in Paris: Douet-d'Arcq, Nouveau recueil vi–vii; A.N., J 1036, no. 7. She eventually gained possession of the Templars' house, where she died, but she had not yet been assigned it in January 1318: Jean XXII: Lettres secrètes no. 477; Douet-d'Arcq, Nouveau recueil iii.

126 Dupuy, , Traité 204–11; Plancher, , Bourgogne I pr. clxii–clxiv.Google Scholar

127 Olivier-Martin, , Régences 117–19, who does not cite the source referred to in the next note.Google Scholar

128 Servois, , ‘Documents inédits’ 66.Google Scholar

129 Côte-d'Or, A.D., B 10495; Petit, , Bourgogne VII 78.Google Scholar

130 ‘Et havons volu nous Eudes dessusdit…; & doit lidiz Philipe recevoir les homaiges come Gouverneour, sauf le droit de loir masle en toutes chouses, & sauf le droit des filles en tant comme a elles puet appartenir’: Plancher, , Bourgogne I pr. clxiii; cf. Dupuy, , Traité 208. See n. 89 above for the homage done by Eudes to Philip on 27 March 1318; this may have been Eudes' first homage to Philip or he may have been repeating an earlier act performed after his reconciliation with Philip.Google Scholar

131 Comptes de l'argenterie 13, 15, 16.Google Scholar

132 The three executors deputed to inventory Louis X's property — Raoul Rousselet, then bishop of St-Malo, Louis' confessor Wibert, and Hugues d'Augeron, Louis' chamberlain — began their work soon after Louis' death, and it seems likely that they were performing their duties in July 1316: B.N., Clairambault 832, 399, 432; Rouen, B.M., MS 3406 (Leber 5870, Menant 9) 51v, 59v; B.S-G., MS 786, 688, 704v. Philip of Poitiers' communications with the executors are recorded in the same account: Clairambault 832, 399–400, 439–40; Rouen MS 3406, 51v–52, 73v; B.S-G., MS 786, 688, 707. As the regent's agents, his three officials bought armor, cloth, wine and wine vessels, and gold and silver objects: Clairambault 832, 422–25, 433–34, 442–43, 439–42; Rouen MS 3406, 63v–65, 69v–70, 74v, 75v, 73–74; B.S-G., MS 786. 669v–701. Hugues d'Augeron presented to Philip as a gift ‘la coupe de S. Louis ou len ne boit point’: Clairambault 832, 438–39 and cf. 441; Rouen MS 3406, 72v and cf. 73; B.S-G., MS 786, 706. Cooking equipment and vessels of the sausserie were retained for the regent on a temporary basis: Clairambault 832, 449, 451–52; Rouen MS 3406, 78–80.Google Scholar

133 ‘… à la feste de la Penthecouste après l'an’ in Les Grandes Chroniques de France, ed. Viard, Jules, 10 vols. (Publications de la Société de l'histoire de France 395, 401, 404, 415, 418, 423, 429, 435, 438, 457; Paris 1920–1953) VIII 329; ‘in festo Pentecostes ab eodem festo immediate post annum futurum’ in Cont. Nangis I 428. Since Pentecost of 1316, May 30, had already passed, it is not clear whether Philip was promising to depart in 1317 or 1318, although Lehugeur (Philippe I 45) opts for 1317. In a dispatch written at Lyon on 14 September 1316 for the court of Aragon, it was reported that 5000 ‘and more’ French nobles were rumored to have taken the crcss and that they were to set out ‘mense Marcii ad duos annos’: Acta Aragonensia I 223, no. 145.Google Scholar

134 Grandes Chroniques de France VIII 288, and Geffroy de Paris 183–84.Google Scholar

135 Guerout, , Registres nos. 1369–70. Neither of these acts is dated or gives the place of issuance, but they are recorded immediately after the letters of remission, together with other royal letters issued in July 1317: ibid. nos. 1366–67, 1371. Although the Artois–Picardy treaty was said (ibid. 1370) to have been concluded ‘pour le roy,’ its provisions show that it was drafted during Philip's regency and that it was intended to provide guarantees to the allies that the confirmation of the agreement of December 1316 would be enforced: Codex juris gentium diplomaticus , ed. Wilhelm, Gottfried von Leibniz, , 2 vols. (Hanover 1693–1700) I 85–86, which contains three references to ‘le regent.’ For Gaucher de Châtillon's work with the allies in 1317 and later years, see Mignon no. 2647 and p. 361, and also Comptes royaux (1314–1328) 106–14.Google Scholar

136 A.N., JJ 54B, 1, no. 3.Google Scholar

137 A.N., JJ 57, 40v–44. The order of the witness list in the agreement of 17 July 1316 between Philip and Eudes of Burgundy is virtually identical with the order of the names of members of the ‘estroit conseil’ given in the ordinance: Plancher, , Bourgogne I pr. clxiii; A.N., JJ 57, 40v .Google Scholar

138 A.N., JJ 57, 41–42.Google Scholar

139 Ibid. 44.Google Scholar

140 Geffroy de Paris (lines 7846–53) states that Philip substituted payment in money for provision of horses and robes, but I have seen no evidence that this actually happened. Philip would clearly have been sympathetic with such a move, for the ordinance of December 1316 regulating the royal households contained far more references to monetary wages and provisions than had the restraining ordinance for Philip's household issued on 24 November 1315: A.N., JJ 57, 57–73; cf. Guérin, , Archives historiques du Poitou 11 (1881) 123–24.Google Scholar

141 A.N., JJ 57, 38–40; the ordinance is entitled (ibid. 38) ‘Cest lordenance que Mons’ qui ores est Roy fist ou temps quil estoit Regent. et veust quelle soit tenue en son hostel,‘ but this formal title was later altered by a scribe who eradicated ‘veust’ and 'soit,’ substituting for these words ‘vouloit’ and ‘feust’; he also added the note, ‘et lenuoia ason conseil dyuort a Paris lors que le Roy Jehan fu trespassez aulouure.’ See n. 153 below.Google Scholar

142 Bertrandy-Lacabane, 53–55; Asal, , Wahl 59, 78–80; for the role played by the count of Forez in securing the election, see Acta Aragonensia I 209, no. 137.Google Scholar

143 Bertrandy-Lacabane, 53–55, and cf. Lehugeur, , Philippe I 58–59, who wrongly assumes that Philip was in Paris on 1 September. The regent seems to have been there on 29 August, when he canceled a war tax: Ordonnances des roys de France de la troisième race , edd. de Laurière, Eusèbe-Jacob et al., 22 vols. (Paris 1723–1849) I 627. See n. 54 above for travel times.Google Scholar

144 Lehugeur, , Philippe I 49–50; Acta Aragonensia I 223, no. 145; Privilèges accordés à la couronne de France 126–29; and, for the decree concerning tournaments, A.N., J 705, no. 194, dated 16 September 1316, and granted at the supplication of Philip and other French nobles; for the heavy expenses Philip incurred at the tournament at Compiègne which he and his brother Charles attended in January 1314, see Journaux du Trésor Philippe IV nos. 6007, 6016.Google Scholar

145 Lehugeur, , Philippe I 50, and Acta Aragonensia I 224–25, nos. 146–147.Google Scholar

146 Côte-d'Or, A.D., B 10495; Comptes de l'argenterie 22–23 and cf. 20.Google Scholar

147 Petit, , Bourgogne VII 51 and VIII 217–18; Plancher, , Bourgogne II pr. clxiv–clxv.Google Scholar

148 Jean XXII: Lettres secrètes no. 62, undated, but before Jean's birth on 13–14 November. The letter also confirmed the papal dispensation sanctioning the marriages of Clementia and Philip of Poitiers, on which see n. 30 above.Google Scholar

149 Comptes de l'argenterie 16–17.Google Scholar

150 Ibid. 9. For Philip's reception of the oriflamme at St-Denis on 30 October 1316, two days before All Saints' Day, see Cont. Nangis I 429, who comments on the fact that the service was celebrated by the bishop of St-Malo and that the martyrs' relics were not placed on the altar; thus, the oriflamme was never brought into contact with the relics, as ordinarily happened; cf. Lehugeur, , Philippe I 69–72.Google Scholar

151 de St-Victor, Jean directly links Jean's early demise with Clementia's fever: HF 21.665; cf. the anonymous chronicle ending in 1356, ibid. 138. Mahaut of Artois, Philip V's mother-in-law, was later suspected of having had designs against Jean, but the rumors did not include the allegation that Clementia's illness had been the result of foul play: Lehugeur, , Philippe I 75–76; cf. Wood, , Apanages 57 n. 52 and Richard, , Mahaut 64 n. 4; see also n. 23 above.Google Scholar

152 Lehugeur's full analysis of the sources (Philippe I 73–74) reveals what radical contradictions they contain. Decisive evidence that the child was born on 14 November is found in the accounts of Mahaut of Artois, which show that she learned of the birth from dementia's goldsmith on 14 November: Richard, , Mahaut 64. The chroniclers are vague about the length of time the child lived, although most of them state that he died after seven or eight days; de St-Victor, Jean (HF 21.665), exceptionally, says the baby lived for only two or three days. The baby must have died either on 19 November (the day given by the continuator of Nangis' chronicle [Cont. Nangis I 430–31]) or on the 18th (the date that appears in an anonymous Parisian chronicle): Hellot, A., ‘Chronique parisienne anonyme de 1316 à 1339 précédée d'additions à la chronique française dite de Guillaume de Nangis (1206–1316),’ Mémoires de la Société de l'histoire de Paris et de l'lle-de-France 11 (1884) 26. The terminus ante quem is established by de Fleury's, Geffroy delivery of cloth for the funeral ceremonies on 20 November: Comptes de l'argenterie 18. Nangis' continuator states that the baby was buried on 20 November; the anonymous Parisian chronicle simply says that the body was taken to St-Denis on that day. In view of the date on which Fleury delivered the funerary ornaments, it seems far more likely that the ceremony at St-Denis was held on 21 or 22 November than that it was conducted on the 20, when Fleury made his delivery. Not until 21 November did Mahaut of Artois go to St-Denis; remaining there overnight, she returned to Paris late in the evening on 22 November: Richard, , Mahaut 64. In Chronographia I 233–34 Jean is said to have died ‘circa sextum mensem regni ejus’; this of course implies that the baby had ruled as king since Louis' death, even before his own birth. The statement shows clearly that Jean was considered by contemporaries ‘a true king of France.’ Jean was included in lists of the kings of France contained in a fourteenth-century Chamber of Accounts register (B.N., lat. 12814, 8, 223), although in one of the lists (ibid. 8) a marginal notation remarks ‘Iste Johannes fuit filius ludouici hutin sed quia parum vixit non ponitur in arbore regum franc’.' Nor was his funeral effigy at St-Denis decorated with any symbol of majesty.Google Scholar

A different assessment is offered by Ralph Giesey, who suggests that Jean was not considered to have been king until the sixteenth century: Ralph E. Giesey, ‘The Juristic Basis of Right to the French Throne,’ Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, n.s. 51 pt. 5 (1961) 41. Note, however, that the statement of the early fourteenth-century French jurist Pierre Jacob which Giesey quotes (ibid. n. 157) shows that Jacob considered Jean rex: the confusingly ambiguous statement of Du Tillet quoted in the same note unquestionably reveals Du Tillet's awareness that contemporary sources referred to Jean as king.

153 Ivors is located in Oise, ar. Senlis, c. Betz; see n. 141 above.Google Scholar

154 See n. 141 above.Google Scholar

155 For Notre-Dame, , see above following n. 6 and also Giesey, , Funeral Ceremony 35–36; on the parish of St-Germain-l'Auxerrois, known as ‘la Grande Paroisse’ in the eighteenth century because of its extent, see Friedmann, Adrien, Paris, ses rues, ses paroisses du moyen âge à la Révolution (Paris 1959) 70–73, 346–47. Expenses for embalming and for the funeral ceremonies are listed in Fleury's accounts: Comptes de l'argenterie 18–19. The accounts indicate that Jean's body was placed in a wooden coffin, which was covered with black cloth; since the baby was finally interred (Poinsot, , Extraction 113) in a stone coffin garnished with lead, the body must have been transported to St-Denis in the wooden box, rather than being exposed (above, at n. 8), as generally happened. Note, however, that the accounts included two Turkish cloths of gold and a black counterpane which were said to have been put ‘sus lui’ when he was taken to St-Denis; since no special clothing or ornaments were provided for the baby's body, the counterpane and cloths must simply have been draped over the coffin.Google Scholar

156 Cont. Nangis, 431; Comptes de l'argenterie 18–19; cf. Comptes royaux (1314–1328) no. 14476.Google Scholar

157 Acta Aragonensia I 468 no. 312, a report dated 24 May 1317 describing a conversation between the Aragonese envoys and Philip V at Melun on 30 April. At that point the duke of Burgundy was refusing to call Philip king and was still referring to him as regent; therefore Philip had convoked a parlement in Paris on 1 May 1317, so that, having judged the mood of the assembly, he could take such just and reasonable action as was expected of a king and lord: ibid. and see n. 89 above for the termination of the strife between Philip and Eudes of Burgundy. The question of the title of king of Navarre is discussed by Viard, Jules, ‘Le titre de roi de France et de Navarre au xive siècle,’ Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes 61 (1900) 417–49.Google Scholar

158 See Guerout, , Registres no. 299 for the steps Philip took to carry out the instructions in Louis' will that amends should be made to Raoul de Presles, a royal official wronged by Louis. See A.N., J 404, no. 22 and Pegues, , Lawyers 73–80. Presles' case had not been completely settled before Philip's death, and it weighed on Philip's conscience. In the codicil drafted on 2 January 1322, shortly before Philip's death, Philip ordered his executors to determine speedily if he had received ‘a bonne et iuste cause’ 10,000 l.t. taken from Presles; if not they were to make restitution 'sanz delay par quoy lame de nous nen demeure chargiee': A.N., J 404, no. 27.Google Scholar

159 Philip rejected one fleur de lys before he finally approved the one he presented to the abbey: Comptes de l'argenterie 26,5. The fleur de lys he actually gave the abbey cost 1401.15 s. par. See de St-Denis, Yves (HF 21.209) for his visit to St-Denis on 2 January. It seems to me highly unlikely that, as Douët-d'Arcq hypothesizes (Comptes de l'argenterie 26 n. 3), Philip made his gift at the time of the second funeral, since the creation of the jewel evidently required considerable planning, which would not have been possible in July 1316. For the relationship between the jewel and the crown of Charlemagne, see Pinoteau, Hervé, L'ancienne couronne française dite ‘de Charlemagne’ 1180?–1794 (Paris 1972) 1–6, and especially the diagram on 5.Google Scholar

160 Philip the Fair left gold fleurs de lys not only to the chasse of St-Denis, but also to the chasse of St. Thomas of Canterbury, the church of Notre-Dame of Boulogne-sur-Mer, the chasse of Notre-Dame of Chartres, and the chasse of St-Martin of Tours: Boutaric, Edgard, ‘Notices et extraits de documents inédits relatifs à l'histoire de France sous Philippe le Bel,’ Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale et autres bibliothèques, 202 (1865) 233–34. Not until 1327–1328 did the abbey of St-Denis receive 800 l. par. to purchase its fleur de lys, which was finally acquired for 815 1. 12 s. par. in 1342–1343: A.N., LL 1241, 70b, 237a .Google Scholar

Philip V's protracted illness and death are discussed in my study of his funeral account, which will soon be published; see also Lehugeur, Philippe I 10, 465.

161 For Philip IV's coronation on the feast of the Epiphany, see Berger, Élie, ‘Annales de Saint-Denis, généralement connues sous le titre de Chronicon sancti Dionysii ad cyclos paschales,’ Bibliothèque de l'École des Charles 40 (1879) 294; see also Yves de St-Denis in HF 21.609, Lehugeur, , Philippe I 83, and for the king's illness, Jean XXII: Lettres secrètes no. 114, cols. 91–92, and especially n. 4 col. 92. Fleury's accounts (Comptes de l'argenterie 71) state that the coronation was deferred for 8, rather than 3, days, although it is possible that ‘iii’ was wrongly read as ‘viii’.Google Scholar

162 Lehugeur, Philippe I 83.Google Scholar

163 See n. 78 above and at n. 79. For the ceremony of 2 February see Cont. Nangis I 434 and cf. Lehugeur, , Philippe I 84–86. On Pierre d'Arrablay see n. 70 above.Google Scholar

164 Cont. Nangis I 435; and for full discussion of the date of the boy's death, on 18 or 24 February 1317, see Hellot, , ‘Chronique parisienne anonyme’ 26.Google Scholar

165 Ibid., and see my study of Capetian burial at St-Denis for the significance of Jeanne's burial at the church of the Cordeliers.Google Scholar

166 Comptes royaux (1314–1328) nos. 11140–46. For popular response to the death of Philip's son, see Six Historical Poems of Geffroi de Paris, trans. Storer, Walter H. and Rochedieu, Charles A. (University of North Carolina Studies in the Romance Languages and Literatures 16; Chapel Hill 1950) 53, lines 16–20; the prospect of Philip's having more sons alleviated the sorrow felt at the child's passing. The reactions of Charles of Valois and Charles of la Marche are discussed by Lehugeur, , Philippe II (Le mécanisme du gouvernement [Paris 1931]) 123.Google Scholar

167 Pledges of fealty were given by representatives of southern towns who assembled at Bourges at the end of March 1317, and the oath taken by the proctors of Carcassonne specifically mentioned the rights of Philip and his male heir to the kingdom of France: Guerout, , Registres nos. 438 10, 442–43, and my doctoral dissertation, ‘Charters and Leagues in Early Fourteenth Century France: The Movement of 1314 and 1315’ (Harvard and Radcliffe 1960) 499–503. References to Philip's male heir were also included in the oaths of fealty sworn by the citizens of Poitiers in April 1317, and in the oath taken by Guillaume le Maire, bishop of Angers, to Amauri, lord of Craonon 19 April 1317: Audouin, E. and Boissonnade, P., ‘Recueil de documents concernant la commune et la ville de Poitiers,’ Archives historiques du Poitou 44 (1923) 351, no. ccxlvii; Livre de Guillaume le Maire , ed. Port, François-Célestin, in Collection de documents inédits sur l'histoire de France, Melanges historiques: Choix de documents 2 (Paris 1877) 533–3 1, and see 210 for the oath of fealty Guillaume swore on 16 May 1291 at Bois de Vincennes to Philip IV ‘et filio ejus regi Francorum post eum.’ After the death of Philip's son, Charles of la Marche and Louis of Évreux swore on 17 March 1317 to guard and defend Queen Jeanne and all Philip's children, especially any male heirs; they pleged to accept his first son as their ‘vrai seignour et roy de France’ after Philip's death: Servois, ‘Documents inédits’ 71.Google Scholar

In the first months of 1317 royal officials in the field were collecting pledges of loyalty throughout the kingdom. Béraud de Mercœur served as one of the king's commissioners, and in the first week of Lent 1317, between 20 and 26 February, five consuls of Najac in Rouergue traveled to Villefranche ‘per far sagrament de fizeltat al senher de mercuœur’; Mercœur received similar pledges of fealty on 18 March 1317 from representatives of Millau: A.D. Aveyron, 2E 178.2, 142v, and Millau, Archives Communales, CC 346, 77v. See B.N., fr. 9501, 112v for homages received in the Montagnes d'Auvergne, the bailliage of Bourges, and the bailliage of Troves. Langlois published references to similar homages collected in the bailliage of Vermandois and in Champagne, and in the viguerie of Béziers as well, and he suggested that a general recognitio feudorum was held in 1316–1317: Charles-Victor Langlois, ‘Registres perdus des archives de la Chambre des Comptes de Paris,’ Notices et extraits des manuscrits de la Bibliothèque Nationale et autres bibliothèques 40 (1917) 221–24. Whether or not this is so — and whatever the precise terms of the oaths — Philip was clearly attempting to collect as many pledges of fidelity as possible in the early months of 1317.

168 See nn. 115 and 161 above. When, on 27 August 1319, Queen Jeanne drew her last will, she still hoped that she and Philip would have one or more sons — ‘a quele chouse dieux uuille consentir & otroyer par sa grace.’ She provided, however, that if they did not — ‘la quele chouse dieux ne uuylle mie consentir’ — her eldest daughter should be her universal heir: A.N., J 404, no. 23.Google Scholar

169 Poinsot, , Extraction 94, 109, 113, 191–92, 194–95; see also Debret's plan of the excavations, drawn in 1832, which is printed in Formigé, , Saint-Denis 158 fig. 133; the plan furnished the excavators in 1817 by François-Joseph Scellier is found in A.N., AEI15, no. 128a (cf. Debret's authenticated copy, no. 1228), as is (no. 127b) a contemporary drawing by Debret indicating the relationship between the sites given by Scellier and the actual fosses: cf. Billard, , Les tombeaux 161 for a reproduction of one of the plans of 1817.Google Scholar

170 A.N., 0320, 0843, no. 6, and AEI15, no. 122 .Google Scholar

171 An extremely detailed account of the excavations and final ceremonies was prepared by de Geslin, M., second aide of ceremonies and chief deputy of the Grand Master of Ceremonies, de Dreux Brézé, M.: A.N., 03527, liasse Exhumations, 2e cahier. The official procès verbal, prepared under the direction of the chancellor, Charles-Henry Dambray, is far less full: A.N., AEI15, no. 127a. The most useful printed sources for the history of the exhumations of 1817 are Poinsot, , Extraction 194–202; Billard, , Les tombeaux 160–63.Google Scholar

172 A.N., 03527, liasse Exhumations, , 2e cahier. In the chevet of the basilica a magnificent chapelle ardente had been erected, and there the canons of St-Denis said three masses for the dead each day, from 13 to 21 January: ibid. 2V .Google Scholar

173 Ibid. 16; A.N., 03527, liasse Exhumations, , 3e liasse, a report of de Dreux Brézé, M., 4V–5v; A.N., AEI15, nos, 121, 127a 12, 127c, 127d .Google Scholar