Index to documents in the dossier
A. Communal Charter granted to Beauvais by King Philip Augustus, 1182
(click here)
B. The Commune of Beauvais Swears an Oath of Fidelity to King
Louis IX, 1228 (click here)
C. Descriptions of Sedition in Beauvais, 1233 (click
here)
1. From the chronicle of William of Nangis
2. From an anonymous thirteenth-century chronicler
3. From the chronicle of Aubry de Trois-Fontaines
D. Inquest into the troubles at Beauvais, October 1233 (click
here)
E. Letter from King Louis IX to the Dean and Chapter of Laon concerning
the troubles at Beauvais, Dec. 1233 (click here)
Introduction (by Richard Barton)
Beauvais in the late 12th and 13th centuries was typical of many northern
French towns: it had a booming economy based on the cloth trade; it had
for long been subject to the financial and legal jurisdiction of its traditional
lord, the Bishop of Beauvais; and its growing size and prosperity were
combining to lead the townsmen to desire self-government. By the
1150s, King Louis VII had, moreover, granted the town a charter of liberties
(similar to document A below); this provided a good measure of self-government
based on the power of the oaths sworn by the townsmen to help each other
and abide by the rulings of their elected "peers" and mayor. Yet
the very wealth of the town meant that the great political figures - namely
the king and the bishop - continued to assert rights of jurisdiction and
finance. When in the early 1230s the king appointed one of his men
as mayor of the town and it appeared that civic self-determination would
collapse under the force of royal influence, tensions between the middle
classes (described as the "populares" or "lesser men") and the elites grew.
Finally, in the winter of 1233 a group of the "populares" assaulted the
elites, beat up the mayor, and plundered a number of wealthy homes.
The result of this riot was never in doubt - the king promptly appeared
with his men and put down the rioters, scattering them to jails all over
France and, in the process, managing to pillage not only the houses of
the rebels but the episcopal estates as well.
From the king's point of view, the riot had canceled any privileges the townsmen might have won from earlier monarchs, and he was justified in punishing them with prison and seizure of their goods. Bishop Milo of Beauvais, however, was shocked that the king would take it on himself to punish the rioters - for the bishop argued that he, not the king, possessed rights of justice in Beauvais. (He was also more than a little annoyed that the king's men had looted his property). Despite all of the bishops' efforts, the king refused to recognize his claim. Furious at his own impotence, the Bishop turned to the church for aid against the king; recognizing the importance of precedent in this case, a hurriedly gathered synod of Bishop Milo's colleagues from the Archdiocese of Reims solemnly announced an interdict over the entire diocese - no church was to be open, no masses were to be said, and no priests were to absolve sins until the affront to the church was repaired. Yet the population of the other towns in the Archdiocese did not see that they should have to suffer over a purely internal squabble in Beauvais, and after some months the other bishops of the archdiocese lifted the interdict. Bishop Milo went off to Rome to seek the pope's assistance, but died on the way. In the short term, then, the king had won.
As should be clear from this introduction, the series of documents that follow shed light on a number of important topics: 1) the growth of towns; 2) civic self-identity and desires for self-government; 3) the rise of royal power in France; 4) the importance (especially financial) of rights of justice; 4) the growing tension between secular and ecclesiastical administrations; and 5) the growing sophistication of the legal process. As you read the documents below, keep in mind these larger issues - don't get bogged down with the names of minor witnesses.
Note: I have provided several endnotes that serve to explain problematic words or phrases; these notes will be found at the end of the dossier.
In the name of the Holy and Individual Trinity, Amen. I, Philip, by the grace of God King of the French, command it to be known to all, both those in the present and those in the future, that we confirm and concede to the men of Beauvais [possession of] that commune which they have held from our father, Louis [VII], and from our ancestors, for many years previously; [they shall have their commune] just as the commune had previously been instituted and sworn, with all the customs that the present charter contains, excepting their loyalty to us.
The customs are these:
1. All men living within the wall of the city and in the suburb, regardless
of what sort of land they live on, shall swear [the oath of] a commune;
each [such man] shall remain in it [the commune] unless through the decision
of the mayor, the peers, and those who swore counsel.
2. Anyone remaining within the walls of this town shall duly give aid according to his status to anyone else [living in Beauvais].
3. And provided that the complaint is brought to them, the mayor and peers of the commune, after due deliberation, shall perform justice on the body or property of whomsoever does wrong to a man who has sworn this commune [ie., to a member of the commune], unless the malefactor shall emend his wrong to satisfaction of the mayor and peers.
4. And if he who commits some wrong flees to a place of refuge, the mayor and peers of the commune shall meet with the lord of the refuge, or he whose refuge it is, to discuss this matter; and if he [the lord] is able to satisfy them concerning this enmity after they have deliberated, the matter will be resolved; but if he will not want to make amends, let them take vengeance on his goods or his men after due deliberation.
5. And if a merchant comes to the market of Beauvais and anyone does wrong to him within the boundaries of the city, the mayor and peers shall see that justice is served in this matter after due deliberation, provided that the complaint is brought to them and that the merchant comes across his malefactor within the town; [let them make justice] except if the merchant happens to be an enemy of the town. And if the malefactor himself shall flee to some place of refuge, the merchant or mayor and peers shall send notification to him, and if he can satisfy the merchant or prove he did not commit the wrong, the commune will be satisfied. If, truly, he can do neither, and he can [still] be seized within the town, vengeance shall be taken on him according to the judgment of the mayor and peers.
6. No one, except us and our bailiff, shall be able to bring into our city any man who has done wrong to a man of the commune, unless the malefactor is coming to emend that wrong to the satisfaction of the mayor and peers. Truly, if the bishop of Beauvais ignorantly brings such a man who has done wrong to a man of the commune into the city, let it [the wrong] first be demonstrated to him and afterwards let him in no way bring in such a man, unless with the approval of the mayors and peers, under which circumstances he would be able bring back such a man.
7. In each mill there will be only two juniores [junior administrative officers]; but if anyone shall try to impose more juniores or other bad customs in the mills, and if the ensuing clamor shall come to the [attention of the] mayor and peers, let them make justice after due deliberation to he who made the complaint.
8. Item, if the bishop of Beauvais shall try to go to our three courts or on our military expeditions, let him bring only three horses to each court; but he shall in no way be able to seize the horse of a foreigner. And if he or one of his household men shall accept the ransom of some man for a horse, he ought afterwards to seize no other in its place. If truly he shall want to take many [horses], and if complaint [concerning this] shall come to the mayor and peers, let assistants suitable to his status be appointed to make proper inquiry into this matter.
9. Item, if the bishop of Beauvais shall want to send fish to us at any time, let him take one horse.
10. No man from the commune shall lend or give his money to the enemies of the commune for as long as war endures; if he does so, he will be a perjurer. And if it shall be proven that he delivered or gave [it] to the enemy, justice shall be made of him according to the judgment of the mayor and peers.
11. And if at any time the commune shall exit the town [to fight] against its enemies, none of them shall communicate with its enemies unless by the license of the mayor and peers.
12. Moreover, if anyone of the commune shall lend his money to anyone from the city, and he to whom it was loaned shall flee to any other place of refuge, the lord of that refuge, having heard the complaint, ought either to return the aforesaid [money] or to eject the debtor from his refuge; and if he does neither, and any men from his refuge shall be found, let those men be made to stand justice according to the judgment of the mayor and peers.
[13A. (This version of article 13 appeared in the charter of Louis VII; it was replaced in Philip Augustus' charter of 1182 with article 13B) Let the men of the commune bring their foodstuffs within the boundaries of the city for the sharing of the vassalic guard-duty; because if it shall be carried off by them outside the boundaries, the commune will not answer to them thenceforward, unless a malefactor shall have arrived within the city]
13B. Item, if someone shall carry off the money of some man of the commune and shall go to some place of refuge, let justice be inflicted on him, providing that complaint is made about this matter to the mayor and peers and providing that he can be found; or [let justice be inflicted] on the men and goods of the lord of the refuge, following the judgment of the mayor and peers, unless the money is returned.
14. For the stretching out of cloths [extensionem pannorum], the hangings [penditoria] ought to be fixed at an equal distance from the ground; and justice shall be done according to the judgment of the mayor and peers to whomever who commits wrongs concerning the hangings, cloth, or those things pertaining to hangings, provided complaint is brought to the mayor and peers. [here hangings are probably "tapestries" or some other form of local textile-work]
15. Let each man of the commune see that the money which he has lent to a foreigner shall be secured [ie., with guarantees and pledges], since no man may be seized on that account unless he is a debtor or a pledge.
16. Item, no one who has sworn this commune, nor the commune of the town itself, shall for any reason prepare to bring a [legal] action outside the wall of the city.
17. Item, if it happens that anyone from the commune shall buy an inheritance and shall hold it and build on it for a year and a day, and someone comes along afterwards and disputes that purchase, he [the purchaser] shall not have to respond to him in this matter, but the buyer shall remain in peace.
18. Thirteen peers shall be elected by the commune, from whom, if the peers and those who swore counsel shall give consent, there shall be one or two mayors.
19. The mayor and peers shall swear that they will deport no one from the commune on account of friendship [ie., partiality], that they will injure no one on account of hatred, and that they will give due deliberation to everyone according to their status. All the others [of the commune] will swear to follow and support the deliberation of the mayor and peers.
20. The commune shall concede and confirm the justice and deliberation that shall be made by the mayor and peers.
21. We [King Philip] concede, moreover, that the present charter shall
not be carried outside the city for any reason. And because we have
confirmed and secured it [the charter], whoever shall want to speak against
it shall not be answered in any way.
And so that it may remain correct and inviolable in posterity,
we commanded the present page to be confirmed by our seal and by the characters
of our royal name affixed below. Done at Fontainebleau, in the year
from the incarnation 1182, in the third year of our reign, with those men
standing in our palace whose names and signs are appended below:
S[ign of] Theobald our steward
S. Guy the butler
S. Matthew the chamberlain
S. Ralph the constable
Given by the hand of Hugh the chancellor
B. The Commune of Beauvais swears fidelity to Louis IX, 1228
Upon the death of one king, his vassals were expected to renew their
oaths of homage to his successor. St. Louis, or Louis IX, came to
the throne in 1228. As a result, the commune of Beauvais sent formal
notice that it accepted him as king and lord. Implicit in this oath
is the understanding that as a result, Louis would honor the privileges
granted to Beauvais by his father.
To their most excellent lord, Louis, by the grace of God king
of the French, and to Blanche, their lady, Queen of the French, the mayor
and peers of the commune of Beauvais, who serve you in all matters as we
ought and as we promised, send greetings. May your excellency know
that we made the oath of fidelity before John of Vineis, your bailiff,
according to the mandate that was conveyed in your letters patent; [we
swore] thus that we will always obey and serve by your mandate and your
service in all things and through all things, against all men and all women
who are able to live and die; and we [swore that we] will serve and defend
you and the lord Queen and her sons against everyone, as much as we are
able, since we ought in no way to depart from your jurisdiction and dominion.
In testimony of this oath, we sent to you our letters patent. Done
in the year of the lord 1228, in the month of October.
C. Descriptions of Sedition in Beauvais, 1233
1. From the Chronicle of William de Nangis, monk at the abbey of Saint-Denis outside Paris
1233. There was a conflict at Beauvais, a French city, between the greater and lesser burghers of the town, whence, after many of the wealthy burghers had been killed, many of the lesser men who had been captured were remanded to prison in diverse locations throughout France. And because Saint Louis, the king, had come down with a vengeful hand, as if he were lord, Milo, count and bishop of that city, placed his own diocese under interdict. But although he set out for Rome in order to pursue this matter [ie., the king's usurpation of the bishop's right to punish the rioters], he died en route to Rome. His successor, Bishop Geoffrey, pursued the same cause, but he lasted only a few days in the bishopric due to illness. His successor, Robert, made peace with the king and thus absolved the diocese from interdict.
2. From an Anonymous 13th century Chronicler
In the year of the lord 1233, there was a dissension between the burgers [townsmen] of Beauvais, with the men of lesser status rising against the wealthier; as a result, many of the elites were killed, many of the lesser men were captured, and a great amount of money was redeemed. And on account of this the diocese lay for many years under interdict.
3. From the chronicle of Alberic (d. 1241), monk of the Cistercian abbey of Trois-Fontaines
In the year 1233, King Louis, opposing those from the city of Beauvais, where there had been enormous discord between the rich and the poor [plebeios], avenged himself thus so that he commanded that 1500 of the lesser men of the city who had been captured be led to Paris and elsewhere and that they be imprisoned in nineteen communes [towns], members of which [communes] the king had summoned [to Paris].
D. Inquest into the troubles at Beauvais.
On October 7, a formal inquest or inquisition was held in Beauvais
to determine which party - the king or the bishop - was in the right. Notice
that the demands of the populares are not in question; indeed, they are
mostly peripheral to the power struggle between king and bishop.
Medieval inquests required the careful interrogation of a sizeable number
of trustworthy witnesses. You would do well to note the rank and
origin of those called in to report what they saw and heard. Are
all the witnesses clergymen? From the testimony can you determine
which side was holding the inquest? Can we detect the sympathies
of the witnesses? You might also consider the nature of this document
itself: what does its existence, length, and format tell us about legal
procedure in the 13th century? How were court cases prosecuted? How
were cases won? What were the standards of evidence and proof?
Finally, is it possible to piece together a more detailed chronology of
what happened in Beauvais in 1233 (and why) than is given by the chroniclers?
1. Master Prior, a canon of [the cathedral of] Beauvais, says that he was at Noyon on a certain day (which day, he cannot recall) which will be three years ago come the next Lent, for the council of Reims, and he heard the late Milo, formerly bishop of Beauvais, complaining to the council about the multiple injuries that the king had inflicted on him at Beauvais. Namely, [he complained that the king], against the request, prayer and supplication of the bishop, entered the bishop's town with soldiers and many sworn men of the commune, for whom many murders and other enormities were committed and perpetrated in the city, and he [the king] caused the ban to be proclaimed, men to be seized, houses to be destroyed, and moveables belonging to the bishop's jurisdiction [justitia] to be devastated, [all of which was done] to the prejudice of the bishop's lordship and jurisdiction, since all jurisdiction of the city belonged to the bishop and had been exercised by him. And in order to prove this [jurisdiction], he had demonstrated and caused to be read aloud certain letters of the king of France, through which he proved his lordship and total jurisdiction over the city. The bishop, moreover, beseeched the council [of Reims] to take counsel concerning this matter and to assist the church of Beauvais;
[Master Prior also says] that the bishop sent his Official and a certain knight, through whom he questioned and admonished the king about this matter; and afterwards, on the following day, right on the feast, that is, the vigil of the Purification, the king came to Bresles; and the bishop went to him; and the bishop said to the lord king: "Lord, do not inflict injury on me; I ask you, as [your] liege vassal, that you not interfere in this matter, since I am just now prepared to make justice, and with your counsel, I ask that you send with me [someone] from your council, so that he may see whether I make good justice." But the bishop did not receive a favorable response from the king.
On the following day [February 1 or 2] the king entered Beauvais and
the bishop, accompanied by many [canons] of the chapter, came to him there;
again the bishop petitioned him in the manner listed above, and the bishop
caused the letters of King Louis, which he possessed, to be read out before
the king. These letters concerned the [right of] justice which he [the
bishop] had possessed at Beauvais. He also read out letters from
the lord pope [Lucius III, 1182 or 1183], and then made his request a second
time. The bishop said that the king should decree whatever sort of
justice he might want (with the advice of his council) concerning the deed
[the riot], provided that he do so through the bishop or the bishop's mandate.
(note 1)
Item, he [Magister Prior] says that the bishop had informed the
king of such; but the king did not reply in any meaningful way. And
after the ban had been proclaimed in the city on the part of the king,
and the houses had been plundered, and men had been captured, the bishop
complained to the king that he [the king] had done him a wrong and that
the king ought to restore to the bishop the [rights of] justice that he
had taken from him.
And after complaining of this to the council [of Reims], the council informed the bishop that three bishops - of Laon, Chalons, and Soissons - would be sent to the same king to demonstrate to him on the part of the council how he ought to emend this; and if he would not emend it, the three bishops would proceed to the town of Beauvais where they would hold an inquiry [inquisitionem]. And he heard from them that they had formally declared to the king that he could send a report to the inquiry if he wanted. In the end they came to Beauvais and made an inquiry and received [the testimony of] many burgesses; and he [Master Prior] believes that the burgesses had produced witnesses to the contrary before the three bishops. And they made it known to Simon de Poissy and Peter of Hala, who held custody of the city for the king, that they could be present at the inquiry; and he saw them come before the bishops on one occasion. Once the inquiry had been completed, the three brought their results back to the council, which had been re-summoned [it met at Laon, 13 March 1233]. And there it was again ordered that the king be warned; and still once again. And he [Master Prior] knows now that the archbishop and bishops went before the king to remonstrate with him; and he knows that the king was warned twice. He knows [this] because he accompanied the archbishop and bishops. (note 2)
Item, he says that afterwards the archbishop and many prelates went to the king at Beaumont-sur-Oise with evidence from these letters, and there they supplicated him and asked him to show mercy to the church of Beauvais; the king, however, did nothing. And afterwards, the archbishop took counsel with certain prelates and then ordered a sentence of interdict to be imposed in clear form through archiepiscopal documents; he however believes that the sentence of interdict was simply laid by the archbishop of Reims; he also believes that the interdict was placed on the [entire ecclesiastical] province of Reims and served in the dioceses of Laon and Soissons.
Item, he says that a little before the Nativity of the Lord, two years ago, there was a council at Saint-Quentin [25 December 1233]; and then the bishop of Beauvais, at the news that the interdict ought to be relaxed, with he who was speaking [ie., Master Prior] and Master Peter the archdeacon present, beseeched the archbishop and council not to revoke the interdict to the prejudice of his church without [having obtained] the required satisfaction. And he says that they, afterwards, ignoring this appeal, relaxed the said interdict.
2. Bartholomew of Franoy, a knight, says that the contention between the greater men [elites] and lesser men had erupted in Beauvais, because Robert de Moret, a citizen of Senlis, had been placed there as mayor by the mandate of the king; and thus discord erupted between the populares and the greater men, because certain [of the populares] did not want to have a mayor and thus they attacked the mayor and the great men (who are called money-changers) of the town, and captured them and wounded some and killed others, as Bartholomew himself saw. And after this attack, Bartholomew came into the city and was immediately sent by the bishop's bailiff to the bishop, who was at Bresles; and it was suggested to the bishop through Bartholomew that the bishop should not enter the city unless he had many men with him. And when he, who is speaking [ie., Bartholomew], went to the bishop and found him already coming along the road [to Beauvais], he told him what the bailiff had ordered. Yet on account of this the bishop did not hang back, but instead came on without stopping, and he entered the city after dark; and after he had fully heard all the things that had been done, he then held council to consider how best this deed might be avenged. And then, around midnight, the bishop heard that the king had come to the city; [and therefore] he sent he who is speaking [ie., Bartholomew] and Master Robert, his Official (note 3), to ask the king if he might give his advice concerning such a great and enormous crime, and [to tell the king] that he [the bishop] was prepared to avenge [it] according to the king's counsel. Which having been done, the king responded that he himself would avenge the crime, and the queen responded similarly. And on that day the king came to Bresles; and the bishop came there and asked and begged [the king] that he not come to Beauvais to the prejudice of the bishop's rights, since the bishop was prepared to avenge the wrong according to the king's advice. But the king responded to him: "I will go to Beauvais and you shall see what I do." And the king entered the city and the house of the bishop, who a third time asked and warned the king in that house not to do anything prejudicial to the bishop, since he [the bishop] was prepared to avenge what had been done. The king, however, did not respond. Rather, on the following morning and in the days to come, the king caused the ban to proclaimed, houses to be destroyed, and men to be imprisoned.
3. Ralph, priest of Saint-Vaast of Beauvais, says that he heard the
interdict of the province of Reims [issued] by the council of prelates,
[which was laid] on account of the injuries which the king had inflicted
on the church; and he says that he was in Beauvais, three years ago this
coming feast of the Purification [ie., 1 February 1233] on the eve of the
said feast, that is, the day on which the king entered Beauvais with his
friends and soldiers. And the melee between the great men and populares
(note 4) had occurred on the Monday before the said feast
[ie., 31 January 1233]. And he says that he saw the populares take
the mayor, who had been chosen by the king and whose tunic was torn to
shreds, and parade him through the city; and his fur coat was shredded
down to his belt; and he saw [that] many [had been] wounded and killed.
And afterwards he [Ralph] heard that the populares were saying: "Only we
can make you mayor." And [Ralph believed] that the bishop had been
injured in this matter, since the king had made the mayor there, although
the custom of Beauvais was that twelve of the peers of the burgesses should
elect two of themselves as mayors and present them to the bishop; and [instead]
the king made a foreigner the mayor.
He says that it was a good thirty-six years ago, as he believes,
when King Philip [Augustus] had been making war against King Richard [Lion-Heart],
[that] the commune had destroyed a certain house of Enguerrand of Tornella,
and he saw that Bishop Philip had brought them to his court to answer for
this. And there was thus a great discord between the bishop and the
commune as a result; and finally King Philip came to the city, and there
was a great trial.
[He says] that the king sent Simon de Poissy and certain knights and servants to guard the city, [doing so] against the bishop's rights; and they [the communards] admonished the aforesaid [king's men], by the bishop's authority, on three successive and continuous days, that they ought to depart from the city; and because they refused to leave, they [the bishop and his men?] excommunicated them. Item, they warned and excommunicated the mayor and peers in the same way.
[He says] that two servants of the king, Durand of Sens and Christian of Paris had remained in the house of the bishop, had seized his house and vine, and had confiscated the bishop's revenues; and Peter of Hala caused the vines to be sold; and when the Bishop had come to Beauvais, he was detained in the house of the treasurer.
4. Peter, a priest, said to be from Meschines, says that the bishop possessed all justice in the town, namely [the rights over] murder, rape, spilling of blood, theft, anvoirre, excligniationem, and vicarial exactions.
5. Lord Erard, abbot of Saint-Lucien [of Beauvais], brother of Baldwin of Monchy, says that the king required the commune to participate in the royal army and in other meetings of the host; and if they did not want to [send troops], the king would accept money instead. And he heard that sometimes the king would accept one thousand five hundred pounds [of pennies], and sometimes less.
6. Master Bernard the succentor [second chanter, of the Cathedral] says that Bishop Milo said in the chapter that all the bishops from the province of Reims promised him that they would lay an interdict on their dioceses, but that they first wanted him to lay the interdict on his own diocese, and thus he was the first to lay the interdict; and afterwards the bishop came to Saint-Quentin to a council called by the authority of the lord of Reims, where the interdict was removed by the authority of certain letters of the lord pope in the hopes that peace would result.
He says that on the eve of the Purification three years ago, the lesser people [minutus populus] of the city rose up against the money lenders and the mayor of the same place; and the mayor and moneylenders, having armed themselves, forced their way into a certain house, and barricaded themselves inside it; finally, after fire had been applied to the neighboring house and the house had been attacked, they captured the mayor and moneylenders and killed some of them.
Item, he says that on the following night the bishop arrived and, as he understood it, eighty of those who were said to be most culpable in this matter came before him and the bishop demanded that they subject themselves, high and low, to his will. These men were receiving counsel from Robert des Mureaux (note 5), mayor, who told them that [the bishop] would not take care of them, saying that if they did submit, their lives and limbs would be in danger. And they left without having submitted to the bishop's will. Afterwards the bishop blamed this advice and his men, since they had not retained the guilty ones; but his men replied that they had not had enough power to restrain them.
And on that day the bishop came to meet the king at Bresles; the king, on the next day, arrived at Beauvais; and on the next, the king caused the captured men of Beauvais to be dragged from the prison of the bishop, and he caused to be proclaimed through the ban that everyone should come to the market; and the king caused them to be seized and confined in the market-hall; afterwards, on the next day, he caused many to be banished from his kingdom; and he ordered this to the mayor and peers.
[Bernard says] that twenty were killed and thirty were wounded; and after the king had come, the sons of the dead and the other wounded complained to the king. And through the advice of the king and of the commune it was ordered that [the] houses [of the rebels] should be destroyed; and fifty houses were destroyed by the mayor, who had been injured [lit. "pierced"] first, and by the citizens of the commune who were with him.
[Bernard says] that the king did not do wrong to the bishop in those things that he had done in the city, since the bishop was in default, and [he says] that the mayor was able to render justice over [the] bodies [of guilty citizens] through the axe and over [their] goods by destroying [their] houses.
7. Peter Maillatus, a member of the commune, says that [in the time] when [Bishop] Philip had waged war against the count of Boulogne (note 6), the bishop asked the king to grant him the keys to the city; and he [Peter] heard this; and he saw that the keys had been sent and rendered to the bishop by royal command.
Item, he says that the walls and ditches belong to the commune.
8. Peter the archdeacon says that in the year of the incarnation of the lord 1225, in the month of September, on the feast of St. Michael [29 September 1225], he was present, and saw the levies of the lord King of France and of the count of Boulogne, as they told him, whom he came across as they were proceeding to Beauvais at the order of the king.
Item, he was present when lord Milo, former bishop, in the year of the lord 1232, on the vigil of the Purification [1 February 1233], spoke to the king.
Item, he was present at Noyons at the provincial council called there, in the year of the lord 1232, in the first week of Lent [20-27 February 1233], when the bishop made a complaint through his Official against the king for the injuries which the king had inflicted and caused to be performed on him. He made the complaint in this way: "To you, holy fathers, your bishop of Beauvais makes known how, although justice in and jurisdiction over the city of Beauvais belongs to the bishop, and [although] he has rights over each and everyone in Beauvais, and [although] this had peacefully been the custom for him and his predecessors, [nevertheless] the lord King, on the occasion of a certain crime committed against him, came to the city of Beauvais with a great many arms and levies, and after supplications and prayers made by the bishop to him, he caused his ban to be proclaimed in the city, [and he caused] men to be seized, as many as 1500 houses to be utterly looted, and others to be exiled. And on his departure, when he sought from the bishop eighty pounds of Parisian pennies to compensate for provisioning [his army] for five days, the bishop said that what the king asked for was new and unheard-of [and therefore] he sought from the king a brevis dies (note 7) so that he might deliberate this matter with his chapter. Nevertheless the lord king did not want to give him such a [delay]; instead, he seized all the things pertaining to the house of the bishop and then departed, leaving guards in the town and in the bishop's dwellings; on account of this the bishop asked the holy synod to provide counsel and assistance to him and to [his] church." With this said, Bishop Milo caused to be read out at the synod the charter of King Louis, which has been mentioned above (note 8). After a while, the bishop, having received counsel, departed. And the synod, having deliberated on this matter, decided to send three bishops, namely those of Soissons, Laon and Chalons, to inquire into the injuries which the bishop [of Beauvais] claimed had been levied against him and which afterwards he had reported to the council; and he [Peter the archdeacon] saw the letters of the archbishop and bishops [of the synod] in which it was stated that these three ought to inquire into the jurisdiction over the church of Beauvais through the authority of the synod. And these three came to Beauvais and announced to the bishop, to those partisans of the king, to Robert de Moret, and to the peers of the city that they had come from the council to inquire into the justice of the church of Beauvais and the wrongs which the bishop claimed had been inflicted on him; and they investigated the bishop's claims.
He [Peter] was present as a witness in the week before Palm Sunday [20-27 March 1233] at Laon, where the council had gathered, and where the results of the inquisition was related.
And in the next year, before the winter feast of Saint Martin [before 11 November 1233], but on which day he cannot recall, he was present at Beaumont, where various discussions were held concerning [how to achieve] peace; and when the Archbishop of Reims, who claimed to possess in himself the authority of the council, was not able to arrive [there], it was forbidden to impose a discussion in any way (note 9); and the bishops of Senlis, Soissons, Chalons, Cambrais, and Beauvais had been present, but nothing was accomplished, except conversation among themselves. Staying afterwards with the archbishop and the council, they remained in the same place for a long time; finally the archbishop said to the same witness [Peter?] "Know that a condemnation will be pronounced."
Item, Peter was present at Amiens, where the Archbishop was abiding,
and this was around the time of the feast of Saint Andrew [around 30 November
1233]; and master Simon of Arci, along with certain members of the chapter
of Amiens, came and said to the archbishop: "Lord, you have commanded that
a certain sentence of interdict be spoken by our bishop under your authority,
and you make mention of a certain council about which we know nothing since
we were not called to that council, and [because of] this [we have] a legal
complaint [causam], which I announce for me and for my chapter" (note
10). Item, he expressed another reason, that is that a mandate
was made concerning the placing of the interdict while a certain day was
pending, namely [the day] which the Cathedral chapters were to hold at
Noyon [to discuss] the affair of Beauvais (note 11).
Item, he described another reason [to not obey the interdict]: since they
were supposed to offer thanks to God for any alms and goods given to them,
he didn't reckon that silence should be imposed on them unless they had
called for it.
Item, he was present at Saint-Quentin, at the council gathered
there, on the Sunday before the Lord's birth [ie., December 18].
On the same Sunday, at the third hour of vespers, because he knew that
the same bishop (note 12) wanted to relax the interdict
[that had been] pronounced for the sake of the church of Beauvais, the
bishop of Beauvais asked that the said interdict, which had been pronounced
for his and his church's sake, not be relaxed until satisfaction having
been made to him. And this appeal was made to the council, before
the archbishop and the bishops of Senlis, Cambrais, Tournai, Arras, Therouane,
and others, except the bishops of Laon and Noyon. Soon thereafter,
on Monday or Tuesday, all the bishops and chapters were gathered together
when Master Simon d'Arci got up and, speaking for the chapters, as he claimed,
he proposed to the full council the aforesaid reasons and certain others
ones; among which was that the business of Beauvais had only been brought
to the synodal court after the mandate [had been] made by the bishop about
the issuance of the interdict; and he said that the archbishop ought not
to introduce himself further in the council.
Item, he was present when the lord of Soissons, on the part of the lord
archbishop and the bishops who were from the council, relaxed the interdict
placed on behalf of Beauvais in spite of the bishop of Beauvais' appeal.
And this was done on the Monday or Tuesday after the last Sunday before
Christmas in 1233; the bishop of Beauvais' appeal had taken place on the
day before.
Item, he says that Simon d'Arci was appealing on behalf of the
chapters of the cathedral churches of the province of Reims at Saint-Quentin,
where the provincial council had gathered, on the Sunday before Christmas,
when the suffragans of the Archbishop of Reims, excepting the Archbishop
and the bishops of Soissons and Cambrais, admitted that they had made a
mistake in placing the interdict on their dioceses, and that they preferred
to revoke it themselves than to have it revoked by a superior authority.
And the bishop of Chalons, acting for himself and for others, said that
they ought to revoke the interdict and, lest the archbishop should proceed
against them in another matter on his own with the authority of this council,
he appealed for himself and for others to the lord pope. After these
words, the following was proposed on behalf of the bishop of Beauvais:
"Lord archbishop, you know that, by the authority of the council, you and
your suffragans have placed an interdict in your dioceses on account of
the injuries done to the church of Beauvais, concerning which no satisfaction
has yet been made; and you know well that it is important to me that it
not be revoked before satisfaction [has been made]; and since it was pronounced
with the consent of you and your suffragans, I appeal, lest they revoke
it, to the lord pope, placing myself, my church, and my case under the
protection of the lord pope."
9. In the year of the lord 1235, on a Sunday before the feast of St-Denis [ie., 7 October 1235], Lord John, priest of St. Peter, dean of Christianity [decanus christianitatis] (note 13) of Senlis, says that, in the year of the lord 1233 the bishop of the same place, having gathered together the populace at the mother church, preached a sermon; having finished it, he said that it was fitting for him to place his diocese under interdict. Afterwards he demonstrated to the canons gathered in his house letters that had been sent to him by the archbishop of Reims, through which the bishop of Senlis was ordered, by the authority of the archbishop and the council, that he personally lay his diocese under interdict; for several days this interdict was observed. But the canons of the mother church and of Saint-Frambourg did not vigorously maintain [it], and afterwards the witness [ie., lord John] approached the bishop to ask him to revoke the interdict; [and] if the bishop did not wish to do this, then John would appeal, on behalf of himself and those priests who followed him, to the Roman court.
The 32nd witness of this inquest says that he witnessed a dispute between Bishop Philip and the burgers (note 14), and [says that] a [judicial] duel ought to be fought concerning this dispute in the bishop's court with the bishop's authority. And the bishop sent for the members of the commune and his vassals, and he accepted the keys of the gates and caused barricades to be set up in the direction of St-Quentin.
E. Letter from King Louis IX to the Dean and Chapter
of Laon concerning the troubles at Beauvais
The cathedral chapter and Dean of the neighboring town of Laon were
unsympathetic to the Bishop of Beauvais' claims that King Louis had unjustly
usurped jurisdiction over punishing the rioters of 1233. Likewise,
church of Laon was not happy that the Bishop of Beauvais had been able
to coerce his peers in the metropolitan province of Reims into pronouncing
an interdict over the entire province. Here King Louis writes to
the church of Laon to express his gratitude for their efforts in resisting
the claims of the Bishop of Beauvais and, by extension, in supporting royal
authority. By this point the matter of jurisdiction (who had the
right to quell the riot and fine/imprison the rioters) seems to have become
more important than the riot itself.
Louis, by the grace of God King of the French, to his beloved ones, the dean and chapter of Laon, greetings and love. We believe that you are not ignorant [lit. ‘do not hide'] [of the fact] that the bishop of Beauvais holds whatever he possesses at Beauvais from us in baronial tenure and by the oath of liege homage [in baronia et fide homagii ligii], and that because of it he is a peer of France; nor do we think you ignorant of the smallest detail of what happened there. Moreover we want you, collectively and each in turn [vellemus vos et universos et singulos seriatim per singula], to know everything just as it occurred at Beauvais, where a diabolical madness erupted horribly into a massacre of men, and would have insensibly erupted into a more detestable and abominable destruction of the town and people if we had not, with God's aid, applied the royal remedy; [we also want you to know] how we acted towards the bishop in this matter, concerning which God only knows if he was blameless; and how immediately and thereafter we had most frequently offered him to make right [facere ius] in our court, just as we ought to and through which [court] we ought to, without any subterfuge. For this reason we, who have surrendered none of our rights, are greatly surprised that the suffragans of the province of Reims have followed the desires of certain men and conceived such a great malice towards us that they, to the prejudice of us and our kingdom, procede wrongly against us and contrary to right [jus] by enjoining a sentence of interdict on their province; would that you, together and singly, take careful notice of the great zeal and warmth with which some of them were inspired in this matter. Yet you, who were led by more sane counsel, were not moved to diminish our rights but rather, being favorable to the royal right, you acted contrary to their injuries; for this reason you deserve to have received merited royal gratitude for you and your churches. We therefore ask you as a group, and exhort you by the love which you hold for us and our kingdom, to constantly and strenuously stick to the path of preserving the royal rights, since, indeed, you have already begun to march down that path; and we shall rightly protect all your rights and hold you and yours, who persist in observing our rights with such great solicitude, in our love concerning this matter and others; [know, too] that because of this fact we have dispatched prudent, discreet, and swift messengers to the Roman Curia lest the evil which some have brought against us should advance to the great detriment of our kingdom.
Done at Compiegne, in the year of the Lord 1233, in the month of December.
NOTES:
1. Here the bishop is offering the king the right to decide what should be done, provided that the order emanate from the bishop. He is trying to preserve his formal rights of jurisdiction, even if he is willing to allow the king to make the de facto decisions.
2. The second warning took place on 12 May 1233.
3. A bishop's "Official" was his chief administrative officer and secretary.
4. The populares were the common people; they weren't the poor, nor were they the elites, but rather the economic middle class of tradesmen, craftsmen (and -women), and so on.
5. This is almost assuredly the same man as the Robert de Moret mentioned in the testimony of Bartholomew of Franoy. Recall that he was both a royal appointee and a "foreigner" from the neighboring town of Senlis.
6. This refers to the war waged by Bishop Philip of Beauvais against Renaud de Dammartin, count of Boulogne, in 1212.
7. Literally a "short day"; in this context, this seems to indicate a period of formal delay, perhaps to gather arguments, before proceeding with a legal case.
8. See the testimony of Master Prior of Beauvais.
9. In other words, the Archbishop asserts that no synod of his suffragan bishops (those whose dioceses compose his archdiocese) has legal or ecclesiastical validity without his presence, or at least without his approval. It seems clear that the Archbishop wanted to stay out of the middle of the conflict between the Bishop of Beauvais and King Louis; by refusing to come to the synod, he ensured that nothing could proceed from it.
10. Here Master Simon is arguing procedure: because he was not invited to the council, he cannot be part of the interdict. His "cause" is his formal legal complaint. His complaint reveals that the interdict is unpopular with many of the other members of the archdiocese of Reims. It marks the first crack in the formerly-unified wall of clerical support for Bishop Milo.
11. Here the canon is arguing that because some churches (such as his) were still debating the issue when Bishop Milo first railroaded the interdict through the synod, the interdict could not be valid.
12. The identity of this bishop, who wanted to relax the interdict, is not made clear from the Latin.
13. I'm not sure what this ecclesiastical office entailed; it was probably some sort of teaching position.
14. Philip of Dreux, bishop of Beauvais, 1175-1217.
SOURCE:
Documents sur les relations de la royauté avec les villes
en France de 1180 à 1314, ed. A. Giry and E. Lavisse (Paris:
Picard, 1885), pp. 6-; 65-66; 66-69; 69-70; and 70-81. Translated by Richard
Barton.
This translation is copyrighted by Richard Barton. Permission is granted for electronic copying, distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal use. If you do reduplicate the document, please indicate the source. No permission is granted for commercial use.