A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P R S T U V W X Z

Outline of Universal History

G >> George Park Fisher >> Outline of Universal History




POVERTY AND DISEASE.--A French writer on the history of luxury,
speaking of France in this period, says, "In the cities, we meet at
once luxury, certain beginnings of prosperity, and frightful
misery. _Beggary_ exists in a form the most hideous: there is
an organization of it with grades, and a sort of hierarchy. In the
face of sumptuous costumes, of chateaux better adorned, of the
nascent wealth of industry, France included more than two thousand
_lepers_, and knew not how to treat maladies born of the most
imperfect hygiene and the most sordid filth. Such were the
extremes. The course of general progress went forward between them."
The condition of the poorest class in England was no better. "The
absence of vegetable food for the greater part of the year, the
personal dirt of the people, the sleeping at night in the clothes
worn in the day, and other causes, made skin-diseases frightfully
common. At the outskirts of every town in England, there were
crawling about emaciated creatures covered with loathsome sores,
living Heaven knows how. They were called by the common name of
lepers; and probably the leprosy, strictly so called, was awfully
common." Such being the life of the poor in villages, and in the
absence of drainage and other modern safeguards of health, in large
towns, it is no wonder that in the Middle Ages there were terrible
pestilences, and that the average length of life was much less than
at present.

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF CHIVALRY.--It was in the period of the crusades
that the mediaeval institution of chivalry was ennobled by receiving a
religious consecration. Chivalry is a comprehensive term, denoting a
system of ideas and customs that prevailed in the middle ages. In the
western kingdoms of Europe there was gradually formed a distinct class
of warriors of superior rank, who fought on horseback, and were
recognized as _knights_ by a ceremony of equipment with
arms. Among the customs of the ancient Germans, which are noticed by
Tacitus, and in which may be discovered the germs of chivalry, are the
remarkable deference paid to women, attendance of the aspiring youth
on a military superior,--out of which vassalship arose,--and the
formal receiving of arms on reaching manhood. At the outset,
knighthood was linked to feudal service: the knights were
landholders. In the age of Charlemagne, the warriors on horseback--the
_caballarii_--were the precursors, both in name and function, of
the _chevaliers_ of later times. The word _knight_, meaning
a youth or servant, and then a military attendant, came to be a term
of equivalent meaning. The necessary connection of knighthood with the
possession of fiefs was broken in the thirteenth century, through
changes in the circumstances of warfare. Knighthood became independent
of feudalism. It was a personal distinction, frequently bestowed as a
reward for brave deeds, and often conferred with elaborate ceremonies,
partly of a religious character. When the boy of gentle birth passed
from under the care of females, he first served as a _page_ or
valet at the court of a prince or the castle of a rich noble. Having
been thus trained in habits of courtesy and obedience, he was
advanced, not earlier than the age of fourteen, to the rank of
_squire_, and instructed in horsemanship and in the use of
weapons. He followed his master to the tournament and in battle, until
finally he was himself dubbed a _knight_, was clothed in armor of
steel, and took on him all the obligations and privileges of his
order. The introduction of hereditary surnames and of armorial
bearings served to distinguish the members of this order. He who was a
knight in one place was a knight everywhere.

There were different classes of knights. The "bachelor," who bore a
forked pennon, was below the "knight-banneret," who alone had the right
to carry the square banner. The banneret was required to have a certain
estate, and to be able to bring into the field a certain number of
lances, _i.e._, inferior knights with their men-at-arms and
foot-soldiers. Each knight was accompanied by his squire and personal
attendants. Not seldom two knights joined together in a brotherhood in
arms, pledging themselves to sustain each other in every peril.

THE VIRTUES OF KNIGHTHOOD.--There were characteristic obligations of
knighthood. One was _loyalty_, which included a strict fidelity
to all pledges, embracing promises made to an enemy. Another knightly
virtue was _courtesy_, which was exercised even towards a
foe. The spirit of _gallantry_, inspiring devotion to woman,
especially the chosen object of love, and protection to womanly
weakness, was always a cardinal trait of the chivalric
temper. _Courage_, which delighted in daring exploits, and sought
fields for the exercise of personal prowess, was an indispensable
quality of the knights. The ideal of chivalry was _honor_ rather
than benevolence. The influence of chivalry in refining manners was
very great; but, especially in its period of decline, it allowed or
brought in much cruelty and profligacy. Its distinctive spirit could
find room for exercise only amid conflict and bloodshed, which it
naturally tended to promote.

CEREMONIES OF INVESTITURE.--When the knight was created according to
the complete form, he entered into a bath on the evening previous, was
instructed by old knights in "the order and feats" of chivalry, was
then clad in white and russet, like a hermit, passed the night in the
chapel in "orisons and prayers," and at daybreak confessed to the
priest, and received the sacrament. He then returned to his
chamber. At the appointed hour he was conducted to the hall, where he
received the spurs and was girded with the sword by the prince or
other lord who was to confer the distinction, by whom he was smitten
on the shoulder and charged to be "a good knight." Thence he was
escorted to the chapel, where he swore on the altar to defend the
church, and his sword was consecrated.

JUDICIAL COMBATS.--The disposition to resort to single combats as a
judicial test of guilt or innocence was stimulated by the development
of chivalry. There were other ordeals long in vogue, by which it was
thought that Heaven would interpose miraculously to shield, and thus
to vindicate, the innocent, and to expose the criminal. Such were the
plunging of the hand into boiling water, the contact of the flesh with
red-hot iron or with fire, the lot, the oath taken on holy relics, the
reception of the Eucharist, which would choke the perjurer, and send
his soul to perdition. The ordeals were regulated and managed by the
clergy. Among the German, and also the Celtic tribes, there are traces
of the duel between combatants, for purposes of divination, or of
determining on which side in a controversy the right lay. The judicial
combat in mediaeval Europe became general. Champions, in cases where
the rights of women were in debate, and in other instances where the
wager of battle between the direct antagonists in a dispute was
impracticable, were selected, or volunteered, to try the issue in an
armed conflict. Sometimes professional champions, hired for the
occasion, were employed. The custom of judicial combats by degrees
declined. The municipalities and the spirit of commerce were averse to
it. It was opposed by the Emperor Frederic II. and by Louis IX. of
France. The influence of the Roman law helped to undermine it; but the
opposition of the Church was the most effectual agency in doing away
with it. The modern duel, which survived the judicial combat, is a
relic of the ancient custom of avenging private injuries, and of
proving the courage of the combatants between whom a quarrel had
arisen. In the opening of Shakespeare's play of Richard II., in the
quarrel of Mowbray and Bolingbroke, the idea of the judicial combat
mingles with the motives and feelings characteristic of the duel when
stripped of its religious aspect.


FRANCE.--DESCENDANTS OF HUGH CAPET

HUGH THE GREAT (_d_. 956), _m_.
3, Hedwiga, daughter of Henry I of Germany.
|
+--HUGH CAPET, 987-996.
|
+--ROBERT, 996-1031.
|
+--HENRY I,1031-1060.
|
+--PHILIP I, 1060-1108, _m_.
Bertha, daughter of Florence I, Count of Holland.
|
+--LOUIS VI, 1108-1137.
|
+--LOUIS VII, 1137-1180,
_m_. 3, Alice, daughter of Theobold II,
Count of Champagne.
|
+--PHILIP II (Augustus), 1180-1223,
_m_. 1, Isabella, daughter of Baldwin V,
Count of Hainault.
|
+--LOUIS VIII, 1223-1226,
_m_. Blanche, daughter
of Alfonso IX of Castile.
|
+--(St.) Louis IX, 1226-1270,
_m_. Margaret, daughter of
Raimond Berengar IV, Count of Provence.
|
+--2, PHILIP III, 1270-1285,
| _m_. 1, Isabella, daughter
| of James I of Aragon.
| |
| +--PHILIP IV, 1285-1314,
| | _m_. Jeanne,
| | heiress of Champagne and Navarre.
| | |
| | +--LOUIS X, 1314-1316.
| | |
| | +--PHILIP V, 1316-1322.
| | |
| | +--CHARLES IV, 1322-1328.
| |
| +--Charles, Count of Valois (_d_.
| 1325), founder of the house of
| Valois, _m_. Margaret, daughter
| of Charles II of Naples.
| |
| +--PHILIP VI, succeeded 1328.
|
+--Robert, Count of Clermont,
founder of the house of Bourbon.



ENGLAND.--FROM THE CONQUEST TO EDWARD I.


WILLIAM I, 1066-1087, _m._
Matilda, daughter of Baldwin V of Flanders
|
+--WILLIAM II (Rufus), 1087-1100.
|
| (Malcolm Canmore _m._ St. Margaret)
| |
| +--Mary _m._ Eustace, Count of Boulogne
| |
| +--Maud
| |
| +--Matilda.
| _m._
+--HENRY I, 1100-1135
| |
| +--MATILDA (_d._ 1167) _m._
| 1, Emperor Henry V;
| 2, Geoffrey Plantagenet,
| Count of Anjou
| |
| +--HENRY II, 1154-1189 _m._
| Eleanor of Aquitaine, etc.,
| wife of Louis VII of France.
| |
| +--3, RICHARD I, 1189-1199.
| |
| +--5, JOHN, 1199-1216, _m._
| Isabella of Angouleme
| |
| +--HENRY III, 1216-1272,
| _m._ Eleanor, daughter of
| Raymond Berengar IV of
| Provence.
| |
| +--EDWARD I, succeeded 1272.
|
+--Adela, _m._ Stephen, Count of Blois.
|
+--STEPHEN, 1135-1154. _m._
Maud, daughter of Malcolm Canmore and St. Margaret.




CHAPTER III. ENGLAND AND FRANCE: THE FIRST PERIOD OF THEIR RIVALSHIP
(1066-1217).


The emperors, the heads of the Holy Roman Empire, were the chief secular
rulers in the Middle Ages, and were in theory the sovereigns of
Christendom. But in the era of the Crusades, the kingdoms of England and
France began to be prominent. In them, moreover, we see beginnings of an
order of things not embraced in the mediaeval system. In France, steps
are taken towards a compact monarchy. In England, there are laid the
foundations of free representative government.

CONNECTION OF ENGLAND AND FRANCE.--For a long time the fortunes of
England and of France are linked together. The kings of the French, with
their capital at _Paris_, had been often obliged to contend with
their powerful liegemen, the dukes of Normandy, at _Rouen_. When
the Norman duke became king of England, he had an independent dominion
added to the great fief on the other side of the channel. It sometimes
looked as if England and France would be united under one sovereignty,
so close did their relations become.

DEATH OF WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR.--It was while _William the
Conqueror_, angry with the king of the French, was burning
_Mantes_, in the border-land between Normandy and France, that, by
the stumbling of his horse in the ashes, he was thrown forward upon the
iron pommel of his saddle, and received the hurt which ended, in the
next month, in his death (Sept., 1087). On his death-bed he was smitten
with remorse for his unjust conquest of England, and for his bloody
deeds there. He would not dare to appoint a successor: it belonged, he
said, to the Almighty to do that; but he hoped that his son
_William_ might succeed him. The burial service at _Caen_, in
the church which he had built, was interrupted by _Ascelin_, a
knight, who raised his voice to protest against the interment, for the
reason that the duke had wrongfully seized from his father the ground on
which the church stood. The family of William made a settlement with
Ascelin on the spot by paying a sum of money, and the service
proceeded. The whole ground was afterwards paid for. William had left
money for the rebuilding of the churches which he had burned at
_Mantes_. He gave his treasures to the poor and to the churches in
his dominions. These circumstances illustrate in a striking way how, in
the Middle Ages, ruthless violence was mingled with power of conscience
and a sense of righteous obligation.

WILLIAM RUFUS.--William the Conqueror was succeeded by his son,
_William Rufus_ (1087-1100), who was as able a man as his
father. He promised to be liberal, and to lay no unjust taxes; but he
proved to be--especially after the death of the good _Lanfranc_,
the archbishop of Canterbury--a vicious and irreligious king. The Norman
nobles would have preferred to have his brother _Robert_, who was
duke of Normandy, for their king; but the English stood by William. He
left bishoprics and abbacies vacant that he might seize the
revenues. One of his good deeds was the appointment of the holy and
learned _Anselm_ to succeed _Lanfranc_; but he quarreled with
_Anselm_, who withdrew from the kingdom. Normandy, which he had
tried to wrest from his elder brother _Robert_, was mortgaged to
him by the latter, in order that he might set out upon the first
Crusade. That duchy came thus into the king's possession. William, while
hunting in the New Forest, was killed, if not accidentally, then either,
as it was charged, by _Walter Tyrrel_, one of the party, or by some
one who had been robbed of his home when the New Forest was made. He was
found in the agonies of death, pierced by an arrow shot from a
cross-bow.

HENRY I. OF ENGLAND (1100-1135): LOUIS VI. (the FAT) OF FRANCE
(1108-1137): LOUIS VII. (1137-1180).--_Henry_ was the youngest son
of the Conqueror. His wife was English, and was a great-granddaughter of
Edmund Ironside. Her name was Edith, but she assumed the Norman name of
_Matilda_. Her mother Margaret, wife of Malcolm of Scotland, was of
the stock of the West Saxon kings. Thus the blood of Alfred, as well as
of William the Conqueror, flowed in the veins of the later English
kings. In the absence of his older brother _Robert_, who was in
Jerusalem, he took the crown, and put forth a _Charter of
Liberties_, promising the Church to respect its rights, and giving
privileges to his vassals which they in turn were to extend to their own
vassals. Robert came back from the Holy Land, and tried to wrest England
from his brother. He failed in the attempt. After this, _Henry_ got
possession of Normandy by the victory of _Tinchebrai_ in 1106, and
kept Robert a prisoner in Cardiff Castle until his death (1135).
_Louis the Fat_, king of France, espoused the cause of _William
of Clito_, son of Robert, but was beaten in 1119 at
_Brenneville_. Peace was made between the two kings; but in 1124
_Henry_ of England combined with his son-in-law, _Henry V._ of
Germany, for the invasion of France. _Louis_ called upon his
vassals, who gathered in such force that the emperor abandoned the
scheme. _Louis_ then undertook to chastise those great vassals who
had not responded to his summons. _William_, the duke of Aquitane,
seeing the power of the suzerain, came into his camp, and offered him
his homage. Louis inflicted a brutal punishment in Flanders, where the
count, _Charles the Good_, had been assassinated in 1127, and which
had failed to furnish its contingent in 1124. He obliged the Flemish
lords to elect as their count, _William Clito_, whose rule,
however, they presently cast off. _Louis the Fat_ united his son
_Louis_ in marriage with _Eleanor_, the only daughter of
_William (X.)_, the duke of Aquitaine, and thus paved the way for a
direct control over the South. The duchy of _Aquitaine_ included
_Gascony_ and other districts, and the suzerainty over _Auvergne,
Périgord,_ etc. _Louis the VII._ (1137-1180) was not able to
preserve the dominion, extending from the north to the south of France,
which he inherited. He plunged into a dispute with Pope _Innocent
II._ in relation to the church of _Bourges_, where he claimed
the right to name the archbishop. _St. Bernard_ took the side of
the Pope. _Suger_, abbot of St. Denis, an able minister, the
counselor of the last king, supported _Louis_. The king attacked
the lands of _Theobald_ of Champagne, who sided with the Pope, and
in his wrath burned the parish church of _Vitry_, with hundreds of
poor people who had taken refuge in it. His own remorse and the
excommunication of the Pope moved him to do penance by departing on a
Crusade. _Suger_, not liking the risk which the monarchy incurred
through the absence of the king, opposed the project. _St.
Bernard_ encouraged it. The Crusade failed of any important result;
but it helped to infuse a national spirit into the French soldiers, who
fought side by side with the army of the emperor, _Conrad III_. On
his return, on the alleged ground that _Eleanor_ was too near of
kin, he divorced her, and rendered back her dowry (1152).

LOUIS VII. OF FRANCE (1137-1180): STEPHEN (1135-1154) AND HENRY II. of
ENGLAND (1154-1189).--The king of England, _Henry I._, after the
death of his son by shipwreck, declared his daughter _Matilda_
his heir. She was the widow of _Henry V._, the emperor of
Germany. In 1127 she married _Geoffrey_, count of Anjou, surnamed
_Plantagenet_ on account of his habit of wearing a sprig of broom
(_genet_) in his bonnet. Henry left Matilda, whom he called the
"Empress," under the charge of his nephew, _Stephen of Blois_,
who got himself elected king by the barons or great landowners,--as
there was no law regulating the succession of the crown,--and was
crowned at Westminster. They had sworn, however, to support
Matilda. Her uncle _David_, king of Scots, took up her cause; but
the Scots were defeated at the _Battle of the Standard_ in
1138. England was thrown into utter disorder by these circumstances:
some of the barons fought on one side, and some on the other. There
were thieves along the highways, and the barons in their castles were
no better than the thieves. The empress landed in England in 1139, to
recover her rights. In the civil war that ensued, _Stephen_ was
taken prisoner (1141); but _Matilda_, whose imperious temper made
her unpopular in London, was driven out of the city. _Stephen_
was released in exchange for the _Earl of
Gloucester_. _Matilda_ was at one time in great peril, but
contrived to escape in a winter night from Oxford Castle (1142). In
1153 peace was made, by which Stephen was to retain the kingdom, but
was to be succeeded by Matilda's eldest son.

CRUELTY OF THE NOBLES.--In the time of Stephen and Matilda, the barons,
released from the strong hand of his predecessor, were guilty of
atrocities which made the people mourn the loss of Henry.

"They built strong castles, and filled them with armed men. From these
they rode out as robbers, as a wild beast goes forth from its den. 'They
fought among themselves with deadly hatred, they spoiled the fairest
lands with fire and rapine; in what had been the most fertile of
counties they destroyed almost all the provision of bread.' Whatever
money or valuable goods they found, they carried off. They burnt houses
and sacked towns, If they suspected any one of concealing his wealth,
they carried him off to their castle; and there they tortured him, to
make him confess where his money was. 'They hanged up men by their feet,
and smoked them with foul smoke. Some were hanged up by their thumbs,
others by the head, and burning things were hung on to their feet. They
put knotted strings about men's heads, and twisted them till they went
to the brain. They put men into prisons where adders and snakes and
toads were crawling, and so they tormented them. Some they put into a
chest short and narrow, and not deep, and that had sharp stones within,
and forced men therein so that they broke all their limbs. In many of
the castles were hateful and grim things called _rachenteges_,
which two or three men had enough to do to carry. It was thus made: it
was fastened to a beam, and had a sharp iron to go about a man's neck
and throat, so that he might noways sit or lie or sleep; but he bore all
the iron. Many thousands they starved with hunger.' The unhappy
sufferers had no one to help them. Stephen and Matilda were too busy
with their own quarrel to do justice to their subjects. Poor men cried
to Heaven, but they got no answer. 'Men said openly that Christ and his
saints were asleep.'"

DOMINIONS OF HENRY II.--_Henry_, the son of the empress and of
Count _Geoffrey_ of Anjou, was the first of the _Angevin_
kings of England. They had Saxon blood in their veins, but were
neither Norman nor Saxon, except in the female line. It was
eighty-eight years since the Conquest; and, although the higher
classes talked French, almost every one of their number was of mixed
descent. The line between Saxon and Norman was becoming effaced. A
vassal of the king of France, Henry held so many fiefs that he was
stronger than the king himself, and all the other crown vassals taken
together. From his father he had _Anjou_; from his mother,
_Normandy_ and _Maine_; the county of _Poitou_ and the
duchy of _Aquitaine_ he received by _Eleanor_, the divorced
wife of Louis VII., whom he married. Later, by marrying one of his
sons to the heiress of _Brittany_, that district, the nominal
fief of Normandy, came practically under his dominion. He was a
strong-willed man, who reduced the barons to subjection, and pulled
down the castles which had been built without the king's leave. It
might seem probable that the possessor of so great power would absorb
the little monarchy of France. But this was prevented by
long-continued discord in England,--discord in the royal family,
between the king and the clergy, and, later, between the king and the
barons. On the Continent, the king of England required a great and
united force to break the feudal bonds which grew stronger between the
king of France and the French provinces of England. We shall soon see
how France enlarged her territory, and how the English dominion on the
Continent was greatly reduced.

REFORMS OF HENRY.--In order to control the barons, he arranged with them
to pay money in lieu of military service. In this way they were
weakened. At the same time, he encouraged the small landowners to
exercise themselves in arms, which would prepare them for self-defense
and to assist the king. Moreover, he sent judges through the land to
hear causes. They were to ask a certain number of men in the county as
to the merits of the cases coming before them. These men took an oath to
tell the truth. They gradually adopted the custom of hearing the
evidence of others before giving to the judges their
_verdict_,--that is, their declaration of the truth (from _vere
dictum_). Out of this custom grew the jury system.

BECKET: CONSTITUTIONS OF CLARENDON.--The Conqueror had granted to
ecclesiastical courts the privilege of trying cases in which the
clergy were concerned. On this privilege the clergy had been disposed
to insist ever since the fall of the Roman Empire. Under Stephen the
energetic restraint exercised upon them was removed. In the early
years of the reign of Henry II., there were great disorders among the
Norman clergy, and crimes were of frequent occurrence. These were
often punished more lightly than the same offenses when committed by a
layman, as church courts could not inflict capital punishment. Henry
undertook to bring the clergy under the jurisdiction of the ordinary
courts. In this attempt he was resisted by _Thomas à Becket_, who
had been his chancelor, and whom he raised to the archbishopric of
Canterbury (1162), in the full expectation of having his support. He
had been gay and extravagant in his ways, and zealous in behalf of
whatever the king wished. But the brilliant chancelor became a strict
and austere prelate, the champion of the clergy, with a will as
inflexible as that of Henry. The only bishop that voted against him at
his election, remarked that "the king had worked a miracle in having
that day turned a layman into an archbishop, and a soldier into a
saint." In this controversy, the clergy had reason to fear that Henry,
if he got the power, would use it to punish and plunder the
innocent. At a great council of prelates and barons, the
_Constitutions of Clarendon_ were adopted (1164), which went far
towards the subjecting of the ecclesiastics, as to their appointment
and conduct, to the royal will.

Copyright (c) 2007. famouswriterz.com. All rights reserved.