Luscombe D., Riley-Smith J. The New Cambridge Medieval History, Vol. 4: c. 1024-c. 1198, Part 2
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
The kingdom of the Franks: the seigneuries 531
than to demand its exercise. There was thus in both town and country a very
broad range of constitutions, conspicuous among them the very exceptional in-
stance of the urban republic, a status enjoyed at the beginning of the thirteenth
century only by Tournai, on the border of France and the county of Flanders.
Besides these collective lordships, called ‘communes’, the lay and ecclesi-
astical principalities demand attention first. A slow process of simplification
and stratification led to the disengagement of a group of twelve princes distin-
guished by the title of pairs (peers). The formalization of this title seems to date
from the coronation of Philip Augustus in 1179,inthe spirit of a return to the
Carolingian tradition, with six ecclesiastical peers (the archbishop of Rheims
and the bishops of Beauvais, Noyon, Laon, Chˆalons-sur-Marne in Belgica se-
cunda, and the bishop of Langres, suffragan of the archbishop of Lyons, in
Lugdunensis prima), and six secular peers (the dukes of Burgundy, Aquitaine
and Normandy, and the counts of Flanders, Toulouse and Troyes, that is, the
future count of Champagne).
The ecclesiastical peers were always chosen from among the twenty-six
prelates who owed direct allegiance to the king. They all held sees on a curv-
ing frontier which, north-east of Paris, separated the Capetian domain from
Angevin Normandy, Flemish Ami
´
enois and Vermandois, imperial Lorraine and
Burgundy. In a kingdom in which for more than a century foreign relations
had been the concern of the great feudal lords, it was to the king’s advantage to
favour bishops who contrived for him opportunities for intervention outside
the Paris Basin.
The ecclesiastical lordships were, without exception, gradually constructed
on the basis of a vast temporal power in town and country by the extension of
the privilege of immunity, to which were added economic concessions related
to market and minting rights. When the civil wars of the tenth century handed
over to the bishops the keys of the gates and the defence of the ramparts, it was
clear that the most powerful among them wereequal to many of the great secular
lords. At Chˆalons-sur-Marne, episcopal power was exercised over an eight-
league radius, that is, for twenty kilometres around the town. At the end of the
twelfth century, the area around Rheims subject to the archbishop’s jurisdiction
was bounded by the five fortresses of Courville, Cormicy, B
´
etheneville, Sept-
Saulx and Chaumuzy.
It was not surprising that at the same period some prelates began to assert
that they held the comitatus of their city. Indeed, from 1015 at Beauvais, 1023
at Rheims and c. 1065 at Chˆalons-sur-Marne, the bishops had succeeded in
removing from the secular counts the last remnants of their power within
the city (intra muros), with the support of the king, who encouraged a similar
transfer at Mende in 1161,LePuyin1169 and Langres in 1171.One consequence
of Gregorian reform was the imposition of an increasingly clear distinction
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
532 michel bur
between the temporal and the spiritual and, in the person of prelates, between
bishop and lord, the first holding his religious office by election and ordination,
the second his powers of justice and command by investiture. This dichotomy
made it easier for the upper clergy to acknowledge their feudal dependence on
the king, but it was difficult to live out in practice, and equilibrium between the
two offices remained precarious. A bishop of Beauvais like Philippe of Dreux
left the memory of a warrior fighting with a mace at the battle of Bouvines
rather than that of a churchman. In the thirteenth century the bishop’s house
was transformed into the episcopal palace. Soon the bishops of Rheims, Laon
and Langres were to call themselves dukes and those of Noyon, Beauvais and
Chˆalons counts!
The secular peers had older roots. The duchies of Aquitaine and Burgundy
were former Carolingian kingdoms. They had contracted in the tenth century
as a result of the emancipation of their border areas, which had been trans-
formed into feudal dependencies. The ducal domain was henceforth limited
to a few counties, for example that of Poitiers in the case of Aquitaine. To the
north of the Loire, the ducatus Franciae experienced the same evolution. The
Capetians held only the heart of the Paris Basin, between Paris and Orleans,
with extensions towards Bourges, Sens and Laon, while vassals were solidly
installed at Blois, Tours and Angers. Two blocks had been separated from the
former Francia – the county of Flanders (which experienced significant ter-
ritorial fluctuations before being driven back to the Germanic-speaking areas
by the conquests of Philip Augustus) and Normandy, clearly included in the
ecclesiastical province of Rouen, whose seven bishops were held reliably in
check by the duke who had, furthermore, achieved the feudal subjugation of
Brittany.
Territorial contraction on one hand, fragmentation on the other. But there
was a third way in which principalities were formed, illustrated by Champagne,
since at the time when (in 1152) the eastern possessions of the house of Blois
achieved autonomy it had no name. It was a slow process of the addition of
counties, churches and landed domains which, little by little, merged into
a coherent and well-structured whole, the fruit of the patient labour of a
lineage outside every political framework (regnum, ducatus, marca) and every
ecclesiastical framework then extant. Champagne was a recent creation, born
from favourable contemporary conditions. The mark of its success was the
entry of the count of Troyes into the college of the twelve peers, admittedly
assisted by the double marriage of Count Henry the Liberal to Marie, the
daughter of Louis VII and Eleanor of Aquitaine, and of Louis VII to Henry’s
sister, Adela.
Finally, there were the Occitanian lands, with the county of Toulouse,
stretching to Quercy and the Rouergue, and its vast feudal dependency which
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
The kingdom of the Franks: the seigneuries 533
resulted from the splitting-up of the former duchy of Gothia or Narbonne.
Its entry into the peerage was explained by the king’s concern to reaffirm his
authority over a great fief threatened by the Plantagenets and also against the
influence of Arag
´
on: through Catalonia which since 1180 showed more marked
secessionist tendencies from the kingdom of France.
After the great secular and ecclesiastical principalities, the Scripta de feodis
placed groupings which stemmed directly from Carolingian counties, such
as Boulogne, Guines, Dreux, Clermont-en-Beauvais, Brienne, Roucy, Joigny,
Chalon-sur-Sa
ˆ
one and Foix, as well as baronies produced by the bringing to-
gether of several castles: Lusignan, Coucy, Bourbon, Beaujeu. Finally, on a
lower level, came simple castellanies like Joinville or Vignory and, a conse-
quence of the rupture of castle households in c. 1150 and the dispersal of the
milites who comprised them, a host of village lordships based on moated resi-
dences, fortified manor houses, which were to grow in number in the thirteenth
century with another still greater disintegration of the judicial system, or ban,
a phenomenon which led to an examination of the exact content of seigneurial
powers.
There was to be no question here of the landed basis of lordship, that
is, the system by which the land was worked, nor of its officers or profits,
but – to express it in contemporary terms – of upper, judicial lordship, the
lordship of the ban,inother words that which derived from an appropriation
of public powers. At the highest level this was exercised over the churches:
twenty-seven bishoprics in the Angevin empire, only one in the county of
Champagne (Troyes). Gregorian reform put an end to the most glaring abuses.
The right of spoliation retreated and even disappeared and, if the prince unduly
prolonged the vacancy of a see in order to collect the revenues, he could
no longer impose his own candidate and had to be content with instigating
the electoral procedure by the grant of licentia eligendi. The same applied to
monasteries, long considered as simple properties, which were released from
the ditio or domination of their holder in order to benefit from his protection
or tuitio.
The right to order, constrain and punish – this was the definition of the ban –
the right of executing high criminal justice, of summons to the feudal host, or of
building fortifications (a monopoly generally little respected), of maintaining
order and keeping the peace in all public places and on the main roads, of
striking and recalling coin, of levying personal taxes (chevage), occasional taxes
(mortmain, levies on marriage or remoal), exceptional taxes (the aide and the
taille)onthe inhabitants of his lands: these were the regalian prerogatives
concentrated in the hands of the great lords and unequally distributed among
the lesser. In addition, there were rights of an economic nature that bore
heavily on markets and fairs, the circulation of goods, the maintenance of
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
534 michel bur
roads and bridges, the authoritarian organization of trades and the control of
money-changing, the exploitation of rivers and mills, not forgetting (above all
in ecclesiastical lordships) the profits drawn from parish churches and their
operation.
Frequently moving from castle to castle, the lord – and especially the great
lord – was served by several officers, first among them the seneschal, who
supervised at the table and at uproarious gatherings in the hall, stored up the
domanial produce with the assistance of the butler and cellarers, commanded
the army with the aid of the marshals responsible for mounting the cavalry
and the provision of forage, inspected castle garrisons and, in his master’s
absence, presided over court sessions. For his part, the chamberlain, custodian
of the private apartments (camera) and of the treasure stored there, directly
administered the revenues from trade and tolls and extended his jurisdiction
over trades guilds. Finally, a clerk, half-notary, half-chaplain, held the office of
chancellor, sealed documents and saw his role grow with the renewed use of
written legal instruments in the law courts. In ecclesiastical lordships, justice
and the ban were delegated to the vidame (the bishop’s secular deputy).
Because of their size, principalities were divided into smaller administrative
units usually called by the generic term, provostships (pr
´
ev
ˆ
ot
´
es). Assisted by
sergeants, administrators, deputies and foresters, the provost (pr
´
ev
ˆ
ot)rendered
justice, exacted military service and collected revenues. There were provostal
families, but the office, which was paid, remained revocable. At the end of the
twelfth century the baillis appeared, a form of special commissioners who took
over justice, leaving the subordinate prerogatives of domanial administration
to the provosts.
Leaving generalities behind, we must now analyse particular cases, especially
the great principalities whose historical destiny was bound in part to their
capacity for organization and structuring.
ecclesiastical lordships
It was a long way from the comitatus claimed by the bishop of Noyon in 1193,
and the similar episcopal claim acknowledged by the canons of Beauvais in 1212,
to the inferior lordship of their fellow ecclesiastical peer of Troyes. Here it was
the count who, following the Gregorian reform, had established immunities to
the benefit, not only of the prelates and canons, but also of numerous abbeys,
in order to ensure them a certain autonomy, granting genuine exemptions to
houses, a street or a little neighbourhood, and personal exemptions to ecclesi-
astical office holders, their household (familia) and sergeants, even when they
were involved in trade. Thus the abbess of Notre-Dame-aux-Nonnains had
at her disposal the criminal justice over four houses, three ovens (for baking)
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
The kingdom of the Franks: the seigneuries 535
and one court. The bishop was master of a small quarter of the town (bourg);
his sergeants were exempt from comital authority (potestas), his men likewise,
except when it was a case of flagrant dereliction; but in all circumstances and
throughout the town, the count reserved to himself the exercitus, that is, the
right of levying soldiers, and the execution of all criminals.
At the other end of the spectrum there was Rheims, the most significant
and prestigious of the ecclesiastical lordships. The archbishop governed a town
of 10,000 inhabitants crammed together in 60 hectares within the city walls,
whose rapid growth was revealed in the appearance of suburbs in front of the
gates. From 1160 onwards, a policy of allocation and settlement led to the de-
marcation of territorial bans held principally from three lords: the archbishop,
the chapter and the abbey of St-R
´
emi. The archbishop’s ban was the most ex-
tensive. It included the whole of the fortified town and three artisanal suburbs,
La Couture, Le Jard and Venise. Confined in their cloister, the canons extended
their power over the little quarter of Vesle, while the abbey of St-R
´
emi began
belatedly to group round its tenth-century walls the families which were to
multiply in the thirteenth. Monopoly over the coinage, with an exchange rate
aligned to that of Paris, was retained by the archbishop as an expression of his
quasi-regalian prerogative. He could demand armed aid from men from all the
bans. The execution of those condemned to death was his by right, as was the
collection of all tolls except those in the quarter of St-R
´
emi where he shared
them with the abbot.
Rheims had a heterogeneous population, composed of groups with divergent
interests: clerics of all ranks, enfeoffed knights responsible for the gates of the
city, citizens (bourgeois)who frequented the bishop’s household (familia) and
supplied the bishop with his chamberlains, toll-collectors and his provosts,
integrating themselves as much as possible into both the echevinal law court
and local administration; but it was a population which had been subject
for fifty or so years to upheavals comparable to the communal agitation so
widespread in the towns between the Rivers Seine and Meuse in the twelfth
century. In 1182 the archbishop, William of Champagne, decided to grant the
men of his ban the so-called ‘Wilhelmine Charter’, by which he not only
confirmed the customs relative to chevage and mortmain, but surrendered the
annual election of the
´
echevins to the citizens, reserving for himself only the
right to invest them and receive their oaths of loyalty. Moreover, these
´
echevins
saw themselves entrusted with substantial judicial competence from which
only murder, theft and treason were exempted. Although the charter by no
means recognized the existence of the population as an urban body, the town
henceforth had real representation at its disposal, a privilege which the abbot
of St-R
´
emi refused to concede in his ban and, at a greater distance, the bishop
of Chˆalons in his city.
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
536 michel bur
In the countryside a comparable development occurred, sanctioning the
grant in 1182 of a charter of privileges to the village of Beaumont-en-Argonne.
By this document, William handed over to the mayor and jur
´
es elected by
the peasant community all powers in matters of justice, taxation and defence.
This ordinance conferring autonomy seemed so enviable that it spread in the
thirteenth century, admittedly with considerable modifications required by
the lords, to more than 500 villages in Lorraine. Notwithstanding, in 1197
the archbishop submitted all his temporal power to the high jurisdiction of a
bailli.
There is no need to labour the point further to demonstrate the originality
and flexibility of William’s policy. It contrasts markedly with the highly violent
procedure of Roger of Rozoy, bishop of Laon who, at the same period, bloodily
put down the claims of the rural communes of the Laonnois. The episcopacy
of William of Champagne at Rheims marked simultaneously the apogee of
seigneurial prerogative and the start of its decline, accelerated in the thirteenth
century by the encroachments of the king.
secular principalities
In this section, I shall place more emphasis on what differentiates the secular
principalities than on what makes them similar, given the general development
which imposed common characteristics upon them.
The comt
´
e of Champagne or of Troyes
Having become the dominant fief in relation to the other possessions of the
family of Blois (Blois, Chartres, Chˆateaudun, Sancerre and so on) in 1152,
Champagne, as has already been observed, was an agglomeration of comt
´
es
held from the king, the duke of Burgundy, the emperor, the archbishop of
Rheims, the bishop of Langres and the abbot of St-Denis, to name but a few,
constituting a whole sufficiently coherent to withstand Louis VII’s attempt to
dissolve it in 1142–3.
Its stability resulted first from the comital domain, densely spread over cen-
tral and southern Champagne. In the mid-twelfth century the fifteen provost-
ships were administered by temporary officers, while the twenty principal
fortresses were defended by hereditary enfeoffed castellans. At a higher level,
the count could rely on his great officers, among whom the seneschal was pre-
eminent. Organized in c. 1100 on the English model, the chancery was at first no
more than a writing-office held by a clerk or chaplain skilled in law. It grew after
1150. Although the church in Troyes (that is, the bishopric) aimed to break free
from comital power – which it succeeded in doing, with the aid of the king, in
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
The kingdom of the Franks: the seigneuries 537
c. 1170 – and although the monasteries were subject only to the protection of the
prince, Henry the Liberal (1152–81) compensated for this weakness by found-
ing the great secular collegiate churches at Bar-sur-Aube, S
´
ezanne and Provins,
which supplied him with administrative personnel, and, in his palace chapel of
St-Etienne at Troyes, a repository for archives and books, as well as his tomb.
The means available to the count, the revenues – thanks to which (as in
Flanders) he outstripped all his vassals – enabled him to enforce the latter’s
obedience. In c. 1170 registers of fiefs were drawn up and deposited in St-
Etienne, just as the great cartularies of the comt
´
e were to be at beginning
of the thirteenth century. With Henry the Liberal, and as a consequence of a
fraternal agreement between Henry and Archbishop William of Rheims, feudal
dependency was very extensive in northern Champagne.
Since the earliest times, the counts had been in evidence on the frontier with
Lorraine and the empire. The son of Theobald II and Matilda of Carinthia,
Henry the Liberal maintained close relations with Frederick Barbarossa, then
very active in the comt
´
e of Burgundy. He made closer ties with him, which all
but rebounded on Louis VII at St-Jean-de-Losne in 1162. This active frontier
policy only confirmed the inclination of the principality of Champagne to
extend eastwards.
But the most original feature of the period is to be found in the economic
take-off, less in production than in distribution, a phenomenon linked to
the voluntarist policy of the princes, in particular Theobold II (1107–52). By
creating a second fair in Champagne at Provins, fixing the cycle of exchange
both geographically and chronologically, by the authoritarian concentration of
international trade (and especially the sale of cloth) in a few well-chosen centres,
by agreement with Flanders, he had prepared the ground for the rise of one pole
of the world-economy, as F. Braudel put it, the only one that the kingdom of
France was to know in the middle ages. Such success was made possible by the
extent of the principality, stretching out like a frontier from Montereau on the
Seine to Vaucouleurs on the Meuse, by civil order and peace which ‘softened
the warriors’ (Suger) but favoured the merchants, by the creation of a policing
system for the fairs – the watches announced in 1174 – and by the extension of
comital safeconduct outside the bounds of the principality, the count taking
full responsibility for merchants injured on the great roads leading to his towns
with fairs. The effect of this policy was quick and dazzling. It can be summed
up as the seizure of the commercial currents crossing western Europe from the
Mediterranean to the North Sea, the desertion of the old route of Agrippa via
Rheims and Chˆalons-sur-Marne, the development of the four transit towns
of Bar-sur-Aube, Lagny, Provins and Troyes, and also of textile production
in the last two. This new road-axis, around which the comt
´
e of Champagne
and Brie was structured, also deflected international trade from the Capetian
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
538 michel bur
domain; the king reacted to the competition of Champagne and Normandy
by reserving the monopoly of river-traffic on the Seine to the association of
merchants at Paris.
Finally, there was one last sign of this success: the construction of an exclu-
sively comital zone of monetary circulation. While to the north of the Marne,
the deniers of Rheims, Chˆalons and Paris circulated, all with the same value in
the twelfth century, the south was the realm of the Provins denier,onwhich
that of Troyes was aligned and, after 1158, the coins struck by the bishop of
Meaux. At about this date, the coinage of Provins started to push back that
of Chˆalons, penetrated the royal zone in the Laonnois and the Beauvaisis, and
invaded Lorraine. Its circulation was such that in Italy its type was imitated by
the Roman Senate.
The comt
´
e of Flanders
As Champagne blocked Capetian expansion to the east, so did Flanders to the
north. This principality similarly presented an internally unbalanced structure,
with the bulk of the domain gathered north of a line between Lille and St-Omer,
while the French-speaking south was given over to the sphere of action of fief
(Boulogne) and rear-fief (St-Pol). Again like Champagne, it had a territorial
extension in the empire, to such an extent that in 1125 Count Charles the Good
could be put forward as successor to the Emperor Henry V, and in 1185 Philip
of Alsace, warring against Philip Augustus, had no hesitation in doing homage
for all his possessions to Henry VI, an extreme attitude which seems to have
similarly tempted Henry the Liberal at St-Jean-de-Losne in 1162.
In 1163 the comt
´
e of Flanders was enlarged as a consequence of Philip of
Alsace’s marriage to the heiress of the Vermandois, the Ami
´
enois and the Valois.
It then stretched from the Scheldt estuary to the banks of the Marne. Tutor
to King Philip Augustus, the count married his pupil to his niece, Isabelle of
Hainault, to whom he promised Artois as a dowry. In the absence of a direct
heir and also as a result of this promise, the southern possessions of Flanders
were soon lost and the comt
´
e drawn back within more limited dimensions with
apreponderantly Flemish-speaking population. This loss, which included the
largest town, Arras, was not acknowledged by Philip of Alsace’s successors, who
hurled themselves headlong into the coalition annihilated by the French king
at Bouvines in 1214.
The hereditary succession to the comt
´
e of Flanders followed the rule of
male primogeniture. Thus the absence of a direct male heir inevitably posed
serious problems. At the beginning of the twelfth century, the counts, bound in
other respects very closely to the kings, to whom they were closely related, had
imposed public order by executions and hangings. The unruly vassals bowed
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
The kingdom of the Franks: the seigneuries 539
to this, but in 1127 areaction set in and Charles the Good was assassinated. As
he had relied on the support of the towns to govern, they – speaking through
the men of Ghent and of Bruges – demanded to be involved in the choice of
his successor; then, in 1128, when they had rejected William Clito in favour of
Thierry of Alsace, they asserted that it was the right of the assembled clergy,
barons and citizens to judge and depose the count, before choosing another.
Throughout Galbert of Bruges’s account of these events, a doctrine of national
sovereignty is being sketched. The Alsace dynasty (1128–91) understood this
and endeavoured to check claims of this kind, but Philip had to concede the
participation of the
´
echevins of Flanders in the most important deliberations.
The comt
´
e of Flanders was characterized by stable central institutions, in
particular a comital court of unlimited judicial powers, which in the second
half of the twelfth century strove to its utmost to reserve high justice to itself. As
in the Capetian entourage, the great officers were constantly present: seneschal,
butler, chamberlain, constable and, above all, chancellor. This last office had
devolved on the provost of the church of St-Donatien in the castle at Bruges,
and he was the head of the domanial administration, keeper of the seals since
before 1084.Every year he had his notaries draw up the Gros Brief,asummary of
the accounts provided by the forty receivers of the castellany, of which the oldest
surviving dates from 1187.Just as early as the chancery office, the receipt of
finances was organized at the end of the twelfth century to constitute the court
of the Rennenghe with its high-ranking Renneurs, accounting officers always
placed under the chancellor’s control. In this respect Flanders was competing
with the Anglo-Norman administration, which also had a sophisticated central
accounting system at a very early date.
Local institutions functioned within the sole framework – at once military,
administrative, judicial and domanial – of the castellany, the castellan being re-
munerated with a fief which was not the castle. In c. 1130 the urban
´
echevinages
were separated from the law courts of the castellany, while the penal law writ-
ten down in the Keures (charters) developed with some degree of uniformity,
according to the will of the count (in particular, Philip of Alsace). Given the
tendency of the castellans to hereditary self-perpetuation, in c. 1170 the count
created baillis entrusted with a watching brief over his rights in matters of
justice and of public peace. He appointed them, paid them, transferred them
dismissed them. Among their other duties, they had to preside over the castel-
lany’s feudal court, established to reduce the burden on the comital court. At
the end of the century war and fortification – the corollary of public peace –
became a monopoly of the prince.
Swept on by powerful social forces, the counts of the house of Alsace par-
ticipated in the economic development of the region by relying on their right
to exploit uncultivated land, marshes, turf moors and dunes. Philip created
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008
540 michel bur
the ports of Gravelines (1163), Nieuwpoort, Damme (1180), Biervliet, Dunkirk
and Mardijk on the coast, while his brother Matthew of Boulogne laid the
foundations of Calais. Just inland a policy of land development was under-
taken at the initiative of the chancellor, Robert of Aire (who died in 1174). This
aimed to drain the waters of the mainland, especially in the marshes of the Aa
near Gravelines. The public service of the Wateringues was established for the
health of the region. Elsewhere, the count had peat extracted to save timber. He
protected afforested regions and controlled forest clearances. From the 1130s
onwards, six fairs were organized in the towns of Ypres, Bruges, Torhout, Lille
and Messines. As in Champagne, the prince understood that his superiority
was conditional on his wealth.
The duchy of Burgundy
Not all principalities had the same structure or vigour. In Burgundy, the duke
fell back upon a territorial core dominated by Autun, Beaune and Dijon, with
a surrounding penumbra of fiefs, strengthened by marriages and by the perfor-
mance of liege homage for castles. Beyond these began the theoretical sphere
of authority of the comt
´
esofNevers, Auxerre, Tonnerre, Troyes, Chalon and
Mˆacon, coincidentally reinvigorated by mutual oaths of non-injury and non-
aggression pacts. Ducal protection was maintained over numerous monasteries,
but the bishoprics – free from this – had become royal. It was at the expense
of that of Langres that the duke had acquired Dijon in 1137 and Chˆatillon-sur-
Seine between 1162 and 1192.
Inspired at first by resentment at seeing the count of Chalon in 1166 and the
count of Mˆacon in 1172 paying homage to the king, then by his marriage to
the heiress of the Viennois, Duke Hugh III pursued an active frontier policy,
which drew him close to Frederick Barbarossa. Philip Augustus, aided by the
count of Flanders, forced him into greater fidelity as a result of a war unleashed
by an appeal of the lord of Vergy (1183–6). Taken prisoner, but released through
the intervention of the emperor, Hugh had formally to acknowledge himself
the vassal of the crown of France.
With a strong dynastic succession and younger sons established in bish-
oprics, a ducal court furnished with permanent officers and a primitive
chancery administered by an ordinary chaplain, the duchy cut a good figure
without having the more sophisticated framework of Flanders or Normandy.
Moreover, in imitation of his uncle Henry the Liberal, Duke Hugh III founded
a palace chapel at Dijon before 1184 in order to furnish himself with more and
abler administrators.
In each castellany, a pr
´
ev
ˆ
ot de justice et d’armes controlled the working of
the domain with his subordinates. At the end of the twelfth century the ‘great
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008