1 On P, see Colker, M. L., ‘The “Karolinus” of Egidius Parisiensis,” Traditio 29 (1973) (hereafter cited as Colker) 213–215. On B, which has not previously been identified as containing the work of Giles of Paris, see Delisle, L. in Histoire littéraire de la France 32 (Paris 1898) 540–543; I am grateful to Dr. Christian von Steiger, of the Burgerbibliothek Bern, who kindly provided me with a microfilm of this text. For the independent traditions of the MSS, note the variants in my texts B–D, G, I, below.Google Scholar

2 P, fols. 40^r–48^v, described by Colker 213–215. Colker publishes the epilogue and the Captatio benivolencie (ibid. 316–325), the texts introducing the list of popes and the family tree (ibid. 237–238, texts D–E), and from the genealogy itself the long note on the Frankish origins (ibid. 238–239, F–G), the notes on Clovis and Charlemagne, and the first note on Robert II (ibid. 239–241, H–K). I re-edit (below, text G) the last note with readings different from his and from those of Delaborde, H.-F., ‘Note sur le Carolinus de Gilles de Paris,’ Mélanges offerts à M. Émile Chatelain (Paris 1910) 199. Through Honorius III the list of popes in P is written in a single hand; at least five additional hands continued the list through Nicholas IV.Google Scholar

3 B, fols. 1^r–5^v. In B, the list of popes ends with Honorius III (fol. 1^v).Google Scholar

4 Colker 215–216.Google Scholar

5 Delaborde, , ‘Note’ 200–203; Duchet-Suchaux, G., ‘Le “Carolinus” de Gilles de Paris: étude et édition,” École Nationale des Chartes. Positions des thèses (1949) 53.Google Scholar

6 Colker 218–219.Google Scholar

7 Ibid. 219. I share this inference about L and P, but for another reason, and argue differently about the relation of L to the family tree; see below, n. 9 and at n. 24.Google Scholar

8 Colker first implies doubt that Louis would have been called puer as late as 1214 but then seems to accept the traditional dating of 1216–1223: ibid. 215 n. 81 and at n. 82.Google Scholar

9 Ibid. 236C.11–14. In L, these verses follow the Karolinus and begin ‘Hic demum adicio …’; in P, they precede the poem, begin ‘Hic tibi premonstro …,’ and condense the first two lines of the L text into a single line: ibid. C.11 and n. Since in L these lines begin two stanzas of ten lines each, whereas in P one verse has nine lines and the other ten, the stichometry suggests that the L text was the original one. The difference in meaning is that in P these verses introduce the Karolinus and refer in advance (premonstro) to the appendices while in L they introduce the latter and mark them as an addition to the poem (adicio).Google Scholar

10 Ibid. 317 Epil. 13–15. It is evident from the context that these kings are not the ancient ones of the list on fol. 45^v but the kings of the Franks who are named in the Karolinus. Google Scholar

11 Ibid. 238 E (B, fol. 1^v).Google Scholar

12 This intention is clear from the texts cited above, at nn. 9–11; for the relation to the Karolinus, note the reference to Charlemagne: ‘… et forte usque ad Karolum Magnum, de quo agimus …’ (Colker 238 E.13–14; B, fol. 1^v). Delaborde first attributed the genealogy and related pieces to Giles of Paris: ‘Note’ 199–200.Google Scholar

13 For the names, see Colker, e.g. 251–254, 268, 292–293; for saints, ibid. 255–256 1.415–416 and n., 296 4.202 and n. The chart includes some saints not mentioned in the poem, e.g. SS. Eligius, Lupus, and Flavius, ‘Sancti contemporanei clotharii’: P, fol. 47^v; B, fol. 4^r.Google Scholar

14 E.g. the misspellings of the names of Charlemagne's daughters as ‘Berga’ and ‘Gisia’: Colker 292; B, fol. 4^v. The orthography may be Giles's own, rather than that of a copyist, for these spellings are common to the Karolinus and genealogy of P, the Karolinus of L, and the genealogy of B.Google Scholar

15 P, fol. 46^v: ‘Ad habendam maiorem euidenciam in personis que in sequentibus describuntur non secus in hoc loco dicimus quod reges franc’ quos specialius describimus litteris rubricatis damus intelligi ab aliis discernendos. Reginas uxores eorum per lineas de incausto interius rubricatas. Alios reges siue eos qui de regum prosapia descenderunt nec reges fuerunt per simplices lineas de incausto seponimus. Porro eos qui reges fuerunt et imperatores tanquam digniores duplici colore adonio minioque distinguimus. eos qui tantum imperatores fuerunt et non reges franc’ per litteras de adonio depromimus. Reges franc’ bonos per lineas de minio adoniatas sed hoc secretius designamus.’Google Scholar

16 Colker 236 C. See ibid. 303 5.4, for Louis as ‘in regno regalis sanguinis heres’; 316 5.421, for him as ‘alti sanguinis heres.’Google Scholar

17 Ibid. 244–246 and passim. Note, however, that Stephen of Tournai in 1199 and Rigord in 1200 were already addressing Louis as vos: Lettres d’Étienne de Tournai, ed. Jules Desilve (Valenciennes and Paris 1893) 367, no. 293; Œuvres de Rigord et de Guillaume le Breton, <e>ed. Henri-François Delaborde, 2 vols. (Paris 1882–1885) I 2–4. In the Philippidos, William the Breton addressed Louis VIII as te: ibid. II 1, 379. But Giles's usage was not simply poetic, for the legend in the dedication miniature reads ‘Hoc opus Egidii Parisiensis habe’: Delaborde, ‘Note’ 196 and plate. Note also that both extant MSS of the Karolinus show it being presented to Louis: Colker 214–216 and n. 83^a. There is no evidence that the poem was ever dedicated or formally presented to anyone except him.Google Scholar

18 The complexity of the family tree and the use of the code of colors on it suggest that the recipient was expected to read these pages himself, not simply to have them read aloud to him; this assumes that that person was able to read Latin, which is in accord with the thesis that the chart was intended for Louis, who was literate.Google Scholar

19 ‘Note’ 200–203.Google Scholar

20 Colker 216, 228, 236–238, 316–317. Note especially the presence of Colker's text E, the prefatory text to the lists of rulers and the genealogy, which describes in some detail the contents of the latter and relates it to the other lists.Google Scholar

21 Ibid. 324–325; Delaborde, ‘Note’ 200–201. At the beginning of the Captatio (Colker 317 Capt. 2), Giles does speak of his earlier wishes (olim) for the prince's education, but the expression is vague and Louis is still called puer. Google Scholar

22 Colker 320 Capt. 48–49: ‘Nunc … habet….’ For the date of Peter of Poitiers’ death, see Baldwin, John W., Masters, Princes and Merchants: The Social Views of Peter the Chanter & his Circle , 2 vols. (Princeton 1970) I 44, II 33; Glorieux, Palémon, Répertoire des maǐtres en théologie de Paris au XIII^e siècle I (Paris 1933) 229.Google Scholar

23 My judgment of the script is based on the formation of characteristic letters; since, apart from continuations, the remainder of the manuscript is clearly all in the same hand, one would not expect the difference in script on this folio alone to be attributable to a change of pen.Google Scholar

24 Text, Colker 230–231. For the mistake, note that both this text and the genealogy omit St. Arnulf (see below, n. 37). It is clear that this text was derived from the genealogy, rather than the reverse, for of the two only the latter traces Charlemagne's successors as well as his predecessors, indicates the length of the reigns, or is in the form of an arbor, all of which were specified in the accompanying pieces (above, at nn. 9, 11).Google Scholar

25 For fuller discussion of this page, see below, at nn. 51–52, 57–63; see also figure 2. For Louis: Petit-Dutaillis, Charles, Étude sur la vie et le règne de Louis VIII (1187–1226) (Paris 1894) 205–206, 331. Louis was born on September 5, 1187, so it would be incorrect to extend his ‘childhood’ far past 1200; already in the spring of that year, Rigord had written that Louis’ status was changing from that of puer to that of juvtnis: ed. Delaborde I x, 4; see also the next note. See further G. Duby, ‘Les “jeunes” dans la société aristocratique dans la France du Nord-Ouest au XII^e siècle,” orig. pub. 1964, reprinted in Duby, Georges, Hommes et structures du moyen ǎge. Recueil d'articles (Paris 1973) 213–225.Google Scholar

26 <e>Rigord, ed. Delaborde I 152; Recueil des actes de Philippe Auguste, roi de France, <e>edd. Henri-François Delaborde et al. (Paris 1916–) II no. 723. William the Breton speaks of Arthur at the time of his dubbing as no longer a puer but a juvenis: Philippidos 6.262–263, <e>ed. Delaborde II 162.Rigord,+ed.+Delaborde+I+152;+Recueil+des+actes+de+Philippe+Auguste,+roi+de+France,+edd.+Henri-François+Delaborde+et+al.+(Paris+1916–)+II+no.+723.+William+the+Breton+speaks+of+Arthur+at+the+time+of+his+dubbing+as+no+longer+a+puer+but+a+juvenis:+Philippidos+6.262–263,+ed.+Delaborde+II+162.>Google Scholar

27 Delaborde, , ‘Note’ 202. Rigord, by 1200, used the acquisition of Vermandois and other lands as a pretext for giving Philip the imperial title ‘Augustus’: ed. Delaborde I 6 and passim.Google Scholar

28 Note the impression these conquests made on Rigord: ibid. 160–161. Giles's other comments on the Normans, and on territorial gains and losses by the French kings, make this omission noteworthy: see Colker 305 and below, texts D, F, I, and n. 95.Google Scholar

29 The number of mistakes in the genealogy (below, nn. 37, 78) may suggest hurried composition for it. That inference may prompt the thesis that the appendices were written in connection with the presentation of the MS, in order to make the poem more comprehensible, and this again would suggest a date of 1200 or 1201. The text of the accompanying verses in L, and their position in that MS (above, n. 9), favor this hypothesis, but the evidence is too slight for firm judgment on this question.Google Scholar

30 See below, at nn. 36–38, 41–44, 73–75.Google Scholar

31 For this model, see especially the analysis of earlier genealogies of the great nobility by G. Duby, ‘Remarques sur la littérature généalogique en France aux XI^e et XII^e siècles,’ orig. pub. 1967, reprinted in Hommes et structures 287–298. Note that the redaction of royal family trees was an old practice; the earliest similar example which I have seen is B.N., MS latin 4955, fols. 101^r–102^r (from 1060 to 1075: Philip I is king, yet Robert 1 ‘dux burgondie presens’), ed. in part in Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, <e>edd. Martin Bouquet et al., 24 vols. (Paris 1738–1904) (hereafter HF) XI 170.edd.+Martin+Bouquet+et+al.,+24+vols.+(Paris+1738–1904)+(hereafter+HF)+XI+170.>Google Scholar

32 The city is not Troy. A caption on it in P (lacking in B) reads ‘Inicium francorum Sicambria ciuitas’ and the accompanying texts concern Sicambria: Colker 238–239 F–G. On the chart, Giles does not trace the Frankish royal line explicitly to the Trojan kings, as do numerous other writers (e.g. Rigord, ed. Delaborde I 54–57), although he refers to that descent in the Karolinus (below, n. 70). He does not use the word domus to describe either the city or the family, but the image and the idea may be present.Google Scholar

33 See above, n. 15. B does not use this code of colors. In P, the use of red for the names begins with Pharamundus. Beside the name of Francio, B has the note: ‘In hac arbore a faramundo inferius generatio patrum in filios subtexitur et qui quibus successerint in descriptione quasi in serie demonstratur.’Google Scholar

34 Under the rubric ‘Regnum burgundie’ a family tree shows ‘Gundeugus primus Rex Burgundie,’ his sons — ‘Hilpericus,’ ‘Gundogisi,’ ‘Godobaldus,’ and ‘Godomarus’ — Chilperic's daughter ‘Sancta Clotilda vxor Clodouei,’ and Godobald's sons, ‘Sanctus Sigismundus’ and ‘Godomarus.’ The accompanying notes end with the seizure of the kingdom of Burgundy by the sons of Clovis.Google Scholar

35 This is the case with Chlotar I, Chilperic I, Clovis II, Theuderic III, Childebert III, Charlemagne, and (incorrectly) with Carloman, son of Louis the Stammerer (see below, at n. 40). One effect of this arrangement was to place only one king per generation in the stem (see figure 1). Giles was aware of the Merovingian divisions of the kingdom, for he identified the sons of Clovis and of Chlotar I as kings of Orléans, Paris, Soissons, and Metz.Google Scholar

36 P, fol. 47^v; B, fol. 4^r. This Childeric is a composite of the historical Chilperic II and Childeric III: see Colker 251, 254–255, 231 n.Google Scholar

37 P, fol. 47^v; B, fol. 4^r. ‘Bitildis’ and ‘Ansbertus senator,’ labeled ‘vxor’ and ‘uir,’ are shown as parents of ‘Erchenoaldus,’ father of ‘Ansegisi,’ father of ‘Pipinus maior’; this sketch omits St. Arnulf of Metz, whom most genealogies show as son of Erchinoald and father of Ansegisel: e.g. MGH SS 9.398.Google Scholar

38 P, fols. 47^v–48^r; B, fols. 4^r–4^v.Google Scholar

39 ‘Pipinus breuis expulso hildrico factus Rex’ and ‘Bertrada regina’ are shown, then their sons ‘Karolus magnus Rex et imperator’ and ‘Karolus rex qui post biennium regni sui obiit.’ For those of their descendants who are shown, see figure 1 and below, at nn. 53–54.Google Scholar

40 In fact, Charles the Simple was the posthumous son of Louis the Stammerer. Giles's version of the genealogy was probably drawn chiefly from that of MGH SS 9.402 (see below, n. 78); the sobriquet ‘qui nichil fecit’ was taken from another source. The same genealogy, with that sobriquet, is found in other texts as well: e.g. ibid. 373. The confusion in the list of kings may have been due to Aimoin's designation of Louis the Stammerer as ‘Nihil fecisse’ and the citation of him by this name as father of ‘Carolus Simplex’: Les Miracles de saint Benoǐt, <e>ed. Eugène de Certain (Paris 1858) 93–94. Some later writers distinguished, therefore, between Louis the Stammerer and the father of Charles the Simple, treating them as two different kings. Other writers recorded the correct genealogy: e.g. Rigord, ed. Delaborde I 60. The king-list which Stephen of Gallardon entered into Register E of Philip Augustus shows ‘Ludovicus qui nil fecit’ as successor to Carloman and predecessor to Charles the Simple but indicates no other Louis as near successor to Louis the Stammerer and so is unclear on the relationship: Delaborde, Recueil I xxxiv. Other writers applied the same sobriquet to Louis V (see below, n. 95).ed. Eugène de Certain (Paris 1858) 93–94. Some later writers distinguished, therefore, between Louis the Stammerer and the father of Charles the Simple, treating them as two different kings. Other writers recorded the correct genealogy: e.g. Rigord, ed. Delaborde I 60. The king-list which Stephen of Gallardon entered into Register E of Philip Augustus shows ‘Ludovicus qui nil fecit’ as successor to Carloman and predecessor to Charles the Simple but indicates no other Louis as near successor to Louis the Stammerer and so is unclear on the relationship: Delaborde, Recueil I xxxiv. Other writers applied the same sobriquet to Louis V (see below, n. 95).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=In+fact,+Charles+the+Simple+was+the+posthumous+son+of+Louis+the+Stammerer.+Giles's+version+of+the+genealogy+was+probably+drawn+chiefly+from+that+of+MGH+SS+9.402+(see+below,+n.+78);+the+sobriquet+‘qui+nichil+fecit’+was+taken+from+another+source.+The+same+genealogy,+with+that+sobriquet,+is+found+in+other+texts+as+well:+e.g.+ibid.+373.+The+confusion+in+the+list+of+kings+may+have+been+due+to+Aimoin's+designation+of+Louis+the+Stammerer+as+‘Nihil+fecisse’+and+the+citation+of+him+by+this+name+as+father+of+‘Carolus+Simplex’:+Les+Miracles+de+saint+Benoǐt,+ed.+Eugène+de+Certain+(Paris+1858)+93–94.+Some+later+writers+distinguished,+therefore,+between+Louis+the+Stammerer+and+the+father+of+Charles+the+Simple,+treating+them+as+two+different+kings.+Other+writers+recorded+the+correct+genealogy:+e.g.+Rigord,+ed.+Delaborde+I+60.+The+king-list+which+Stephen+of+Gallardon+entered+into+Register+E+of+Philip+Augustus+shows+‘Ludovicus+qui+nil+fecit’+as+successor+to+Carloman+and+predecessor+to+Charles+the+Simple+but+indicates+no+other+Louis+as+near+successor+to+Louis+the+Stammerer+and+so+is+unclear+on+the+relationship:+Delaborde,+Recueil+I+xxxiv.+Other+writers+applied+the+same+sobriquet+to+Louis+V+(see+below,+n.+95).>Google Scholar

41 See below, text F. That Charles is called Louis’ brother, rather than his uncle, marks Giles's source as a text dependent in this regard on the Historia Francorum Senonensis (ed. Georg Heinrich Pertz; MGH SS 9.367).Google Scholar

42 P, fol. 48^r (see figure 1); B, fol. 5^r; B has ‘Robertus comes andegauensis de genere sansonico.’ In P, a fleur-de-lis is drawn in red above the name of Robert the Brave, indicating that the lily, which earlier had been the emblem only of Louis VII and his descendants, was already, to some, a symbol for the entire Capetian line; later in the thirteenth century this emblem was applied also to the Carolingian and Merovingian kings; see further Ernst Schramm, Percy, Der König von Frankreich. Das Wesen der Monarchic vom 9. zum 16. Jahrhundert ,² 2 vols. (Darmstadt 1960) I 214.Google Scholar

43 P, fol. 48^r; B, fol. 5^r. The reading ‘obtentor’ is probable but not certain. P has ‘obtn̄tor,’ B what appears to be ‘obm̄tor.’ Elsewhere Giles uses the expressions ‘regnum’ and ‘dominium obtinuit’: e.g. Colker 226–227 (at 1.304, 4.126).Google Scholar

44 P, fols. 48^r–48^v (see figures 1–2); B, fols. 5^r–5^v: ‘Henricus Rex,’ ‘Philippus Rex,’ ‘Ludouicus Rex Grossus,’ ‘Ludouicus Ludouici filius christianissimus Rex,’ ‘Philippus fortunatissimus Rex,’ ‘Ludouicus puer.’ Beside the name of Louis V, B has the note: ‘Finit ii^a successio regum, sequitur tercia.’ For Giles's view of the succession of 987, see further below at nn. 73–92.Google Scholar

45 P, fol. 48^v (see figure 2); B, fols. 5^r–5^v: ‘Hugo flos iuuenum,’ ‘Philippus a porco interfectus,’ ‘Henricus remensis archiepiscopus,’ ‘Robertus comes,’ ‘Petrus de curtiniaco,’ ‘Philippus liberalissimus clericus,’ ‘Robertus iunior comes,’ ‘Petrus comes.’ Neither Hugh nor the elder Philip is given the title king, although both had been consecrated and associated with their fathers on the throne.Google Scholar

46 P, fol. 48^v; B, fol. 5^v: ‘Adela comitissa,’ ‘Willelmus Rufus i. Rex,’ ‘Henricus senior secundo Rex,’ ‘Robertus dux normannie.’ B incorrectly draws the vertical lines marking descent, thus indicating that Adela's sons were sons of William II.Google Scholar

47 B, fol. 5^v has a vertical line and empty cartouche beneath the name of King John, doubtless for Henry III, but the name and title were not entered.Google Scholar

48 This model, drawn from K. Schmid, ‘Zur Problematik von Familie, Sippe und Geschlecht, Haus und Dynastie beim mittelalterlichen Adel: Vorfragen zum Thema “Adel und Herrschaft im Mittelalter”,’ Zeitschrift für die Geschichte des Oberrheins 105 (1957) 1–62, is applied to the French nobility by Duby, G., ‘Structures familiales aristocratiques en France du XI^e siècle en rapport avec les structures de l’État,’ L'Europe aux IX ^e-XI ^e siècles. Aux origines des États nationaux, <e>edd. Tadeusz Manteuffel and Aleksander Greysztor (Warsaw 1968) 57–62. See also Duby, ‘Remarques sur la littérature généalogique.’edd. Tadeusz Manteuffel and Aleksander Greysztor (Warsaw 1968) 57–62. See also Duby, ‘Remarques sur la littérature généalogique.’' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=This+model,+drawn+from+K.+Schmid,+‘Zur+Problematik+von+Familie,+Sippe+und+Geschlecht,+Haus+und+Dynastie+beim+mittelalterlichen+Adel:+Vorfragen+zum+Thema+“Adel+und+Herrschaft+im+Mittelalter”,’+Zeitschrift+für+die+Geschichte+des+Oberrheins+105+(1957)+1–62,+is+applied+to+the+French+nobility+by+Duby,+G.,+‘Structures+familiales+aristocratiques+en+France+du+XIe+siècle+en+rapport+avec+les+structures+de+l’État,’+L'Europe+aux+IX+e-XI+e+siècles.+Aux+origines+des+États+nationaux,+edd.+Tadeusz+Manteuffel+and+Aleksander+Greysztor+(Warsaw+1968)+57–62.+See+also+Duby,+‘Remarques+sur+la+littérature+généalogique.’>Google Scholar

49 For discussion of these traits, see G. Duby, ‘La noblesse dans la France médiévale. Une enquěte à poursuivre,’ orig. pub. 1961, reprinted in Hommes et structures, especially 150–155; ‘Remarques sur la littérature généalogique,’ especially 292–294; and ‘Structures de parenté et noblesse dans la France du Nord aux XI^e et XII^e siècles,’ orig. pub. 1967, reprinted in Hommes et structures 267–285. See also the note from B (above, n. 33).Google Scholar

50 See above, at nn. 33, 35–38, 41, 44; the omission of St. Arnulf from among the ancestors (above, n. 37) also signals this stress.Google Scholar

51 P, fols. 48^r–48^v (see figures 1–2); B, fols. 5^r–5^v: ‘Constantia Regina,’ ‘Adela regina,’ ‘Elisabeth regina uxor Ph regis.’Google Scholar

52 P, fols. 48^r–48^v; B, fols. 4^v–5^v. The annotations do mention, however, that the wife of Robert I was sister to Herbert (II) of Vermandois: below, text D. The omission of females and cadets was deliberate; many of them are noted in Giles's sources: see MGH SS 9.401–405.Google Scholar

53 P, fol. 48^r; B, fol. 4^v: ‘Rottrudis. Berga. Gisia. Filie Karoli cum tribus aliis quarum nomina ignorantur’; B adds the label ‘filia Karoli’ beneath each name; cf. Colker 292.Google Scholar

54 ‘Ludouicus pius Rex et imperator,’ ‘Pipinus rex italie,’ ‘Hugo dux,’ ‘Drogo Methensis episcopus,’ ‘Lotharius italie rex et imperator,’ ‘Ludouicus rex Theutonie,’ ‘Karolus caluus Rex et imperator,’ ‘Pipinus rex aquitanie,’ ‘Bernardus rex post pipinum [regem italie],’ ‘Ludouicus [II] imperator,’ ‘Karolus [III] imperator post Karolum caluum.’Google Scholar

55 P, fols. 47^r–47^v; B, fols. 3^v–4^r. The note on Childeric I, however, names his wife, the mother of Clovis.Google Scholar

56 Among the women omitted are Eleanor of Aquitaine, Queen Eleanor of Castile, mother of Louis VIII's bride, and Queen Margaret, sister of Philip Augustus. In the collateral lines, the only marriages noted are those of women, Adela of Blois and Empress Matilda. When marriages are listed, the vertical lines indicating descent proceed, not from the pair, but from the individual who was of interest to Giles — that is, usually from the kings alone but also from Blitildis and Adela of Blois alone in those cases (see figure 2).Google Scholar

57 ‘Imperatrix que nupsit comiti andegauensi,’ ‘Henricus rex,’ ‘Henricus Iunior primo rex,’ ‘Richardus secundo rex,’ ‘Iohannes tercio rex,’ ‘Gaufredus comes briton̄,’ ‘Arturus puer.’ See also above, n. 46.Google Scholar

58 ‘Stephanus comes Blesys’ and ‘Adela comitissa’ are labeled ‘vir’ and ‘vxor’; for their descendants who are shown, see figure 2 and below, at nn. 59–62.Google Scholar

59 The cases of Boulogne and Sully were different from those of Blois, Champagne, and Sancerre in that the former were lordships which Louis’ kinsmen had gained by marriage to heiresses. Thus, in terms of his family, they were not collateral lines until the holdings had been inherited by his cousins of the second generation, who held them by hereditary right. In Giles's time, Boulogne was held by Countess Ida and her husband, Renaud of Dammartin: HF XII 569–570.Google Scholar

60 Odo of Sully was bishop of Paris 1196–1208 (Rigord, ed. Delaborde I 137, 165), the time of the redaction and presentation of the chart. His inclusion in the family tree could remind Louis VIII of his family's close ties to the church of Paris. So, too, could the inclusion in the Capetian chart of Philip, younger brother of Louis VII, who had been archdeacon of Paris and was buried in Notre-Dame at Paris: Denis de Sainte-Marthe et al., Gallia Christiana … VII (Paris 1744) 68. The omission from the chart of Henry of Blois, bishop of Winchester, and of Ralph of Sully, abbot of Cluny, is remarkable; it and certain other details of the chart could be explained by, but do not require, a thesis of anti-monastic bias on Giles's part.Google Scholar

61 For the Blesenses or the genus de Bleys, see Cambrensis, Giraldus, De principis instructione liber , in his Opera, <e>ed. George F. Warner, VIII (Rolls Series 21; London 1891) 135, 227–228; see also my ‘The Capetian Apanages and the Nature of the French Kingdom,’ Journal of Medieval History 2 (1976) 129–130 nn. 16, 26. In contrast to counties, which could still have connotations of personal rank, episcopal sees, which were tied to specific cities, are named: ‘Willelmus Remensis Archiepiscopus,’ ‘Henricus Bituricensis archiepiscopus,’ etc.Google Scholar

62 For William: Henri d'Arbois de Jubainville, Histoire des ducs et des comtes de Champagne II (Paris 1860) 169–172; for him as count: Luchaire, Achille, Louis VI le Gros. Annales de sa vie et de son règne (1081–1137) (Paris 1890) no. 141. ‘Count’ appears to have been a personal title given because of the dignity of William's birth.Google Scholar

63 In fact, although Peter's own charters often styled him ‘Curtiniacensis dominus,’ both they and acts of others also called him ‘Petrus de Curtiniaco’: Du Bouchet, Jean, Histoire généalogique de la maison royale de Courtenay (Paris 1661) Preuves 6–12; Delaborde, Recueil III no. 974.Google Scholar

64 Note that the criteria which governed Giles's schematization were not followed by other writers. Genealogies copied into the chancery registers of Philip Augustus traced kinship by both males and females: MGH SS 13.257–259; HF XII 569–570. Philip's charters applied the term karissimus (or dilectus) consanguineus to his cousins without distinction as to patrilineal or matrilineal filiation, either theirs or his: Delaborde, Recueil, e.g. I no. 463, II nos. 485, 619, 650, 588.Google Scholar

65 In particular, it is instructive to have a source of this type which was not written at, or under the immediate influence of, St-Denis. Giles was a canon at St-Marcel at Paris: Colker 200–201. For a slightly later history not written at a known monastic center, see Walpole, R. N., ‘Philip Mouskès and the pseudo-Turpin Chronicle,’ University of California Publications in Modern Philology 26 (1947) especially 371–374.Google Scholar

66 Colker 244–245 1.61–62.Google Scholar

67 Ibid. 245 1.70; see also 245 1.75–76, 247 1.145–146; but note (ibid. 255–256 and n.) that Charles Martel is damned for his seizure of ecclesiastical tithes. For criticism of Philip, ibid. 244, 308–312; but ibid. 305 5.53 calls him ‘lene iugum, specimenque boni rectoris.’Google Scholar

68 Ibid. 251, 254–255, 231 n.Google Scholar

69 Ibid. 250–251. This event was known to other twelfth-century French writers through the chronicle of Sigebert of Gembloux and the Abbreviatio from St-Denis: MGH SS 6.332; ibid. 9.399. It figured, also, in some ecclesiastical collections, e.g. in the late-twelfth-century lectionary for saints’ days, Paris, Bibliothèque Sainte-Geneviève, MS 552, fol. 94^v. It does not seem to have been construed necessarily as casting doubt on the legitimacy of Capetian rule, for Rigord, the partisan biographer of Philip Augustus, included it in his ‘Short Chronicle’ of the French kings: Soissons, Bibliothèque municipale, MS 129, fol. 136^v; I am indebted to Professor Gabrielle M. Spiegel, who lent me her microfilm of this text. Note that Rigord implied Carolingian descent for the Capetians in his statement that ‘… ab hac antiqua radice [trojana] omnes reges Francorum credimus descendisse’: ed. Delaborde I 64.Google Scholar

70 P, fol. 7^r: ‘Ipse sed oblique francorum est sanguine Regum / Quos regno genuit sanguis troianus eorum / Egressus lumbis tanteque propaginis heres.’ Colker 253 adds punctuation which alters the meaning of these lines; my rendition of oblique follows that of the L continuation of the accessus (ibid. 230 A.75–76). The capitalization should be noted; P and B often capitalize Rex but not francie or francorum. Professor Elizabeth A. R. Brown drew my attention to similar usage by the Capetian chancery in the early-thirteenth century; in Register E of Philip Augustus (Archives Nationales, JJ 26), entries from Philip's reign capitalize Rex but not franc’ in the royal title, whereas entries from the reign of St. Louis commonly capitalize both.Google Scholar

71 Colker 303 5.4, 316 5.420–422.Google Scholar

72 Ibid. 316 5.431.Google Scholar

73 See above, n. 15 and at n. 42.Google Scholar

74 See above, at nn. 42–43, and below, text D.Google Scholar

75 See figures 1–2.Google Scholar

76 See above, at n. 46.Google Scholar

77 MGH SS 9.368: ‘… et ipso anno Robertus, filius eius, in regnum piissimus rex ordinatus est. Hic deficit regnum Karoli Magni.’ On the influence of the Sens Historia, see Werner, K. F., ‘Die Legitimität der Kapetinger und die Entstehung des “Reditus regni ad stirpem Karoli”,’ Die Welt als Geschichte 12 (1952) 209–212; see also Spiegel, G. M., ‘The Reditus Regni ad Stirpem Karoli Magni: A New Look,’ French Historical Studies 7 (1971) 153 n. 36. In a similar vein, although a different historiographical tradition, the author of the Annales Sancti Germani Parisiensis recorded the consecrations of Hugh Capet and Robert II as if they had been a single event: MGH SS 3.168. The Gesta gentis Francorum, composed at St-Denis in the twelfth century, drew on the Sens Historia but, apparently from the premise of an enhanced Capetian blood-right, changed the wording to ‘… in ipso anno robertus regum piissimus natus est. Hic deficit regnum karoli magni’: Paris, Bibliothèque Mazarine, MS 2013, fol. 172^v (emphasis mine).Google Scholar

78 Ed. MGH SS 9 under the title Historia regum Francorum monasterii sancti Dionysii; for this passage, ibid. 403–404. The date of composition of this text is unsure. J. Lair had argued from its apparent derivation that it was written after 1185: ‘Mémoire sur deux chroniques latines composées au XII^e siècle à l'abbaye de Saint-Denis,” Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes 30 (1874). 570–575; but Léopold Delisle found it in a manuscript of 1140–1150: Mélanges de paléographie et de bibliographie (Paris 1880) 177, 189–190; see also Howlett, Richard, Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II., and Richard I. II (Rolls Series 82, vol. 2; London 1885) xxiii–xxv. I see no reason from its content why it could not have been written as early as 1110–1115.Google Scholar

Giles's dependence on a work of this tradition for events from the reign of Odo to that of Hugh Capet is evident: see below, nn. 81–83 and texts D–G. The identifying labels which Giles gave to Robert the Brave, Odo, and Robert I are drawn from this source (MGH SS 9.402). The epithet ‘piissimus et litteratissimus’ for Robert II is derived from the ‘piissimus, valde literatus,’ of this text; it, the ‘seuerus’ for Rodulf, and the citation of the length of reigns — especially the incorrect twenty-seven years for Charles the Simple and sixteen for Louis IV — point to this text and exclude the Historia Francorum Senonensis as source. Finally, the ‘flos iuuenum’ for Hugh, son of Robert II, and the note by the name of Philip I indicate this text precisely: below, texts E, G, I; MGH SS 9.402–404; cf. ibid. 366, 368–369.

It is possible that Giles had a corrupt text of the Abbreviatio, but there is evidence that he was careless in his own work. Most of his distortions of the original appear to have been deliberate (see below, at nn. 86–92), but the omission from the genealogy of St. Arnulf of Metz, who was listed in the corresponding passage in the Abbreviatio (above, n. 37), and the conflation of Archbishops Arnulf of Reims and Leotheric of Sens (below, text G; cf. MGH SS 9.403) are not easily explained. In addition, the annotations to the chart refer to a ‘karolus qui nichil fecit,’ although Giles's probable source, Aimoin, had written ‘Ludovicus’ and there was no corresponding Charles on the family tree: see below, text B and n. 80, and above, n. 40 and figure 1.

79 See below, texts A–B.Google Scholar

80 See below, texts B–C. Aimoin's notes on Louis the Stammerer are a probable source for parts of text B, although Giles has confused the material and makes some of Aimoin's statements refer to a fictitious ‘karolus’: see Miracles de St Benoǐt, ed. Certain 93 and above, n. 78. The Abbreviatio, which does not give the length of the reigns of Louis’ immediate successors, is the apparent source for text C, which is, however, significantly altered in Giles's version: see MGH SS 9.402 and below, at n. 84.Google Scholar

Giles's ideas at the end of text B are curious. The three optimi reges were apparently Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, and Charles the Bald, who as emperors and kings of France were digniores (see above, n. 15), although Pippin is shown by the colors on the chart to have been a Rex francie bonus. It is evident from text C that the three reges inutiles were the three sucessors to Louis the Stammerer. The schematization of the two groups of three kings each ignores the intervening and undistinguished reign of Louis the Stammerer.

81 See below, text D; cf. MGH SS 9.402. The Abbreviatio was not the source for this derivation of ‘Norman.’ Giles may be paraphrasing Rodulf Glaber here, or there could have been an intermediate text: cf. Raoul Glaber. Les cinq livres de ses histoires (900–1044), <e>ed. Maurice Prou (Paris 1886) 18. Rigord gives the same etymology in a slightly different form: ed. Delaborde I 60.ed.+Maurice+Prou+(Paris+1886)+18.+Rigord+gives+the+same+etymology+in+a+slightly+different+form:+ed.+Delaborde+I+60.>Google Scholar

Here and below I assume that Giles composed, rather than simply copied, the annotations. Certainly he compiled the chart (see above, at nn. 9–14), and it was he who wrote the notes on the Lateran basilica (below, text G; see Colker 200–201, 311 5.269) and on Charlemagne's daughters (above, nn. 14, 53). The stress on cifre and regnal years in text C is so similar in method to Giles's use of other symbols (above, n. 15) and his interest in the length of reigns (above, at n. 11) that his authorship of it is probable. Texts A–B seem closely related to the promise of Colker 237 D.24, 238 E.14–15, 19–20, 299 4.309–313. Similarities in vocabulary and method accord with the attribution of the notes to him (e. g. the uncommon togota Gallia of text D; cf. Colker 283 3.196–197). In addition, the author of the annotations was strongly pro-Capetian and was concerned with territorial gains and losses to the kingdom, interests found also in the Karolinus and doubtless common in the intellectual climate of Paris in the 1190s (see Rigord, ed. Delaborde I 6). Other details could be added. In sum, while the authorship of the notes cannot be strictly determined, it seems clear that Giles at least revised or added to them, and it is likely that he composed the whole.

82 See below, text E; cf. MGH SS 9.402.Google Scholar

83 See below, text F; cf. MGH SS 9.402–403. This concern with territories is perhaps related to Giles's apparent conception of rule in geographical, rather than ethnic, terms, for on the chart he refers to the king (or duke) ‘francie,’ not ‘francorum,’ and to the kings ‘theutonie’ and ‘anglie’: below, texts A–C, and above, at nn. 42–43, 46. The stress in the poem on the Franks and on Frankish kingship may repeat the language of Giles's sources or, equally well, may indicate another aspect of his thinking.Google Scholar

84 See above, nn. 40, 80–81. For a related idea of Stephen of Tournai of the rex inutilis as one who did not defend the regnum, see Post, Gaines, Studies in Medieval Legal Thought: Public Law and the State, 1100–1322 (Princeton 1964) 439; see further Peters, Edward, The Shadow King: ‘Rex Inutilis’ in Medieval Law and Literature, 751–1327 (New Haven 1970) 66–69 and passim, and below, n. 95.Google Scholar

85 But cf. above, n. 81, and below, n. 86. The known MSS of the Abbreviatio were not the source for the versificum on Gerbert (below, text G), but that line was a commonplace which Giles could have found in any of several places (e.g. Sigebert, MGH SS 6.353; for others, see Colker 241 K n.). Again, Giles adds many details to the account in the Abbreviatio of the translation of the relics of St. Nicholas: below, text I; cf. MGH SS 9.404.Google Scholar

86 This error may stem from a reference Giles had seen to the kinship which existed because of Rodulf's marriage to Emma, daughter of Robert I, e.g., from Rodulf Glaber, ed. Prou 7. A corruption of the sentence of MGH SS 9.402 lines 22–25 is also possible.Google Scholar

87 Giles's deletions from his source are equally significant. In addition to Charles the Simple's death from mistreatment in prison, these are (i) that Louis IV had been captured by the Normans ‘consentiente tamen Hugone Magno’ and (ii) that Charles of Lorraine had succeeded Louis V and Hugh Capet rebelled against him ‘eo quod ipse Karolus in matrimonio acceperat filiam Herberti Trecharum comitis’: MGH SS 9.402–403.Google Scholar

88 P, fol. 47^v; B, fol. 4^r: ‘Post mortem dagoberti cum regnaret filius suus clodoueus qui malus erat, cepit regnum franc’ debilitari et negotium regni per prefectos aule amministrari …’; cf. MGH SS 9.398.Google Scholar

89 P, fol. 47^v; B, fol. 4^r: ‘Iste Karolus tutides cum esset theoderici regis et regni tutor, decimas ecclesie militibus dedit in subsidium pugnandi contra sarracenos de quibus uno die ccc. et xlv. interfecit sed quia decimas non restituit dampnatus fuit’; cf. Colker 253–256.Google Scholar

90 Recueil des actes de Charles III le Simple, roi de France (893–923), <e>ed. Philippe Lauer (Paris 1940–1949) no. 97. By the terms of this charter, prayers were to be said for Charles on the anniversary of his death and similarly for his wife; since Charles's act was preserved and had been confirmed by Henry I (1031–1060), it is likely that these prayers were still being said in Giles's time.Google Scholar

91 Colker 251–255; note (253–254 1.372–373) of Dagobert III ‘cum non regnaret et esset / Paruus adhuc heres …’Google Scholar

92 See MGH SS 9.402, 399.Google Scholar

93 Above, at nn. 66–72.Google Scholar

94 In all likelihood, Giles either assumed or knew that Philip Augustus and Louis VIII had Carolingian blood (cf. above, n. 69). All earlier Capetian queens except Anna of Kiev had been descended from Charlemagne, as indeed, by 1200, were most of the French nobility: see Erich Brandenburg, Die Nachkommen Karls des Grossen (I.–XIV. Generation) (Leipzig 1935), and Werner, K. F., ‘Die Nachkommen Karls des Grossen bis um das Jahr 1000 (1.–8. Generation),’ Karl der Grosse: Lebenswerk und Nachleben IV, <e>edd. Wolfgang Braunfels and Percy Ernst Schramm (Düsseldorf 1967) 403–482. The evidence is fragmentary, but there are numerous indications that the nobles, and doubtless also the kings, were well versed in their genealogies, and it appears that a number of them knew of their Carolingian descent. In another publication I shall investigate such questions of genealogical awareness. The closest allusion to Carolingian descent for the Capetians on the chart is a reference, retained from the Abbreviatio, to Beatrice of Vermandois, wife of Robert I (below, text D), who was a great-granddaughter of Bernard, king of Italy. Alberic of Trois-Fontaines, in the 1250s, knew of this descent: MGH SS 23.757. Whether Giles could have known of it is impossible to determine.edd.+Wolfgang+Braunfels+and+Percy+Ernst+Schramm+(Düsseldorf+1967)+403–482.+The+evidence+is+fragmentary,+but+there+are+numerous+indications+that+the+nobles,+and+doubtless+also+the+kings,+were+well+versed+in+their+genealogies,+and+it+appears+that+a+number+of+them+knew+of+their+Carolingian+descent.+In+another+publication+I+shall+investigate+such+questions+of+genealogical+awareness.+The+closest+allusion+to+Carolingian+descent+for+the+Capetians+on+the+chart+is+a+reference,+retained+from+the+Abbreviatio,+to+Beatrice+of+Vermandois,+wife+of+Robert+I+(below,+text+D),+who+was+a+great-granddaughter+of+Bernard,+king+of+Italy.+Alberic+of+Trois-Fontaines,+in+the+1250s,+knew+of+this+descent:+MGH+SS+23.757.+Whether+Giles+could+have+known+of+it+is+impossible+to+determine.>Google Scholar

95 Of earlier writers, Odorannus, monk of St-Pierre-le-Vif at Sens, had called Louis V ‘juvenis rex qui nihil fecit’: Opera omnia, <e>edd. and trans. Robert-Henri Bautier and Monique Gilles (Paris 1972) 96. Clarius of Sens copied him: <e>ed. Louis-Maximilien Duru, Bibliothèque historique de l'Yonne Il (Auxerre 1863) 495. See also above, nn. 40, 78, 80, and the references of n. 84.edd.+and+trans.+Robert-Henri+Bautier+and+Monique+Gilles+(Paris+1972)+96.+Clarius+of+Sens+copied+him:+ed.+Louis-Maximilien+Duru,+Bibliothèque+historique+de+l'Yonne+Il+(Auxerre+1863)+495.+See+also+above,+nn.+40,+78,+80,+and+the+references+of+n.+84.>Google Scholar

96 For these themes, see Werner, ‘Legitimität’ 213–217. Giles's view, however, was not secular; see Colker 247–248 1.160–171: ‘… Ille creator… in Karolo, quem prima ab origine mundi / Elegit. …’Google Scholar

97 See HF XII 220; Walpole, ‘Philip Mouskès’ 371–374.Google Scholar

98 See Werner, , ‘Legitimität’ 214–225.Google Scholar

99 I date this interest, conservatively, to the 1220s because it was only then that the names Dagobert and Charles appeared among the sons of Louis VIII (his first seven sons had been given the names of recent kinsmen): Petit-Dutaillis, Louis VIII 331–332; Berger, Élie, Histoire de Blanche de Castille, reine de France (Paris 1895) 14–15, 30, 39. Schramm (König von Frankreich I 178–179) believes that this interest appeared much earlier, but some of his evidence is doubtful, and he does not differentiate between the genealogical and other aspects of the Karlskult. I shall examine the problem of Capetian dynasticism as part of a longer study of Capetian succession and familial structures.Google Scholar

100 The theme of Carolingian descent through Adela of Champagne was also discarded by the royal historiographers, presumably because it did not fit the schematization of the reditus: Werner, ‘Legitimität’ 224 and n. 116. Other writers continued to trace that descent, notably in the French translations of the Historia regum of ca. 1205 (above, n. 97); of these the tradition of B.N., MS français 2815 (MS from 1297–1314) stressed that genealogy by introducing it with the note, added to the original, ‘Et bien sachent tuit que cestui phelippe [auguste] fu du lignage le grant roi Kallemaine. Et ce puet len bien prouer car Kallemaine engendra Looys …’ (fols. 117^v–118^r).Google Scholar

^a xxxviii. B.

^b Italiam P.

^a parisius B. ^b iohannes viii B. ^c rome B. ^d cum om. B. ^e quendam B.

^a Rex B. ^b Karolomagnus Rex francie B. ^c decernimus B. ^d quia tum quia B.

^a annis om. B. ^b iohannes B. ^c et B. ^d normanni om. B. ^e norrum P. ^f mani B. ^g odone B. ^h ipse om. B. ⁱ (–)esus P; tecus B. ^j duxit. Quem B. ^k Radulphum B.

^a Radulphus Rex B. ^b Rodulphus B.

^a Hotonem B. ^b Lotoringiam B. ^c chapet B.

^a rex B. ^b chapet B. ^c chapet B. ^d robertum B. ^e duodecim B. ^f Gerbertums B. ^g donno B. ^h gerbertus B. ⁱ donnus B. ^j contra quem om. P. ^k pergans P; peregrinans Delaborde, Colker. ^l translatus Delaborde, Colker. ^m ibi om. P. ⁿ Rome B. ^o siluester tertius B; secundus Colker. ^p constantine B.

^a rex 2?. ^b iniciatus P. ^c et om. B. ^d thorus B. ^e Et B. ^f Responsorium B. ^g Et B. ^h Et B. ⁱ martyribus B. ^j constantia B. ^k martyrum B. ^l constantia B. ^m constantia B. ⁿ Responsorium B. ^o Nam B. ^p senonas B.

^a rex P. ^b nicholai B. ^c scilicet ubi B. ^d insiluit B. ^e peclitans B. ^f anchora B. ^g est om. P. ^h centeno milleno P. ⁱ Angl. P.