¹ The research for this paper was done while on a Research Training fellowship from the Social Science Research Council. The kings dealt with are Hugh Capet (987–996), Robert II the Pious (996–1031), Henry I (1031–1060), Philip I (1060–1108), Louis VI (1108–1137), and the early years of Louis VII (1137–1180). This paper owes a special debt to the Raleigh Lecture of 1935: Galbraith, V. H., The Literacy of the Medieval English Kings (London 1935; reprinted from Proceedings Brit. Acad. 21 [1935] 202–38). Citations are to the pages in the separate offprint.Google Scholar

² Most scholars who have studied them have quite successfully withstood the temptation to glorify them. Though many names could be mentioned, it seems adequate to quote Charles Petit-Dutaillis: ‘The early Carpetians had no conscious objectives and [the story of their relations with the Church] provides us with many examples of their fickle passions, their childish versatility, their peasant-like tricks, their complete inability to follow any political line, or even to be faithful to their allies.’ The Feudal Monarchy in France and England (London 1936) 22. This does seem both extreme and not too accurate.Google Scholar

³ Fawtier, Robert, The Capetian Kings of France (London 1960) 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ Ullmann, W., Principles of Government and Politics in the Middle Ages (London 1961) 211. The problem is considered more fully on pages 117–149 and 193–211.Google Scholar

⁵ Petit-Dutaillis, , op. cit. 34.Google Scholar

⁶ While virtually everyone who has worked on the early Capetians has agreed that the domain was really the key to their power, the exhaustive study is Newman, W. M., Le domaine royal sous les premiers Capétiens (Paris 1937).Google Scholar

⁷ Fawtier, , op. cit. 52, ends his survey of family loyalty by saying, ‘no contemporary royal or even noble family can show anything approaching so favourable a record in this respect.’ Google Scholar

⁸ Thompson, James Westfall, The Literacy of the Laity in the Middle Ages (Berkeley 1939; reprint New York 1960) 123.Google Scholar

⁹ Walter Map, in the late twelfth century, said: ‘The highborn of our country disdain letters, or delay to apply their children to them. Slaves, on the other hand, the which we call peasants, are eager to nourish their base born and degenerate children in the arts….’ Quoted, Galbraith, , op. cit. 4.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Maître, Leon, Les Écoles épiscopales et monastiques en Occident avant les universités (Paris 1924) 169–70.Google Scholar

¹¹ Thompson, , op. cit. 123–65.Google Scholar

¹² Ibid. 125: ‘All the French kings of this period (875–1000 ca.), down to and including Hugh Capet, were probably illiterate.’ Google Scholar

¹³ Eudes, Marquis of Neustria, Hugh's great uncle, king 887–898; Robert I, Marquis of Neustria, Hugh's grandfather, king 922–23; and Raoul of Burgundy, Hugh's uncle, king 923–36.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Between ‘597 and 1100 it is exceptional for a king (of England) to be able to write at all, or to read Latin’: Galbraith, , op. cit. 7–8. Both William the Conqueror and William Rufus were illiterate: ibid. 12.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Richer, , Histoire de France (ed Latouche, R.; Paris 1964) 3.85.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Lot, F., Les derniers Carolingiens (Paris 1891) 308–10.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Lot doubts that Otto I knew Latin, to read or to understand, though he did speak the romance tongue. A papal bull of 948 was translated into German for his sake: ‘propter reges, juxta Teutiscam linguam’: ibid. 310.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Lot, F., Études sur le règne de Hugues Capet (Paris 1903) 33 n. 1.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Lot, , Les derniers Carolingiens, 208. The only ‘patriotism’ was definitely not national. But Lot does believe that though this was true at the time of Hugh's accession, constant hostility from the Pope and Emperor did make the king more nationalistic as his reign progressed.Google Scholar

²⁰ Richer, , op. cit. 4.10 and 11.Google Scholar

²¹ Lot, , Études … 234–6: he was so feeble that no one even bothered to forge his name. He is known to have issued 12 authentic acts, as against 108 for Robert II, 125 for Henry I, 171 for Philip I, 359 for Louis VI, and 798 for Louis VII. In the Empire in the 10th century, Conrad of Franconia had issued 38, Henry the Fowler 43, Otto I 434, Otto II 317, and Otto III about 400. — Galbraith reminds us that the use of the signed charter is a step in the development of government rather than of literacy (pp. 18ff.). So the growth of Capetian diplomatic cannot be equated with the king's own education. Robert I's charters are awkwardly written, with few abbreviations and compressions, despite the king's erudition. Not until the reign of Philip I was there a revolution in the chancery in terms of the growth and complexity of business done there.Google Scholar

²² Pfister, C., Études sur le règne de Robert le Pieux (Paris 1885) 35. The earliest ascription for the hymns is twelfth-century. Histoire littéraire de la France [= HLF] 7 (1746) 329–31: Robert has been credited at various times with the authorship of a hymn in iambic dimeters, ‘Chorus Novae Hierusalem,’ numerous antiphonals, three poems on the nativity (in hexameters), and a hymn in honor of St. Agnan of Orleans. Viollet, P., Œuvres chrétiennes des familles royales de France (Paris 1850) 66–71, for the text of these discredited works. They are mostly from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and Viollet attempts the proper ascriptions.Google Scholar

²³ Helgaud, , Epitome vitae regis Roberti (ed. Bautier, R. & Labory, G.; Paris 1965) passim. Google Scholar

²⁴ Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France [= RHF] 10 (1760) 576. Also, HLF 7.326: ‘vir pietate egregius et egregie eruditus.’ Google Scholar

²⁵ PL 142.349.Google Scholar

²⁶ For Gerbert: Lattin, H. P., The Letters of Gerbert (New York 1961). The great scholar's letters are a disappointment for our purposes, as they mostly cover his complicated and shifting political machinations, rather than his educational and intellectual activities.Google Scholar

²⁷ Pfister, , op. cit. 11.Google Scholar

²⁸ Prou, M., Recueil des actes de Philippe I ^er roi de France (Paris 1908), Introduction p. cxxxiv.Google Scholar

²⁹ Robert II's mother Adelaide may have been largely responsible for directing him to the schools: HLF 7.326. Alfred the Great's mother first inspired him, according to the story told by Asser. Women, more removed from the pressures of military life and with time on their hands, were certainly prominent as patrons of letters in the twelfth century.Google Scholar

³⁰ The minority lasted seven years, until Philip was fifteen. He itinerated with Baldwin for much of his minority, making extended formal education unlikely: Fliche, A., Le règne de Philippe I (Paris 1912) 13.Google Scholar

³¹ RHF 11 (1767) 388, from the Geneologia comitum Flandrensium: ‘prudens et fortis comes suo tempore, sapiens et moderatissimus in omnibus operibus …’; RHF 11.80, from William of Poitiers: ‘ipsius velut amici et socii prudentium in deliberatione maximorum negotiorum.’ However, these do not constitute proof that Baldwin had had any formal education.Google Scholar

³² Fliche, , op. cit. 12. The mere existence of a paedagogus says little about the students' actual education, apart from indicating some exposure to the teachings of the Church. William the Conqueror, whom Galbraith says was illiterate, had a tutor, styled ‘pedagogus’ also: Douglas, D., William the Conqueror (London 1964) 37.Google Scholar

³³ Prou, , op. cit. Introduction, passim. Google Scholar

³⁴ Ibid. cxvi: These five formulae were used: (1) ‘manu nostra’ (2) ‘manu propria’ (3) ‘adstipulatione nostrae manus’ (4) ‘proprii signi subscriptione’ (5) ‘manus nostre subter ea decrevimus roborari subscriptionibus.’ Google Scholar

³⁵ Fliche, , op. cit. 78. Though this may have been the education given to Louis, we have seen that it was not traditional, as Suger asserted and Fliche accepted. Suger, , Vita Ludovici (ed. Waquet, ; Paris 1929) 7.Google Scholar

³⁶ Prou, , op. cit. cxci.Google Scholar

³⁷ Luchaire, A., Louis VI le Gros: Annales de sa vie et de son règne (Paris 1890) 308–9.Google Scholar

³⁸ Pacaut, Marcel, Louis VII et son royaume (Paris 1964) 31. The problems raised by Louis' overly ecclesiastical education are referred to pp. 27–65 passim. The sources for our knowledge of Louis' education at Notre Dame etc., are given p. 31.Google Scholar

³⁹ This was not considered such a short education at that — an important point to keep in mind. M. Bloch quotes a German poet who held that ‘he who has stayed at school until the age of twelve and never ridden a horse is only fit to be a priest’: Feudal Society (Chicago 1961) 293–4.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Op. cit. 5.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Kneller, G. F., Educational Anthropology (New York 1965) 68.Google Scholar

⁴² From Max Weber (ed. Gerth, H. H. and Mills, C. W.; London 1948) 235.Google Scholar

⁴³ Lot, F. et Fawtier, R., Histoire des institutions françaises au moyen-âge II (Paris 1958)Google Scholar

33 There is a general treatment of the nature of French royal power, pp. 7–47.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Bloch, , op. cit. 92.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Ibid. 96: ‘The last word has assuredly not yet been said on the subject of the part played in the elaboration of the Charlemagne theme by this great community, the allies and counsellers of the Capetian kings.’ Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Ibid. 108.Google Scholar