¹ The stances adopted by the towns have been examined by Charles Taylor, H., ‘Assemblies of Towns and War Subsidy, 1318–1319,’ in Strayer, Joseph R. and Taylor, Charles H., Studies in Early French Taxation (Cambridge, Mass. 1939) 109–200; the consultation of nobles was discussed in his ‘The Composition of Baronial Assemblies in France, 1315–1320,’ Speculum 29 (1954) 441–448. In my doctoral dissertation, ‘Charters and Leagues in Early Fourteenth Century France: The Movement of 1314 and 1315’ (Harvard and Radcliffe 1961) 506–523, I considered the taxes levied on nobles, emphasizing in particular those paid in return for grants of privilege. I also treat this subject in a study of the reform mission of the bishop of Laon and the count of Forez in Languedoc in 1318–1320, which I hope to publish in the near future. For help in gathering material for this article and in evolving the hypotheses contained in it, my deep thanks are owed to Professor Taylor.Google Scholar

² Joseph Strayer, R., ‘Consent to Taxation under Philip the Fair,’ in Strayer and Taylor, Studies 81–91; Artonne, André, Le mouvement de 1314 et les chartes provinciales de 1315 (Université de Paris, Bibliothèque de la Faculté des Lettres 29; Paris 1912) 13–18, 70–78; Lehugeur, Paul, Histoire de Philippe le Long, roi de France (1316–1322) (Paris 1897–1931) 150–60, 120–138; Brown, Elizabeth A. R., ‘Cessante Causa and the Taxes of the Last Capetians: The Political Applications of a Philosophical Maxim,’ Studia Gratiana (Post Scripta) 15 (1972) 576–583.Google Scholar

³ The disastrous effects of the poor harvest of 1315 are discussed and references to relevant literature given in Brown, Elizabeth A. R., ‘Gascon Subsidies and the Finances of the English Dominions, 1315–1324,’ Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History 8 (1971) 103–104 n. 220.Google Scholar

⁴ Brown, , ‘Charters and Leagues’ 482–505.Google Scholar

⁵ Louis’ genealogy is given in Anselme, Pierre, Histoire généalogique et chronologique de la maison royale de France …, edd. Ange and Simplicien³ (Paris 1726–1733) II 735, 737, who discusses his rights to his different holdings; see also Lucas, Henry S., ‘The Low Countries and the Disputed Election of 1314,’ Speculum 21 (1946) 80–85. A decree of Parlement dated April 10, 1310 declared Louis guardian of the heirs of the count of Auxerre and quashed the competing claims of Béraud of Mercœur and two other nobles: Edgard Boutaric, Actes du Parlement de Paris, 1st ser., De l'an 1254 à l'an 1328 (Paris 1863–1867) no. 3738.Google Scholar

⁶ Petit, Joseph, Charles de Valois (1270–1325) (Paris 1900) 135–136; Michel de Marolles, Inventaire des titres de Nevers, ed. le comte de Soultrait (Nevers 1873) 509; Artonne, Mouvement 92, 100.Google Scholar

⁷ Brown, , ‘Charters and Leagues’ 310–312 and 718–721, nn. 548–556. Lehugeur, Philippe le Long I 95–98; Inventaire d'anciens comptes royaux dressé par Robert Mignon sous le règne de Philippe de Valois, ed. Charles-Victor Langlois (Recueil des historiens de la France, Documents financiers 1; Paris 1899) nos. 130, 2626–2628, 2630; Guerout, Jean, Registres du Trésor des Chartes II, Règnes des fils de Philippe le Bel 1, Règnes de Louis X le Hutin et de Philippe V le Long (Paris 1966) nos. 1485–1486, 1495; Paris, Archives Nationales, J 562A, no. 3.Google Scholar

⁸ Brown, , ‘Charters and Leagues’ 311–312; Lehugeur, , Philippe le Long I 98; Guerout, , Registres no. 1499; Wilhelm von Leibniz, Gottfried, Codex juris gentium diplomaticus (Hanover 1693–1700) I 100–103, no. xlix; and, of particular importance, Jean XXII (1316–1334), Lettres secrètes et curiales relatives à la France extraites des registres du Vatican, ed. Coulon, A.-L. (Bibliothèque des Ěcoles françaises d'Athènes et de Rome 3, 1st ser.; Rome 1906) nos. 393–395, letters showing the animosity caused by Sully's involvement with the seizure of Nevers between Louis of Nevers and Charles of Valois, on the one hand, and Sully, on the other.Google Scholar

⁹ Lehugeur, , Philippe le Long I 138–140, 235–238.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Guerout, , Registres no. 1540.Google Scholar

¹¹ Lehugeur, , Philippe le Long I 138–139, 163–164, and for additional details and the date given in the text, Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, edd. Dom Bouquet et al. (Paris 1738–1904; hereafter HF) XXI 666–667 (Jean of St-Victor) and 50 (Girard of Fraichet); Chronique de Guillaume de Nangis et de ses continuateurs, ed. Géraud, H. (Société de l'Histoire de France, 33, 35; Paris 1843) II 10, 23–24; see also Aimond, Charles, Les relations de la France et du Verdunois de 1270 à 1552 (Paris 1910) 101–102, and Despois, L., Histoire de l'autorité royale dans le comté de Nivernais (Paris 1912) 4 n. 1; 91–92.Google Scholar

¹² Brown, , ‘Charters and Leagues’ 311–312; Boutaric, , Actes no. 5549, a mandate of Parlement dated September 13, 1318, authorizing nobles of Nivernais wishing to act against the count to meet in the presence of a royal representative.Google Scholar

¹³ On the Mercœur family and its history, Rigodon, René, Histoire de l'Auvergne (Paris 1944) 42–44, 70; cf. n. 5 above; see also Anselme, , Histoire VI729; Artonne, Mouvement 33. For lands Mercœur held of the count of Auxerre, Petit, Ernest, Histoire des ducs de Bourgogne de la race capétienne (Paris 1885–1905) VII 481 no. 6298; his lands and influence are also discussed by Viollet, Paul, ‘Guillaume Durant le Jeune, évěque de Mende,’ Histoire littéraire de la France 35 (1921) 39–40. The extensive study by Boudet, Marcellin, ‘Les derniers Mercœur, Béraud VII de Mercœur, connétable de Champagne, 1272–1321,’ Revue d'Auvergne 21 (1904) 1–20, 93–127, 241–266, 373–396, 453–460; 22 (1905) 47–63, 97–123, 161–192, 244–272, 333–346, 373–389, is exceptionally full and helpful, particularly for the genealogical information it gives; but its details are often unreliable.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Ibid. 21 (1904) 4–5, 15–19, 93–99, 125, 127, 254–257, 261–266, 373–379. For additional information concerning Mercœur's work for Philip the Fair in 1302, Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS fr. 5611, fol. 61^v, and cf. Frantz Funck-Brentano, Philippe le Bel en Flandre (Paris 1897) 437–438; for 1303, Paris, Archives Nationales, JJ 35, fols. 38, 41^v, nos. 99, 110, and JJ 36, fols. 38, 41^v, nos. 96, 107; for 1304; Paris, Archives Nationales, J 365, Pouvoirs no. 2; Heinrich Finke, Acta Aragonensia (repr. Aalen 1966) III 117; Georges Lizerand, Clément V et Philippe IV le Bel (Paris 1910) 7; for 1305, Finke, Acta I 454–455 and cf. Boudet, Revue d'Auvergne 21 (1904) 105–109; for 1310, Pierre Bonnassieux, De la réunion de Lyon à la France: Étude historique d'après les documents originaux (Lyon 1874) 120, 135; Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS fr. 32510, on which see Robert Fawtier, Comptes royaux (1285–1314) (Recueil des historiens de la France, Documents financiers 3; Paris 1953–1956) III cii–ciii. For service to Louis X and during the period before Philip V's coronation, see Artonne, Mouvement 33; Lehugeur, Philippe le Long I 53–54 and II 116; Jean Glénission, ‘Les enquěteurs-réformateurs de 1270 à 1328. Contribution à l'étude des commissaires royaux’ (thesis, École des Chartes; Paris 1946) 283 no. 55.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, Languedoc 159, fol. 13; Glénisson, ‘Les enquěteurs-réformateurs’ 283 no. 55. Since the accounts from which the extracts in Languedoc 159 are taken cover the fiscal year 1316–1317, it is impossible to determine precisely when Mercœur acted in this capacity. It should be noted, however, that between March 18 and 20, 1317, delegates of Millau, a town in Rouergue, swore fealty to the king before Mercœur, and that on June 15, 1317 Mercœur's delegates visited Millau: Millau, Archives Municipales, CC 346, fols. 77^v and 87^v; cf. Guerout, Registres no. 3487. For Mercœur's ties with and service to Philip V, see Boudet, , Revue d'Auvergne 21 (1904) 379–381.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Viard, Jules, Les journaux du Trésor de Charles IV le Bel (Paris 1917) 619 no. 3590 and n. 3; Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS fr. 20683, fol. 27; and cf. Lehugeur, , Philippe le Long I 96.Google Scholar

¹⁷ An analysis of the list of complaints and the texts of the ninth article and the final portion appear in Huillard-Bréholles, J.-L.-A. and Lecoy de la Marche, R.-A., Titres de la maison ducale de Bourbon (Paris 1867–1874) I no. 1512 and for the texts pp. 260–261. The editors suggest (ibid. 260 n. 1) that the document was drawn up between November 8, 1318 and June 1319, but it seems clear to me that the list must have been presented to Mercœur before he fell from favor in the summer of 1318; the account of Boudet, Revue d'Auvergne 21 (1904) 386–389 is confused; see also Brown, ‘Charters and Leagues’ 793 n. 141. Since Mercœur was serving the king in the spring of 1317, it is tempting to associate the list of grievances with that period of time; but it is not impossible that it was drawn up a year later, in the spring of 1318, since Mercœur was still being received at court in the summer of 1318. In my dissertation (‘Charters and Leagues’ 508–510, 514–517) I suggested that Mercœur was sent to Auvergne in the summer of 1318, but the state of his relations with the monarchy at that time makes this seem extremely unlikely. Solicitation of grievances in Auvergne would have been appropriate in the early months of 1317, when Philip V was making a grand effort to win his subjects’ affections and was issuing pledges to remedy wrongs (ibid. 494–503).Google Scholar

¹⁸ Fawtier, Robert, Registres du Trésor des Chartes I, Règne de Philippe le Bel (Paris 1958) nos. 768, 794–798; and see Inventaire … Mignon no. 2644; on the episode, Boudet, Revue d'Auvergne 21 (1904) 241–253. As would again happen in 1318, troops were called out, to St-Flour and to Clermont, to proceed against Mercœur; the mandates of May 31, 1309 set the date of the muster for July 14, a week after the date Mercœur was supposed to appear in Paris before the king. See also Lizerand, Clément V 181; Baluze, Étienne, Vitae paparum Avenionensium, ed. Guillaume Mollat (Paris 1914–1927) I 15 (Jean of St-Victor); Constitutiones et acta publica imperatorum et regum ed. Jakob Schwalm; MGH, Leges, 4.1.274 no. 311; Kern, Fritz, Acta imperii … (Tübingen 1911) 118–119 no. 178 and 126–127 no. 188. Boudet, Revue d'Auvergne 21 (1904) 110–122 discusses Mercœur's hostility toward the king's pariage with the bishop of Mende, which was also manifested at this time. This quarrel is also discussed by Jean Roucaute and Marc Saché, Lettres relatives au pays de Gévaudan (Mende 1896) 211–212; for actions taken in Rouergue against Mercœur in 1311, Inventaire … Mignon no. 2613; for the final outcome of the struggle, Roucaute and Saché, Lettres 151–154 no. lxxxi and 161–162 no. lxxxvi; cf. Viollet, ‘Guillaume Durant,’ 39–40.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Jura, ar. Lons-le-Saunier, c. Bletterans (in giving the locations of places in France, I follow the system of abbreviations found in Bottin des communes [Paris 1951]).Google Scholar

²⁰ Brown, , ‘Charters and Leagues’ 308–309; Guerout, . Registres no. 1054; Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, MS n.a.f. 8836, 30–34; Petit, Histoire V 150–151 and VII 11–12; Richard, Jean, Les ducs de Bourgogne et la formation du duché du XI^e au XIV^e siècle (Paris 1954) 225; cf. Jules d'Arbaumont and Henri Beaune, La noblesse aux États de Bourgogne de 1350 à 1789 (Dijon 1864) 147–148. Like Merœur, Arlay was related to the house of the dauphin of Viennois, having married the daughter of the dauphin; he, too, was a nephew of Jean of Chalon, count of Auxerre: Funck-Brentano, Frantz, ‘Philippe le Bel et la noblesse franc-comtoise,’ Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes 49 (1888) 45; Boudet, , Revue d'Auvergne 21 (1904) 105–109 and 382–386, where Boudet assumes that the Hugues of Chalon in question was the brother of Eudes IV, count of Burgundy, rather than the lord of Arlay; see, however, Coulon, Lettres secrètes 504 no. 583 and 507 no. 586.Google Scholar

²¹ Ibid. nos. 583–587; Brown, , ‘Charters and Leagues’ 509. Coulon indicates that it is impossible to determine whether the papal letters concerning this episode were drafted in 1317 or 1318, but letters of August 9, 1317, catalogued by Mollat, show that the war occurred in 1317, since on August 9 of that year the pope absolved Mercœur of the sentence of excommunication he had incurred by breaking the truce: Jean XXII (1316–1334), Lettres communes analysées d'après les registres dits d'Avignon et du Vatican I (Paris 1904) nos. 6429–6430, letters which were unknown to Boudet: cf. Revue d'Auvergne 21 (1904) 383–386. On May 9, 1317 the pope prepared a special excuse for Hugues of Chǎteauneuf to relieve him of the obligation of responding to Mercœur's orders to appear in arms at Mǎcon on May 29: Coulon, , Lettres secrètes no. 227; cf. ibid. 179 n. 1 and Boudet, Revue d'Auvergne 21 (1904) 380; for the royal orders prompting Mercœur's summons of his follower, Guerout, , Registres nos. 1473–1475.Google Scholar

²² Coulon, , Lettres secrètes nos. 640–642.Google Scholar

²³ On August 9, 1317 the pope authorized the bishop of Mǎcon and the abbot of la Chaise Dieu of Clermont to absolve Mercœur and his adherents, and a similar provision was made for Arlay: Mollat, Lettres communes nos. 6429–6430, and cf. Coulon, , Lettres secrètes no. 677 for a papal letter of absolution addressed to Mercœur on August 15, 1317. The initiative in imposing the truce had apparently been the pope's, and the pride John XXII took in having effected it was expressed in a letter written to Philip V on September 11, 1318: ibid. no. 704.Google Scholar

²⁴ Jura, ar. Dǒle, c. Chaussin; Longwy-sur-le-Doubs is in the same arrondissement, in the canton of Chemin. For Rahon's family, see Anselme, Histoire II 224; Funck-Brentano, ‘Noblesse’ 25; Prinet, Max, ‘L'armorial de Bourgogne du héraut Berry,’ Le Moyen Ǎge, 3rd ser., III 17 (1932) 200; Fyot, E., ‘Chaseu,’ Mémoires de la Société éduenne 36 (1908) 5–7; Plancher, Urbain and Merle, Dom, Histoire générale et particulière de Bourgogne (Dijon 1739–1781) II cliii no. ccxv for his relationship with the duke of Burgundy; cf. Brown, , ‘Charters and Leagues’ 305–306. The possibility that Jacques of Molay, the grand master of the Templars who was executed in 1313, was a member of the Rahon family and perhaps Jean's own son is discussed in François-Ignace Dunod de Charnage, Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire du comté de Bourgogne (Besançon 1740) 70–71; cf. Clerc, Édouard, Essai sur l'histoire de la Franche-Comté (Besançon 1840–1846) II 18–20, and Chevalier, François-Félix, Mémoires historiques sur la ville et seigneurie de Poligny … (Lons-le-Saunier 1767–1769) I 165, 402.Google Scholar

²⁵ Coulon, , Lettres secrètes 648, no. 749, in which the count's name is not given; cf. Anselme, , Histoire VIII 417 and Boudet, Revue d'Auvergne 21 (1904) 250, 251 n. 2. Through his wife Isabelle, Mercœur was the count's cousin as well, since Jean of Chalon married in 1290 as his third wife Isabelle's cousin Marguerite of Beaujeu: Anselme, Histoire VI 749, 731; VIII 418; Boudet, , Revue d'Auvergne 21 (1904) 250, 251 n. 2; see also Funck-Brentano, , ‘Noblesse’ 8 n. 5, 29. Jean of Chalon held the title and county of Auxerre by virtue of the claims of his second wife Alix until her death in 1290, when her rights passed to their son Guillaume, who in 1292 inherited Tonnerre from his maternal aunt: Anselme, Histoire VIII 417–418. In 1298 Jean was referred to as ‘jadis cuens de Aucuerre, sires de Rochefort’ (Funck-Brentano, ‘Noblesse’ 245–246), but whatever his legal right to the titles of count of Auxerre and Tonnerre he continued to bear them after his son Guillaume came into possession of the lands: Anselme, Histoire VIII 417–418. Guillaume died in 1304, whereupon Jean became guardian of Guillaume's children and heirs, Jean II, count of Auxerre, and Jeannette, countess of Tonnerre, and he retained this position until his death in late October or early November 1309: ibid. 418; Lebeuf, Jean, Mémoires concernant l'histoire civile et ecclésiastique d'Auxerre et de son ancien diocèse, edd. Challe, Ambroise and Quantin, Maximilien (Auxerre 1848–1855) II 196; Huillard-Bréholles and Lecoy de la Marche, Titres I nos. 1257, 1260. After Jean's death the guardianship of the heirs was contested, as has been seen (n. 5 above). The count of Nevers apparently acted as guardian until Jean II came of age in 1314, although Hugues of Chalon, archbishop of Besançon and the children's great-uncle, also watched over their interests: Lebeuf, , Mémoires 197–199; cf. Boudet, Revue d'Auvergne 21 (1904) 252 and see also 22 (1905) 123 for Mercœur's close ties with his uncle's daughter.Google Scholar

²⁶ Coulon, , Lettres secrètes 648 no. 749. This attack may or may not have been connected with the assaults of Jean of Longwy against the lands of Philip of Poitiers, count of Burgundy and later king, but before August 1315 a settlement had been made between Rahon and the count: Chevalier, Pontigny I 164, 402; Petit, , Histoire VII 521 no. 6468. Relations between Rahon and the count of Auxerre seem also to have been stabilized, however temporarily, at that time, since the lord of Rahon was present at Reims on August 3, 1315, when the count did homage to the duke of Burgundy: Cǒte-d'Or, Archives Départementales, B 10495, where it is noted that the ceremony took place in ‘lostel Rahon de Fymes.’ In December 1316, acting through Parlement, Louis X ordered Rahon and the count of Monbéliard to arrest Humbert, lord of Rougemont, who, like them, had participated in the league of 1314: Boutaric, , Actes no. 4493; Lehugeur, , Philippe le Long I 222; Brown, ‘Charters and Leagues’ 301–305. On the origins of the conflict see also Boudet, , Revue d'Auvergne 21 (1904) 389–393.Google Scholar

²⁷ Coulon, , Lettres secrètes 648 no. 749. This account of the conflict is based on Mercœur's statements to the pope, which John XXII relayed to Philip V on October 31, 1318.Google Scholar

²⁸ In the fall of 1318, Mercœur asserted to the pope that the actions he and the count of Auxerre had taken against Rahon were sanctioned by the custom of the county of Burgundy, which allowed war to be waged against anyone who committed an injury and refused satisfaction. Under such circumstances — and particularly if a holder of a fief lauched an attack from the fief or sheltered within its borders those making war — the lord of the fief could claim no offense, even if the lord was exercising special rights of guardianship and protection over the fief: ibid. 649 no. 749.Google Scholar

²⁹ Jura, ar. Dǒle, c. Chaussin.Google Scholar

³⁰ Coulon, , Lettres secrètes 649–650 no. 749.Google Scholar

³¹ Having been at the papal court until March 21, 1318, Sully had returned to Philip V, and the pope corresponded with him there concerning the interview he hoped to have with the king in October 1318: ibid. 543 n. 1, and 630–632 no. 734. In mid-October 1318 the pope acknowledged having received letters from Sully informing him that because of his projected trip to Languedoc, the king would be unable to visit the pope, but that he would send suitable agents: ibid. 630–632 no. 734. As will be seen, when the king finally determined the composition of his delegation, he selected Sully to lead it. On November 6, 1318 the pope again wrote Sully, this time in an attempt to quiet Sully's anger at Mercœur: ibid. 663–665 no. 760. On these events, see Boudet, , Revue d'Auvergne 21 (1904) 393–396, 453–459.Google Scholar

³² When Mercœur surrendered in June 1319, he said he had been led to believe that the king had been told that he and his forces had entered the county with evil intent, and he declared himself bound to defend himself against such a charge against anyone save the king and the king's family: Guerout, Registres no. 1487, printed in full in Coulon, Lettres secrètes 645. Mercœur not only challenged Sully to a duel; he also sent the king a formal letter containing the challenge and other charges, and in the letter referred to Sully as ‘Architofel’: ibid. 645; cf. Boudet, , Revue d'Auvergne 21 (1904) 393–394 for the significance of the epithet. Mercœur had circulated the letter under his seal and had had it affixed to the entry of the king's palace in Paris. Sully, enraged, sent the pope a copy of the document: Coulon, Lettres secrètes 663–665 no. 760.Google Scholar

³³ In mandates dated November 18, 1318 the king ordered his officials in Auvergne and the Montagnes d'Auvergne to execute earlier orders to seize Mercœur's lands and fortresses: Paris, Archives Nationales, JJ 55, fol. 31, no. 76, published for the first time in Appendix V, below; cf. Guerout, Registres no. 1531. When and for what reason these earlier orders were issued is not stated. A papal letter of October 31, 1318 shows that by that date Mercœur had been charged with failing to surrender fortresses in lands the king had taken into his hands, and the letter suggests that involved in the royal orders were all Mercœur's lands (‘circa terre sue captionem … regales namque littere non de castris ad manum tue ponendis curie, set de terra sua faciebant mentionem tantummodo’: Coulon, Lettres secrètes 648), rather than simply the land, presumably in the county of Burgundy, which had been handed over as pledge to the comital court of Burgundy as a result of Mercœur's actions against Rahon, the restitution of which Mercœur demanded after the king's attacks on his house of Villers-Robert: ‘super restitutione seu recredentia alterius [emphasis mine] terre sue ad manus tuas, ut premittitur, posita negotii occasione predicti’: ibid. 650 no. 749.Google Scholar

³⁴ Ibid. 647 no. 749.Google Scholar

³⁵ Brown, , ‘Charters and Leagues’ 506 and esp. 790–791 n. 131; see also Taylor, ‘Assemblies 1318–1319’ 112.Google Scholar

³⁶ Brown, , ‘Charters and Leagues’ 505–506; cf. Taylor, , ‘Assemblies 1318–1319’ 115–116.Google Scholar

³⁷ Brown, , ‘Charters and Leagues’ 790–791 n. 131, a transcription of part of the royal mandate; cf. Guerout, , Registres nos. 1536–1537.Google Scholar

³⁸ Ibid. no. 1546; cf. Taylor, , ‘Assemblies 1318–1319’ 113 and n. 47 below, for the list of the bailliages where the towns were located.Google Scholar

³⁹ Guerout, , Registres no. 1544, and cf. Taylor, , ‘Assemblies 1318–1319’ 113–114, who omits one of the southern towns, in all likelihood the one designated by the letter ‘M’ in the list, under the bailliage of Sens.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Guerout, , Registres nos. 1543–1545, and Taylor, , ‘Baronial Assemblies’ 442.Google Scholar

⁴¹ The nobles of Berry and Nivernais are grouped together on the royal list, but the people of the two regions can be separated by comparing the list accompanying the mandate with earlier convocation lists: HF XXIII 813 no. 55; cf. Guerout, , Registres no. 1548; see also HF XXIII 809 no. 22, a list of ten individuals of Berry ordered to be ready for service and consultation on April 2, 1318, on which see Taylor, ‘Baronial Assemblies’ 437–441; except for the archbishop of Bourges, each of the individuals on that list appears on the list of nobles of Nivernais and Berry called for November 8, 1318. The list of seven nobles of Auvergne was headed by Béraud of Mercœur and included the dauphin of Auvergne. For the summonses, Guerout, , Registres no. 1548; cf. Taylor, ‘Baronial Assemblies’ 442.Google Scholar

⁴² Guerout, , Registres no. 1549; cf. Taylor, , ‘Baronial Assemblies’ 442.Google Scholar

⁴³ de Vic, Claude and Vaissete, Jean-Joseph, Histoire générale de Languedoc, ed. Molinier, Auguste (Toulouse 1872–1893; herafter HL) X preuves 587 no. 205; Guerout, , Registres no. 1543. The king's plans are described in similar terms in the French and Latin letters sent to the northern towns and barons and to the nobles of Berry, Nivernais, and Auvergne: ‘Super quibusdam, bonum statum regni nostri subditorumque nostrorum utilitatem & pacem tangentibus, deliberacionem vobiscum habere volentes … super premissis & aliis que plurimum insident nobis cordi’; ‘sus aucunes besoignes touchanz le bon estat de nostre royaume la paiz & le grant prouffit de noz subgiez / et sus ce Nous veilliens auoir vostre auis … les dites besoignes & sus aucunes autres que nous auons mout a Cuer’: HL X preuves 587 no. 205; Appendix I, below; Guerout, Registres no. 1548. Concerning the king's attendance at the meetings, the letters stated: ‘quia ibidem esse proponimus, Deo dante,’ and ‘ou nous entendons lors a estre se dieu plaist.’Google Scholar

⁴⁴ HF XXIII 813 no. 52. Understandably enough in view of its location, Compiègne agreed at the meeting of October 15, 1318 to pay soldiers to guard the frontier: see n. 55 below.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Coulon, , Lettres secrètes 631 no. 634, a letter of October 16, 1318 to Sully, on which see n. 31 above.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Guerout, , Registres nos. 2950 and 1550–1553, 1555–1555^bis; Ordonnances des roys de France de la troisième race …, edd. Eusèbe-Jacob de Laurière et al. (Paris 1723–1849; hereafter Ordonnances) I 656–662, 665–668.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ The bailliages in question are Vermandois, Amiens, Senlis, Sens, Orléans, and those of the county of Champagne and the duchy of Normandy. In addition, the king specifically summoned to the meeting the counts of Valois, Évreux, and la Marche, his uncles and brother, all of whose principal estates lay within the region from which the other nobles were summoned: Guerout, Registres nos. 1579–1581, and cf. Taylor, ‘Baronial Assemblies’ 442. The figures I have obtained by counting the number of nobles called to Toulouse (seventy-seven: Guerout, Registres no. 1543 and HF XXIII 814–815), to Bourges (twenty-three: Guerout, Registres no. 1548; HF XXIII 813), and to Paris (two hundred and forty-four: Guerout, Registres no. 1581; HF XXIII 817–819) produce a grand total of three hundred and forty-four, twenty-one in excess of the figure of three hundred and twenty-three given by Taylor in ‘Baronial Assemblies’ 443.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Guerout, , Registres nos. 1579–1581; cf. Taylor, , ‘Baronial Assemblies’ 442. Also summoned were the king's uncles and brother, the counts of Valois, Évreux, and la Marche, whose principal ter̄ritories lay in the areas from which the other nobles were called.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ For municipalities of the bailliages of Bourges (including the city of Nevers) and of Auvergne which the king might have convoked to one of his assemblies, see the procurations for the assembly of Tours of 1308 printed in Georges Picot, Documents relatifs aux États généraux et assemblées réunis sous Philippe le Bel (Paris 1901) 662–671, 675–678, and for the bailliage of the Montagnes d'Auvergne, 678–681; see also Taylor, Charles H., ‘Assemblies of French Towns in 1316,’ Speculum 14 (1939) 297–299 and cf. 285–289, and also Elizabeth A. R. Brown, ‘Assemblies of French Towns in 1316: Some New Texts,’ ibid. 46 (1971) 282–289 for assemblies of the spring of 1316; and Taylor, , ‘Assemblies … 1316’ 280 n. 5 and 287–288 and Paris, Archives Nationales, JJ 54A fol. 2 no. 12 for the far smaller group of southern towns called to Bourges on March 27, 1317. Unfortunately no list of towns receiving individual summonses to the assembly of March 1318 in Paris survives: Taylor, Charles H., ‘An Assembly of French Towns in March, 1318,’ Speculum 13 (1938) 295, esp. n. 2. Although Taylor has accomplished the essential groundwork for a comprehensive study of the government's choice of towns and nobles to be summoned to different assemblies in the early-fourteenth century, comparative investigation and evaluation remain to be done (for which the use of computer techniques may prove useful). Still needed is a study of the assembly held by Philip V in Paris in May 1317, for which numerous procurations survive, and Professor Bisson, Thomas N. and I are hoping to undertake this project in the near future: cf. Taylor, ‘Assemblies … 1316’ 288. On January 5, 1319 commissions were issued to the royal officials of Poitou and Saintonge, and of Lyon and Mǎcon, and of Bourges, ordering them to negotiate directly for support with the townspeople of their districts: Taylor, ‘Assemblies 1318–1319’ 132–134. They were instructed to obtain either an outright grant of soldiers or assurances that the townspeople would fight in case of war. The inhabitants of Bourges were evidently not affected by the actions of the nobles of Berry. Invoking their established right not to fight outside the boundaries of Berry, imploring pity because of the sad economic state of the town — particularly because of the marriage aid the king was demanding — they asked to be excused from payment, apparently unsuccessfully: E. Toubeau de Maisonneuve, ‘Aides royales et impositions municipales dans la ville de Bourges,’ Mémoires de la Société des Antiquaires du Centre 6 (1875–1876) 142–144. Although I have found no record of specific instructions for the officials of Auvergne, the archives of the town of Riom in Auvergne show that a subsidy was levied there. In the summer of 1319 the townspeople fined with the royal commissioners for a certain sum of money for the Flemish campaign, only part of which had been paid by August 27, 1319. Therefore the commissioners ordered a royal sergeant to use all necessary force to secure the remainder, so that they could execute a royal order they had recently received to send all they could raise before September 5 to Paris: Riom, Archives Communales, CC 8 no. 1330. On September 17, 1319 the king remitted half the promised sum, but a complex struggle ensued over the liability of different classes of the population of Riom: Riom, Archives Communales, CC 8, nos. 286, 191, 501, 188, 186, 187, 184, 197.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ At the end of August 1318 four nobles of Auvergne appeared in Paris to engage in armed combat before the king, which suggests that, Mercœur and his activities aside, affairs in the county were tumultuous: Hellot, A., ‘Chronique parisienne anonyme de 1316 à 1339 précédée d'additions à la chronique française dite de Guillaume de Nangis (1206–1316),’ Mémoires de la Société de l'histoire de Paris et de l'Ǐle-de-France 11 (1884) 39 nos. 28–29.Google Scholar

⁵¹ For the list of nobles HF XXIII 813 no. 56. The safe-conduct issued to Louis of Nevers is discussed above, at n. 10.Google Scholar

⁵² The first papal letters discussing Mercœur's case are dated October 31, 1318: Coulon, , Lettres secrètes 642–651 nos. 746, 747, 749, on which see Boudet, , Revue d'Auvergne 21 (1904) 453–454. Even before learning of Mercœur's refusal to surrender the castles, the pope had heard of some of the other charges against Mercœur and had dispatched Simon of Archiac, dean of Saintonge, papal chaplain, and royal clerk, to ask the king for additional information about the conspiracy charge. After Mercœur reached Avignon, the pope assembled various cardinals with strong ties to the French court to hear Mercœur's defense. He admitted having worn livery given him by certain confederated lords, but he claimed to have done so only to avoid offending them and flatly denied having joined their group. As far as surrender of his castles was concerned, he said that the king's letters had referred only to his lands and had not mentioned his fortresses; after seeking expert advice, he said, he had decided that he was not obligated to surrender his castles — although he declared himself ready to do so if the king granted him a safe-conduct so that he could explain his actions. The papal letters written to the king on October 31, 1318 dealt with the charges against Mercœur, which were divided into different categories. In one of them (Coulon, Lettres secrètes 642–646 no. 746), the pope treated the controversy with Sully, urging Philip to grant Mercœur safe-conduct so that he and Sully could come to terms in the king's presence; he also notified Philip that he was sending Guillaume of Laon, a Dominican and papal chaplain, to discuss the matter with him. A similar letter was sent to Sully (ibid. 646 no. 748), whereas another letter to the king was precisely similar to the first, except that it omitted reference to Guillaume: ibid. 646 no. 747. A different letter to the king, prepared on the same date, concentrated on the charges of conspiracy and disobedience and the embroglio in the county of Burgundy; it ended with an exhortation to Philip to deal equitably and leniently with Mercœur: ibid. 651–653 no. 749. The letter sent on the same day to Queen Jeanne (ibid. 651–653 no. 750) dealt in less detail with Mercœur's justification of his actions in Burgundy but incorporated an account of the dispute with Sully and terminated, first, with an appeal to Jeanne to press Philip to follow his advice and, second, with the announcement of the advent of Guillaume of Laon. Letters similar to this one were addressed to Philip's uncles and brother: ibid. 655–656 nos. 751–753; cf. Boudet, , Revue d'Auvergne 21 (1904) 453–455. On November 4, 1318 the pope had two additional letters prepared, evidently for Guillaume of Laon to use as he saw fit in negotiations with the king. These letters focused on the problem of safe-conduct for Mercœur; the first simply requested the king to grant it, but the second, more boldly, suggested that Philip authorize the pope to issue one in his stead: Coulon, , Lettres secrètes 662–663 nos. 758–759; for a different interpretation, Boudet, , Revue d'Auvergne 21 (1904) 455–457. On November 6 the pope had a lengthy letter drafted to attempt to secure Sully's tolerance and forgiveness for Mercœur: Coulon, , Lettres secrètes 663–665 no. 760.Google Scholar

⁵³ Lehugeur, , Philippe le Long I 140–144; Brown, , ‘Charters and Leagues’ 506–507 esp. n. 131.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Compiègne, Meaux, Provins, and some cities and towns of Normandy promised this support: Taylor, ‘Assemblies 1318–1319’ 117–118, 123–126, 179–181; see also Taylor's assessment of the significance of this commitment and of the government's objectives: ibid. 135–146, 154–159. I differ with Professor Taylor in considering critically important the difference between the grant made by this group of towns and the positions taken by other towns. To award support for defense rather than for actual warfare was to exceed considerably the limits of the generally acknowledged obligations of this period. In the various mandates to commissioners issued on January 5, 1319, the king suggested that through negotiation and persuasion other localities could be brought to follow the example set by the few towns agreeing to help guard the frontier: ibid. 182, 187, cf. 118–123. Most towns simply promised what was in any case required of all subjects — to support the king if war occurred: ibid. 123–126. A third group made no commitment whatsoever, even though their agents must have realized that in case of war their constituents would have to fight or pay: ibid. 126–127. Although Taylor argues to the contrary (ibid. 125–126, 136–137, 155–157), I believe, in line with suggestions he tentatively offers (ibid. 157 n. 100; 160 n. 106; 181 n. 5), and on the basis of the evidence I have cited, that the assembly in Paris produced considerably less than the government had hoped to obtain.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Guerout, Registres nos. 1556–1557, a mandate of September 20, 1318 and a notice revealing the failure of the king's plans to meet the nobles of Artois in Paris on October 25; the episode is, wrongly I believe, dismissed as unimportant by Lehugeur, Philippe le Long I 180–181, who mistakenly assumes that the nobles actually obeyed the king's commands. On October 28 Philip summoned the nobles of Artois to appear before him on December 6, and he also called, to witness negotiations, nobles of Vermandois, Beauvaisis, Corbie, and Ponthieu, regions allied with Artois under Philip the Fair and Louis X: Guerout, Registres nos. 1564–1567, and cf. HF XXIII 815–816 nos. 69–72. The northern barons did not appear, and on December 13, 1318 Philip ordered them to come to Corbie on December 30, 1318: Guerout, Registres nos. 1586–1589. Since this meeting was fruitless, on January 12, 1319 the king called on the northerners to meet with the bishop of Mende, Louis of Clermont, and other royal commissioners at Montdidier on February 5, 1319: ibid. nos. 1568–1571. Additional meetings were held at Compiègne later in the spring, and by mid-July a settlement had been reached, which permitted Mahaut to return to her county; complete peace was not achieved until the count of Flanders submitted to the king on May 5, 1320: Lehugeur, Philippe le Long I 181–191.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ The text of this mandate appears in HL X preuves 588–589 no. 205; cf. Guerout, , Registres no. 1560. It is curious that the form letter of postponement for the towns of Languedoc is directed to the inhabitants of Lyon (ibid. no. 1561), since another letter, canceling the summonses to the nobles, towns, and royal officials of Lyon and Mǎcon clearly applied to the city of Lyon: ibid. no. 1563. The nobles of Lyon and Mǎcon whose summonses were canceled were the count of Forez, the dauphin of Viennois, and the lord of Beaujeu: HF XXIII 814 no. 63. They were not called to any subsequent meetings, although on March 29, 1319 Philip ordered four nobles of Lyonnais to assemble before royal commissioners at Lyon on April 22, and sixteen Burgundian lords to attend a similar meeting at Mǎcon on May 6: Guerout, Registres nos. 1597–1598; HF XXIII 823 nos. 120–121. Royal officials were not only to forward individual summonses but also to summon other nobles named in a list sent under the king's counterseal: ‘et alios nobiles quorum nomina in quodam Rotulo sub contrasigillo nostro / vobis mittimus adiornari faciatis’: Paris, Archives Nationales, JJ 55 fol. 64^v no. 141; Guerout, Registres no. 1599. It seems likely that these lengthier lists were prepared with the assistance of extensive enumerations the king had ordered all seneschals and baillis to prepare, on December 23, 1318 and January 4, 1319, respectively: ibid. nos. 1590–1591; cf. Taylor, ‘Baronial Assemblies’ 444 n. 73, 445, 448. Not all the nobles individually called to these assemblies later received specific summonses to serve against the Flemings, but it nonetheless seems unlikely that they were exempted because of grants made at the assemblies: Guerout, Registres nos. 1617–1618. The count of Forez, the dauphin of Viennois, and the lord of Beaujeu were all called to service, and the lord of Beaujeu appears on lists for both Lyonnais and Mǎconnais: HF XXIII 823 no. 123; cf. Guerout, Registres nos. 1615–1617. The king's failure to call these nobles to assemblies may be connected with their close relationship with Mercœur: for the lord of Beaujeu and the dauphin of Viennois, Anselme, Histoire VI 731–732 and 85; Boudet, Revue d'Auvergne 21 (1904) 10–11, 107 n. 2, 108 n. 1. The count of Forez was Mercœur's brother-in-law, and he would attend the assemblies at Toulouse in any case, because of his service in Languedoc as general reforming officer for the king: Anselme, Histoire VI 729; cf. Huillard-Bréholles and Lecoy de la Marche, Titres nos. 898, 915, 938; Boudet, Revue d'Auvergne 21 (1904) 5–7; Taylor, ‘Assemblies 1318–1319’ 129–131; see also n. 1 above.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ See n. 1 above.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Guerout, Registres nos. 1582–1583; cf. Petit, Histoire VIII no. 6776, and Boudet, , Revue d'Auvergne 21 (1904) 459–460; the mandate is published in Appendix III, below. For the lists of nobles, HF XXIII 816 nos. 73–74 and cf. Guerout, Registres no. 1583 and p. 293 nn. 1–2. See also Taylor, ‘Baronial Assemblies’ 442 n. 61 and Lehugeur, Philippe le Long I 276 and esp. n. 8; cf. Guerout, Registres no. 1555^bis. See n. 88 below for the possibility that twenty-six rather than twenty-seven nobles of Auvergne were actually summoned.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ The four nobles of Nivernais are Gui of Barres; Robert, lord of Chǎtillon; Girard of Chǎtillon; and the lord of Rosemont: HF XXIII 813 no. 55; cf. 816 no. 73. The four nobles of Auvergne were Guillaume Flote, son of Philip the Fair's chancellor; the lord of la Tour; the dauphin of Auvergne; and the lord of Montboissier (Puy-de-Dǒme, ar. Ambert, c. Cunlhat, com. Brousse): Anselme, Histoire VIII 50–51; Rigodon, Histoire, 42–43; HF XXIII 813 no. 56, 816 no. 74; cf. Guerout, Registres no. 1583 and p. 293 nn. 1–2. Robert VII, count of Auvergne and Boulogne, had also received an individual summons to the meeting, and he was to act as a leader of the expedition. Thus, although his name was not included in the list of those called for service, he should in fact be counted with them. In 1312 the count of Auvergne married as his second wife the first cousin of Louis of Nevers; his first wife, whom he married in 1303, was Blanche of Clermont, daughter of the sixth son of Saint Louis and sister of Louis, count of Clermont: Anselme, Histoire I 296–297, II 743.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ See the preceding note.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Paris, Archives Nationales, JJ 55 fol. 31 no. 75; cf. Guerout, , Registres no. 1530 and Petit, Histoire VIII no. 6779; the mandate is published for the first time in Appendix V, below.Google Scholar

⁶² On the relationship between the regions of Auvergne and the Montagnes d'Auvergne, which were ordinarily treated as separate bailliages, see Lehugeur, , Philippe le Long II 254, 278, and see n. 90 below.Google Scholar

⁶³ Paris, Archives Nationales, JJ 55 fol. 31 no. 76; Guerout, Registres no. 1531; published for the first time in Appendix VI, below. See also Boudet, , Revue d'Auvergne 21 (1904) 459–460, who does not deal with the assembly of Bourges in connection with the summons to arms but in another context actually indicates (386–387) that Mercœur acted as representative of the king at the meeting.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Under these circumstances, the royal officials in Auvergne would, on their own initiative, have summoned at least twenty-three nobles besides the seven originally called; for Nivernais, the number of names added to the king's list of seven would have been at least twenty-seven. Thus, the hypothesis advanced by Taylor in ‘Baronial Assemblies’ 447 may be overly conservative and the proportion of absentees among those individually summoned may not have been as high as he estimated.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Ordonnances I 677–678; see Taylor, , ‘Baronial Assemblies’ 446 n. 87, and Brown, , ‘Charters and Leagues’ 511–512.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ For the list of names, HF XXIII 820–821 no. 106; cf. Guerout, , Registres no. 1592. Marguerite of Beaumez, lady of Chǎteaumeillant in Berry, was the mother of Henri, lord of Sully: Anselme, Histoire II 857, VI 86. The significance of the list can be understood only in the context of the terms of the grant of November 17, 1318 and of the full contents of the royal letter dispatched to the nobles on the list, which is printed in Appendix VI, below; for a partial version, HF XXIII 820 n. 20.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ See the preceding note. The letter was evidently prepared in connection with the government's efforts in early January 1319 to secure action on the pledges given by the townspeople in October at Paris and by the nobles of Berry at Bourges: Taylor, ‘Assemblies 1318–1319’ 116–127, 179–191; cf. Guerout, Registres nos. 1573–1578. The letter to the nobles of Berry informed them that the king was sending to meet with them Louis, count of Clermont and royal chamberlain, who was to see that the subsidy was levied. It seems clear that the nobles to whom the letter was sent received the mandates because they had been designated by their peers to supervise collection of the subsidy; for a different interpretation, Taylor, ‘Baronial Assemblies’ 446–447. On the career of Louis of Clermont, eldest son of Saint Louis’ sixth son, Robert of Clermont, Anselme, Histoire I 297–298; one of his daughters married Guigues VII, count of Forez, another, Jean II, son of Henri of Sully; see also Pinvert, A., Notice sur les sires de Bourbon, comtes de Clermont en Beauvaisis, et sur le comté (Paris 1903) 11–15. On January 12, 1319 the king announced that the count of Clermont would confer with dissident northern nobles at Montdidier on February 5 (see n. 54 above), and on February 22 following the count was ordered to meet with northern nobles at Compiègne on April 1 to discuss the question of subsidy: Guerout, Registres no. 1603; note that he was to be accompanied to the assembly at Compiègne by the bishop of Mende, a fellow-negotiator in early February, as well as by the bishop of Soissons and Thomas of Marfontaines. For Louis of Clermont's connections with two leading nobles of Auvergne, Giles Aycelin lord of Montaigut, and Guillaume Flote, see Anselme, Histoire VI 302, 328.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ These four nobles are the lords of Culan (Cher, ar. St-Amand-Montrond, c. Chǎteaumeillant), Levroux (Indre, ar. Chǎteauroux, ch. l. c.), Lignières (Cher, ar. St-Amand-Montrond, ch. l. c.), and the count of Sancerre (Cher. ar. Bourges, ch. l. c.).Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Guerout, , Registres nos. 1584–1585; see also Taylor, , ‘Baronial Assemblies’ 446–447, who assumes that of those individually summoned only the four nobles listed in n. 68 actually attended the meeting of November 8, 1318.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ I have been unable to determine precisely how many persons held the lordship of Beaumez in 1318.Google Scholar

⁷¹ In view of Philip's difficulties with the nobles of northern France, it is interesting that on November 14, 1318 the king ordered the bailli of Amiens to protect the rights and restore certain property of Iolande of Fiennes, whose brother Jean had been a constant source of trouble to Mahaut of Artois: Guerout, Registres no. 2841.Google Scholar

⁷² The duke of Burgundy was summoned to the meeting as a noble of the bailliage of Sens (HF XXIII 818 no. 81), whereas Mercœur's name was conspicuous by its absence from the list of the nobles of Champagne: ibid. 817 nos. 75–78; cf. Guerout, , Registres no. 1581.Google Scholar

⁷³ Taylor, , ‘Baronial Assemblies’ 442–448. On May 19, 1319, after the local meetings had been held, the king called out for service against the Flemings the nobles of Normandy, Vermandois, Amiens, Senlis, Sens, Tours, Paris, and Champagne: Guerout, Registres nos. 1607–1610. In covering letters to his officials, Philip indicated that the mandates were being sent ‘aus chastelains & aus nobles de ta baillie’ and he ordered all baillis to summon through their own letters ‘contenanz la fourme de ces presentes lettres’ all nobles of the bailliages (‘Touz les nobles de ta baillie / Cheualiers & autres qui ne sont chastelains’): Paris, Archives Nationales, JJ 55 fol. 68 no. 148 and also no. 149; cf. Guerout, Registres nos. 1609–1610. There is no indication in the royal mandates that any nobles were or should be excused because they had promised subsidy, as was the case when, on June 7, 1319, the king issued summonses for the seneschalsies of Toulouse, Carcassonne, and Rouergue: ibid. no. 1618. The situation in these three seneschalsies must have been unusual, for letters prepared concurrently for nobles of the regions of Lyon and Mǎcon, and of Touraine and Poitou, contained no reference to exemption from army service for those who had pledged to pay: ibid. nos. 1615–1617. Thus, by June 1319 Philip had had distinctly limited success in persuading nobles to agree to pay subsidy.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ The preamble to the ordinance of November 16, 1318 emphasized the king's sense of duty to God and his desire that, because of ‘desordenances’ and negligence, there should be no defect in his government: Ordonnances, I 669, and for the entire ordinance 668–673.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Ibid. 674–677; see also Langlois, Charles-Victor, Textes relatifs à l'histoire du Parlement depuis les origines jusqu'en 1314 (Paris 1888) 183–186 no. CXXVI and esp. 183 n. 1.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Guerout, , Registres nos. 1584–1585; cf. Coulon, , Lettres secrètes 761 n. 2. See Guerout, , Registres no. 1974 for Sully's presence at Bourges on November 20, 1318.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ See n. 52 above.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ See n. 48 above. The king was deeply concerned with charges which had been presented to and were being considered by the pope involving Guillaume Durant, bishop of Mende, royal adviser, and long-time adversary of Mercœur: Coulon, , Lettres secrètes nos. 775, 778, and cf. Boudet, Revue d'Auvergne 22 (1905) 47–50, and n. 67 above. The papal letters show that the king suspected Mercœur of initiating and pressing the action against the bishop.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ See n. 31 above. Among the other matters the emissaries were to raise were the situation in Flanders, papal financial support of France, and the trial of the Franciscan Bernard Délicieux. For the pope's involvement with attempts to negotiate peace with Flanders, and for Sully's part in these efforts, Lehugeur, Philippe le Long I 140–165, esp. 144; cf. Coulon, Lettres secrètes 762–766 nos. 876–878. For the large loan the pope made to Philip, nos. 531, 780, 848; Guerout, Registres no. 1959 (cf. Coulon, Lettres secrètes 580–581); Paris, Archives Nationales, P 2290 225–226; Guerout, Registres nos. 2674–2676, 2794. For background concerning the affair of Bernard Délicieux, Michel de Dmitrewski, ‘Fr. Bernard Délicieux, O.F.M. Sa lutte contre l'inquisition de Carcassonne et d'Albi, son procès 1297–1319,’ Archivum Franciscanum Historicum 17 (1924) 465–488; 18 (1925) 1–8; see also Coulon, Lettres secrètes no. 914, a papal letter dated by Coulon August 4, 1319, in which the pope stated that the affair of Bernard Délicieux had been handled ‘juxta votum regium.’Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Lehugeur, , Philippe le Long I 151–164.Google Scholar

⁸¹ The text of the royal letter describing Mercœur's submission appears in Coulon, , Lettres secrètes 645–655 n. 1 continued from 644; the text is taken from Paris, Archives Nationales, JJ 55 fol. 16 no. 31; cf. Guerout, Registres no. 1487.Google Scholar

⁸² The cardinal had left for France on March 20, 1319, and a preliminary settlement seems to have been effected by the end of May: Coulon, , Lettres secrètes nos. 870–872, 880, 904–906; the last of these letters shows that the duke of Burgundy had involved himself in the negotatiations. On May 31, 1319 the cardinal was commissioned to treat with the Flemings; he was also concerned with the king's dealings with the count of Nevers: Guerout, Registres nos. 1611–1614, cf. 2656–2657; nos. 2699–2700; cf. Coulon, , Lettres secrètes 901–902 n. 1, and Boudet, , Revue d'Auvergne 22 (1905) 52–55.Google Scholar

⁸³ Coulon, , Lettres secrètes no. 777; cf. Boudet, , Revue d'Auvergne 22 (1905) 48–51.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Girard of Chǎtillon was summoned to the meeting of November 8, 1318 as a noble of Nevers: HF XXIII 813 no. 55. No indication of his title is given in the list, but he was in all likelihood the same Girard of Chǎtillon who, as lord of Larochemillay (Nièvre, ar. Chǎteau-Chinon, c. Luzy), was called with other nobles of the bailliage of Mǎcon to the assembly at Mǎcon on May 6, 1319: ibid. 823 no. 121, and for the assembly, n. 56 above. He did not, however, receive an individual summons to serve against the Flemings, although such summonses, issued on June 7, 1319, were sent to some nobles who had attended the meeting — the lord of Montagu, the lord of ‘Rouccey,’ called as ‘Li sires de la Mote Saint Jehan et de Rocey,’ the lady of Charolles, the lord of Berzé: ibid. 823–824 nos. 121, 123–124. It could be argued that, although his name did not appear among those specifically summoned, he was called out by the bailli of Mǎcon; on the other hand, the king declared that he was only relying on the bailli to call those whose names were not known to the king (‘eo quod eorum ignoramus nomina non scribimus’), and the government was evidently aware of Chǎtillon's existence: Paris, Archives Nationales, JJ 55 fol. 70 no. 156; cf. Guerout, Registres no. 1617. Thus, it seems likely that he escaped summons to service against Flanders, which could be interpreted as indicating that he had satisfied the king by participating in a campaign against Mercœur.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ HF XXIII 824 no. 124. As an important royal adviser and one of the leading magnates of the kingdom, the duke may well have been expected to render more service than lesser nobles.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Lehugeur, , Philippe le Long I 147–165.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ The confused account and misleading interpretation of these events presented by Boudet (Revue d'Auvergne 22 [1905] 109–111) are analyzed and discussed in Brown, ‘Charters and Leagues’ 799–800 n. 161; see also n. 81 above. One June 26, 1319 the king appointed Henri, lord of Sully, and three other magnates his captains and guardians of the Flemish frontier: Guerout, Registres no. 2673.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ See n. 59 above for the count of Boulogne. Aycelin had not been individually summoned to the meeting, but he may well have been present, since he was called out against Mercœur: HF XXIII 816 no. 74, and cf. n. 64 above. In the list of nobles of Auvergne mustered against Mercœur, the ‘seigneur de Montagu’ precedes ‘Monseigneur Guillaume Flote’ and ‘Monseigneur Gile Aycelin,’ but the title of lord of ‘Montagu’ should probably be linked with Aycelin's name, which would reduce by one the number of nobles expected to appear at Clermont on December 14: cf. above at n. 57. On Aycelin, see Anselme, Histoire VI 302–303, 328, and Ordonnances, XI 421–422; he, like Guillaume Flote, had close ties with the house of Clermont. Aycelin did homage to the king for various lands in Auvergne in 1316 or 1317: Paris, Archives Nationales, J 623 no. 102¹³. In August 1299 Philip the Fair had granted Guillaume Aycelin, knight and lord of Montaigut (Montaigut-en-Cambrailles, Puy-de-Dǒme, ar. Riom, ch. l. c.), and his son Giles, then a royal valet, a special guarantee that the fiefs they held of the king in Auvergne and elsewhere would never be released from the king's protection and would perpetually remain attached to the crown of France: ‘extra manum Regiam ponere non possumus eadem apud coronam Regiam in perpetuum Remansura’: Paris, Archives Nationales, JJ 53 fol. 37 no. 83; Guerout, Registres no. 370; cf. JoAnn McNamara, Gilles Aycelin: The Servant of Two Masters (Syracuse 1973) 13, who does not discuss the evidence presented in this note. Later, in February 1310, Philip declared that certain fiefs on the French frontier near Lyon, held of the count of Clermont by Giles Aycelin, archbishop of Narbonne, and his nephew Giles, were to remain forever in their house and might be transferred only to the king or his successors: Ordonnances, XI 421–422; Fawtier, Registres no. 721. In February 1317 Philip V renewed the privilege of 1299 for Giles Aycelin, Guillaume's son, who was then a knight and sole lord of Montaigut, and the letter specified that it was to apply, not only to Montaigut, but also to Aycelin's holdings in Lezoux (Puy-de-Dǒme, ar. Thiers, ch. l. c.) and Lempty (Puy-de-Dǒme, ar. Thiers, c. Lezoux): Guerout, Registres no. 370. See also ibid. no. 3324 for the attack led by the eldest son of the count of Forez on Aycelin when he was a presiding officer of Parlement. The case was settled in January 1321, when Sully played a role in securing absolution for the count's long-imprisoned son on the grounds of his youth and the fact that the attack was motivated not by contempt for the king's authority but because of the youth's personal animosity against Aycelin: Paris, Archives Nationales, JJ 59 fol. 320^v no. 576; cf. Guerout, Registres 681 n. 1, and Marcellin Boudet, ‘Le domaine des Dauphins de Viennois [et des comtes de Forez] en Auvergne,’ Bulletin historique et scientifique de l'Auvergne, 2nd ser., 24 (1904) 96–97.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Anselme, , Histoire IV 13–15; cf. II 858. In 1320 the sister of Jean of Lévis II, lord of Mirepoix, was married to Bertrand III, heir of the lord of la Tour in Auvergne: ibid. IV 527 and cf. 14–15. The bishop of Cambrai warranted the final royal letters concerning the subsidy.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ See n. 62 above. It should be noted that separate charters concerning the subsidy were issued for the two areas, although the charter of privilege applied to both areas. For the rather curious implications drawn by Boudet from this difference, Revue d'Auvergne 22 (1905) 110.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Ordonnances, I 692, and see also Étienne Baluze, Histoire généalogique de la maison d'Auvergne (Paris 1708) II 150; cf. Guerout, Registres no. 2834 for the grant of the nobles of the Montagnes d'Auvergne, and no. 2836 (Paris, Archives Nationales, JJ 59 fols. 49–50 no. 116) and also Paris, Archives Nationales, R² 14 no. 63 for that of the nobles of Auvergne. The two grants differ basically, as will be seen, only in the composition of the group of nobles chosen to supervise collection.Google Scholar

⁹² Ordonnances, I 692.Google Scholar

⁹³ Ibid. 693; Baluze, , Auvergne II 151; Guerout, , Registres no. 2834.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ The complete list appears in Guerout, Registres no. 2836. It is headed by the dauphin of Auvergne, the lord of la Tour, and the lord of Montboissier, three nobles who had received summonses to the assembly of November 8 and who were called out against Mercœur: see n. 59 above. Hugues of Vissac, lord of Arlanc, although not called to the assembly, was ordered to join the expedition against Mercœur: HF XXIII 816 no. 74. The other member of the group was Guillaume Comptour, lord of Apchon: Paris, Archives Nationales, R² 14 no. 63, and JJ 59 fol. 50 no. 116; cf. Rigodon, Histoire 42, 63, and Guerout, , Registres no. 2836. Guillaume's wife was Mahaut, sister of Robert III, count of Clermont and dauphin of Auvergne: Anselme, , Histoire VIII 51 and cf. IV 527 for the marriage in 1307 of the daughter of Bernard III, lord of la Tour, to Guy Comptour, son of Guillaume Comptour, lord of Apchon. In 1315 another of la Tour's daughters was married to Astorg of Aurillac, one of the supervisors of the subsidy in the Montagnes d'Auvergne: ibid. IV 527; Guerout, Registres no. 2834. For the relationships between Mercœur and Guillaume Comptour and Hugues of Vissac, see Boudet, , Revue d'Auvergne 22 (1905) 163–164.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ See the preceding note.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ The chief feast of St-Rémi falls after Christmas, on January 13, and therefore it seems likely that the feast of St-Rémi mentioned in the grants must be either the feast of the translation of St-Rémi of Reims, October 1, or the feast of St-Rémi, archbishop of Lyon, commemorated on October 28.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ On July 20, 1319 the pope had congratulated the king on the outcome of the affair and had urged the speedy release of Mercœur from prison and clemency in sentencing him: Coulon, , Lettres secrètes no. 908 and cf. nos. 910–911 for letters written by the pope to Mercœur in late July 1319, encouraging the establishment of peace with Sully and exhorting gratitude to the king as well as to the queen, who had intervened for him. See also ibid. nos. 1075–1080, papal letters to Mercœur, the papal legate Gaucelin, and various members of the royal family dealing with the same subjects; cf. Boudet, , Revue d'Auvergne 22 (1905) 115–118. Whereas in July 1319 the pope was clearly pleased with the outcome of the controversy and expected the king to treat Mercœur compassionately, these expectations proved to be overly optimistic. By early June 1320 the king had sentenced Mercœur, and the penalties included destruction of the gates of certain of Mercœur's fortresses and exile at the king's pleasure from the kingdom of France and the county of Burgundy: Coulon, , Lettres secrètes no. 1082, a letter of June 7, 1320 to Queen Jeanne asking her to attempt to persuade the king to mitigate the sentence, in view not only of Mercœur's long service to the crown and the work he might still do for the government, but also of the adverse impression such harsh punishment might make on any offenders contemplating surrender to the crown; a similar letter sent to the king on the same day (ibid. no. 1081) reminded him that Mercœur had refused to surrender his castles not contumaciously but because experts had advised him that the king's mandates did not extend to them. See also ibid. nos. 1083–1086 for letters written on the same day to Charles of Valois and Charles of la Marche. An ordinance against incendiarism and breach of the peace in the county of Burgundy issued by Philip and Jeanne on November 11, 1319 at Clairvaux, similar to an ordinance of Philip the Fair modeled on a statute of Frederick Barbarossa, may have been prompted by the king's experiences with Mercœur: Ordonnances, I 701–702. Mercœur's difficulties with the king were quickly settled, for in June 1320 he set out for Italy with other French nobles; he died in April 1321: Boudet, , Revue d'Auvergne 22 (1905) 161–167.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Guerout, , Registres no. 2677.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ Ordonnances, I 688–689; Baluze, , Auvergne II 151–152; Guerout, , Registres no. 2835.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ ‘… eorum grata servitia, dona, fidelitatis & obedientie constantiam, ac bonas voluntates’: Ordonnances, I 689.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Brown, , ‘Charters and Leagues’ 80–81, and particularly the notes to these pages on 570–572. In n. 223 (571–572) the relationship, first, between the two charters, and, second, between them and the great ordinance of reform of 1303 is discussed, and previous scholars’ assessments of the charters are analyzed.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Brown, , ‘Charters and Leagues’ 460–462; Artonne, , Mouvement 77–78, 162.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Paris, Archives Nationales P 1372² no. 2060; cf. Huillard-Bréholles, and de la Marche, Lecoy, Titres I 260–261 no. 1512; and see n. 17 above. Other clauses of the charter, not published by Huillard-Bréholles and Lecoy de la Marche, appear in Brown, ‘Charters and Leagues’ 793–796 nn. 142–145, and 801–803 n. 168; cf. 791–793 n. 140. Since the only extant copy of the grievances and replies survives in the archives of the ducal house of Bourbon and since in 1319 Louis of Clermont was lord of Bourbon, it is likely that he played some part in negotiations involving the grievances: on the formation of the archives, see Huillard-Bréholles and Lecoy de la Marche, Titres II i–ii, and see above at n. 83 for Clermont's involvement in December 1318 with negotiations between the king and the pope concerning Mercœur. Clermont was sent to Berry in January 1319 to oversee subsidy collection, and he may have contacted the nobles of Auvergne at that time: see n. 67 above. Clermont may also have been present at court when the complaints of the inhabitants of Auvergne were presented to the king in June 1319.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ In the preface to their charter, the king stated that the document had been approved after the Auvergnats’ supplications and requests had been heard, after their privileges had been carefully examined, and after repeated discussions had been held with the great council: ‘auditis eorum supplicationibus & requestis, visisque eorum privilegiis diligenter, de quibus fecerunt nobis plenam fidem, deliberatione, que nedum semel, sed pluries cum majori nostro consilio, tam super predictis, quam super omnibus & singulis infra scriptis, habita pleniori’: Ordonnances, I 689. In presenting their grievances to Mercœur and his colleagues, the people of Auvergne had requested that the king confirm and seal the commissioners’ declarations and decisions (‘declarations et ordinationes’): Huillard-Bréholles and Lecoy de la Marche, Titres I 261, and Brown, ‘Charters and Leagues’ 509 and 796 n. 145.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Of these five articles three dealt with infractions of rulings and charters of Philip the Fair and Louis X, and only two raised completely new issues: Brown, ‘Charters and Leagues’ 515–516 and 801–804 nn. 168–170, where the different clauses of the charter are compared to the articles in the list of grievances; I hope in the near future to publish a complete edition of the list and a detailed analysis of the charter. In ‘Charters and Leagues’ 516 I wrongly suggested that clause 14 of the charter (Ordonnances, I 691) reversed the stand taken by Mercœur and his colleagues: cf. Huillard-Bréholles and Lecoy de la Marche, Titres I 261 n. 1. The position taken by the king on the question of arms-carrying and armed forays is clearly consistent with the stand of Mercœur, since the privilege granted in the charter to bannerets, castellans, and knights of avowing their companions and paying a single fine for the acts of the whole group was carefully limited to cases in which no criminal action had been perpetrated: Ordonnances, I 691.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Another lengthy list of complaints was drafted before the death of Philip V, and in February 1324 the inhabitants of Auvergne secured from Charles IV confirmations of many privileges they had obtained in former years: Brown, ‘Charters and Leagues’ 516–518.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Ibid. 521–523, where I omitted various problems associated with the subsidy and the charter. It is not clear that all those who were bound to pay the subsidy actually did so and thus gained the right to enjoy the privileges granted by the king, which was apparently contingent upon payment of the grant: ibid. 810 n. 198.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ ‘& se lidit prelat ou autres persones deglise ne vouleient faire ceste aide / se li Roys auant neleur acordoit auant certaines graces que il par auenture li voudroient demander si leur pourroit len dire quil ne doiuent mie marchander auec le Roy / ne li Roys na mie acoustume de prendre aides par teles manieres de Marchandises / mes facent au Roy liberament & franchement laide quil leur voudront faire & aient seurement esperance quil troueront le Roy gracieus es choses quil porra souffrir bonnement’: Paris, Archives Nationales JJ 58 fol. 44^v no. 423; cf. Guerout, Registres no. 2680.Google Scholar