Appendix II: Medieval France

Appendix II–1

Kingdom and states in medieval France

Introduction

Development of telecommunication and globalization of economic activities are affecting our view of the state. The increasing movement toward the reorganization of the political frameworks has raised questions about the traditional concept of the state. We used to think that the world consisted of nation states and that each nation state had sovereignty and defined territory. It was unconsciously assumed that states had solid foundations and were not subject to major changes. This framework of nation states, which was created in nineteenth century Europe, seems to be undergoing fluctuations in the changing modern world.

I would like to introduce a new general view of medieval France, shared by many medievalists in recent times seeking for better understanding of changes in medieval France. This view on medieval France is rather conceptual, but I hope it will provide some help to the discussion of “states” in history.

I. Two traditional viewpoints on medieval France

The Middle Ages have been often investigated in comparison with the modern period, and the search for the origin of the modern state is still the most powerful motivation of many medievalists.¹ Most of them regard the state as something very solid, stable and long-lasting. According to a very traditional view, medieval France was a society completely different from our modern one. In medieval society, human relationships predominated in public institutions. Thus, a number of historians thought that state was not a proper word for polities of the Middle Ages. This idea has its roots in the nineteenth century, as Leopold Von Ranke of that time described that the world’s first state appeared in the late fifteenth century Italy.² In another traditional view, medieval France was the origin of the modern state of France. The origin of the modern state has been always one of the most important issues for the scholars of medieval France. In fact, many historians sought the origin of the modern state in the kingship of the Middle Ages, and focused on the process of the increase of royal power. The kingship, which governed only the limited areas surrounding Paris at first in the tenth century, gradually increased its demesnes, and finally came to control vast territory approximately correspondent to modern France. At the same time, it developed administrative organizations especially in the domains of finance and justice, and created the backbone of what would become the modern state of France. Medieval France, together with medieval England and Sicily,³ have been regarded as the places in which the prototypes of the modern states of Europe were created.⁴

II. A new view of medieval France

These two traditional views are still vital in the historical scholarship of today. Against these traditional views, however, more and more historians of recent days came to have a different image of medieval France. Instead of presuming the unchanging feudal society contrasted with the modern one, or taking a simple expansion theory of the kingdom, they explain the Middle Ages as the process in which public authority gradually disintegrated and subsequently reintegrated.⁵

The process of disintegration was twofold. First, sometime in the late ninth century or the early tenth century, the Carolingian Empire broke up into territorial principalities. Then, in the late tenth century or the early eleventh century, territorial principalities broke up into counties or viscounties, which in turn broke up into castellanies. According to the degree of disintegration, the tenth century is called the age of territorial princes and the eleventh century that of castellans.⁶ The process of reintegration was also twofold. First, at the beginning of the twelfth century, castellanies began to be unified within each principality.⁷ Then, in the late twelfth century, these integrated principalities began to be unified under the kingship. According to this idea, the twelfth century was again the age of territorial princes, and the period extending throughout the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries was the age of unification of the kingdom.

Now, let us see how historians explain the change of France between the ninth and thirteenth centuries in more detail, and examine its advantages and problems.

The framework of France goes back to the kingdom of West Franks. Charlemagne’s empire, which covered all Western Europe except the Iberian peninsula and South Italy, was divided into the three kingdoms of West Franks, East Franks and Italy in the ninth century. These three units are regarded as prototypes for France, Germany and Italy.

In the kingdom of West Franks, that is, in France, a new type of ruler appeared from the late ninth century. They are called “princes territoriaux (territorial princes)” by historians.⁸ These newly created princes included the duke of Normandy and the count of Flanders in the north; the duke of Brittany in the west; the dukes of Burgundy and Aquitaine and the count of Toulouse in the south; and the duke of Franks in the area surrounding Paris. They bore the title of duke or count, and ruled vast areas independent of the kingship called “principautés territoriales (territorial principalities).”⁹ The historical map of tenth-century France shows how the empire of Charlemagne was divided into these territorial principalities. Many scholars think that principalities were “cohesive political units ruled by the territorial princes”¹⁰ and made up a “regionally effective political framework.”¹¹ The territorial princes “bore hereditary titles”¹² and “employed public authority like a king” inside their principalities.¹³ They are regarded as rulers that were independent of royal authority.

Historians of recent days have attached much importance to these territorial principalities. Some say that ninth- and tenth-century France is marked not by the alteration of the royal dynasty from the Carolingians to the Capetians but by the appearance of these territorial principalities, which replaced the centralized monarchy.¹⁴ Others state that medieval France from the end of the ninth century could be explained simply by the system of principalities.¹⁵ Thus, the tenth century is called the age of principalities.¹⁶ After the creation of principalities, France was caught up by the second wave of disintegration of public power in the late tenth century and the early eleventh century.¹⁷ Principalities broke up into counties or viscounties, which in turn broke up into castellanies.¹⁸ Some historians insist that this second stage of disintegration forms a great gap in French history because it profoundly changed the human relationship and the condition of the society.¹⁹ Thus, the eleventh century is called the age of castellans (châtelains) or that of lords (seigneurs).²⁰ In this period, the castellans became independent of other authorities and the castellanies became the basic political units of France. The castellanies are the areas that castellans protected against invasions and attacks from the outside, in which they kept peace and order. The castellan had a group of warriors to protect the area, enforce his will, and impose services and taxes on its inhabitants. He was a ruler who monopolized judicial and administrative powers in this area.

In the twelfth century, however, principalities began to regain unity.²¹ Some historians think that the disintegration and reintegration of public authority were made according to the order in which territorial princes came first, followed by counts, viscounts and castellans.²² According to these scholars, feudal relationships were made based on this order, and the idea of this order remained alive in the minds of people even during the age of castellans. The revival of principalities was initiated by the duchy of Normandy and the county of Flanders. The kingship, which is also one of the territorial princes, subdued independent feudal lords and consolidated its authority inside the royal domains in the twelfth century. In the duchy of Burgundy and the counties of Anjou and Champagne, princes’ authority began to be revived at the beginning of the twelfth century.

The second stage of integration of public authority was the absorption of principalities by the kingship. The kingship of France changed drastically under Philip II around 1200. Despite the title of king, his predecessors had been mere weak princes in the north. However, he took the duchy of Normandy and the county of Anjou and became a great territorial prince who governed a vast territory. Thereafter, in the thirteenth century the kingship put Auvergne, the county of Toulouse, Langue d’oc and the county of Champagne under its authority. In the latter half of the fifteenth century it unified the duchy of Burgundy and the county of Provence, and in the first half of the sixteenth century it absorbed the duchy of Brittany. Thus the basic framework of modern France was made. Its present boundaries came to be fixed through conflicts with neighboring states over the years.

III. Examination of the new view

What is a “principality”?

Thus, historians of recent days explain the history of France between the ninth century and the thirteenth century as the process of disintegration and reintegration of public authority. The kingdom first broke up into principalities, and then the principalities broke up into counties, viscounties and castellanies. This process was reversed at the beginning of the twelfth century, when the castellanies were unified into viscounties, counties and principalities. The revived principalities were unified under the kingship.

Historians use the word “principality” to indicate the geopolitical units below the kingdom, such as duchies and counties. They think principalities made an appearance as political units in the late ninth century and tenth century, almost lost their substance in the eleventh century and revived as political units in the twelfth century. Those consolidated principalities were absorbed by the royal domain and became administrative units under the kingship. Their remains are recognized in the name of regions or administrative districts of France today.

The use of the word “principality” has three advantages. First, it made clear the fact that the political framework as state in this period was not the kingdom but lower units such as duchies and counties. The word “feudal society” is often used to imply the absence of states. However, states did exist as different units. Second, it made it possible to recognize medieval France not as a unified state under the kingship but as a mosaic of states – that is, a mosaic of principalities. These principalities were eventually unified under the kingship, but they had been independent states and kept their own laws, customs and traditions before the unification. By paying attention to these principalities, historians have been able to present an image of medieval France as a collection of various political bodies in place of a linear history centered on the kingship.

Third, the introduction of the concept of principalities made us conscious of the change of large political frameworks in medieval France, and thus we could provide a clearer explanation for the historical changes and characteristics of each period. As shown before, the tenth century was the age of territorial princes, the eleventh century the age of castellans and the twelfth century again the age of territorial princes.

Weaknesses

Despite these advantages, this new view has several weaknesses. First, historians have not yet successfully clarified the formation process of the principalities, and they have differing opinions. According to Werner, a well-known German scholar, the princes who appeared in the tenth century derived power from those who had been entrusted the royal rights as a whole in the Carolingian subkingdoms.²³ However, upon examination of the formation process for each of the principalities, it is found that the origin of most territorial princes went back to the counts who were independent of the kingship and accumulated lands by absorbing their neighboring counties.²⁴ Second, scholars’ opinions varied regarding the time of the creation of principalities. Historians’ views are divided about the timing of the establishment of all principalities²⁵ except Burgundy²⁶ and Gascony.²⁷ This difference raises questions about the theory that the Carolingian kingdom broke up into principalities in the first stage of disintegration of public power. If this theory is correct, the principalities should have appeared at approximately the same time. Third, scholars’ opinions varied on the time of the breakup of principalities into castellanies, and they were not limited to the period between the end of the tenth century and the beginning of the eleventh century. In the case of the duchy of Franks, which became the core of the royal domain later, it is true that princely authority was greatly weakened in the latter half of the tenth century, and many officials in charge of royal domains became independent and formed castellanies between the late tenth century and the early eleventh century.

However, the period of the breakup of other principalities extends more than a hundred years, from the early tenth century to the latter half of the eleventh century. This fact is not consistent with the theory that the second wave of disintegration occurred between the late tenth century and the early eleventh century. Furthermore, the duchy of Normandy and the county of Flanders did not break up. In fact, France was not equally divided into castellanies. Duchies, counties, viscounties and castellanies all coexisted as political units. Fourth, in response to the explanation that the principalities began to consolidate again in the twelfth century, I must say that only the royal domain, the duchy of Burgundy and the counties of Anjou and Champagne are counted among such principalities. The majority of principalities did not gain unity during this period.²⁸ Fifth, the understanding that the principalities were unified under the leadership of the kingship is erroneous. It is not the king but the count of Anjou who led the unification of principalities in France.²⁹ The count of Anjou governed the duchy of Normandy, the kingdom of England and the duchy of Aquitaine when the French king had control over just a small area surrounding Paris.

Given these points, we cannot accept the new theory as it is. Behind this new view lies a presumption that the same geopolitical framework continued from the kingdom of West Franks to nineteenth-century France. The Middle Ages is regarded as the period in which the kingdom of France temporarily entrusted its public authority to the lower political units and later regained it. Many historians are obsessed with the framework of the nation state created in the nineteenth century. Some even think of a continuation from the empire of Charlemagne to the European Union. However, in reality medieval France was home to a number of different movements.

IV. France in the tenth and twelfth centuries

There is no doubt that counts became independent rulers in the course of weakening of the kingship. Some of them were powerful enough to increase their territory and successfully gain the title of duke, while others failed to increase their power and submitted to the stronger ones. Very few principalities were kept as a cohesive unit over generations of princes. Most principalities experienced a cycle of territorial expansion and contraction. Territorial expansion in this period was mostly a temporal phenomenon. It is true that some rulers, like the duke of Normandy and the count of Flanders, successfully established lasting political units, but they are exceptional cases. The tenth and eleventh centuries in France were not the age of territorial princes or castellans. Rather, it was a period in which different types of rulers struggled to expand their territories. From the tenth century through the twelfth century, France consisted of various sizes of geopolitical frameworks, including the kingdom, duchies, counties, viscounties, castellanies and so forth. Only one of these frameworks functioned as the state in one place at any given time.

Some scholars have insisted that there was no state in medieval France. To be sure, France as a whole or the kingdom of France did not function as a state. However, if we regard a political unit that has the ultimate power of enforcement on its members as being a state, there were various states in medieval France. Those units called principalities were the states. When a principality broke up, lower geopolitical units such as counties, viscounties and castellanies became states. States could be formed beyond the boundaries of kingdoms. Such cases are the Anglo-Norman realm, that is, England and Normandy under one ruler and the so-called Angevin Empire consisting of England and the large continental lands. It is difficult to know how people at the time perceived these political units. However, we undoubtedly need these frameworks to comprehend and explain the condition of England and France in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. We use such words as “realm” and “empire,” instead of “state,” to indicate these political units because “state” is reserved for England and France, be it consciously or unconsciously.

We must discern states and geopolitical frameworks. Geopolitical frameworks could coexist, but there is only one state in one place at any given time. If a duchy was a geopolitical framework that had the ultimate power of enforcement on its members, like that of Normandy in the eleventh century, it was the state; counties or castellanies inside the duchy were not. However, if a duchy did not have the ultimate power of enforcement on its members, like that of Burgundy in the eleventh century, it was no longer a state, and some of the counties or castellanies were the states.

In France between the tenth and twelfth centuries, different types of states existed. The power and titles of their rulers varied, and their territories were of diverse sizes. Next to a large duchy that was in effect a state, a small castellany of 10 kilometers in diameter could exist as a state. However, in a few years, counties or castellanies could replace a duchy as state. Several independent castellanies could be unified under a strong ruler, and a county could become a state. In this period, the political frameworks could change very rapidly. The ultimate power of enforcement on its members was moving around quickly among different geo-political frameworks.

Conclusion

We can explain the current change of political frameworks from a similar viewpoint. For example, we may regard the collapse of the Soviet Union, as the process that the ultimate power of enforcement on its members moved from a large geopolitical unit (the Soviet Union) to smaller units (the republics). The movement toward unification of Europe is a change in the opposite direction. It is the process of the ultimate power of enforcement moving from member states to the larger unit of the European Union.

We often regard our states as modern nation states, that is, states which have predefined territory, sovereignty and members. Although there may be changes in its borders, we also tend to think that a state lasts almost forever. However, as can be seen in France between the tenth and twelfth centuries, the state is a changeable unit. It is a unit that can quickly move from one geopolitical framework to another, depending on where the ultimate power of enforcement lies. In more chaotic conditions, the ultimate power tends to lie in smaller geopolitical units. If there is a strong force for unification, a larger geopolitical unit may become the state. I would like to emphasize again the importance of geopolitical frameworks that exist inside and outside states and have the potential to act as states.

I have introduced a new view on medieval France and my own reflections on states. As I stated at the beginning, they were rather conceptual, but I think “state” is an analytical framework for better understanding and explanation of an actual society both in the past and present, when it is used without qualification. That is why comparison of states in different times and spaces always requires us to clarify what we think the state is.

Notes

Appendix II–1 is based on my Japanese article, “States and Regions in Medieval France – Changes in Frameworks of States,” Noboru Karashima and Hiroshi Takayama, eds., Images of Regions (Tokyo, 1997), pp. 293–325.

1 Joseph R. Strayer, On the Medieval Origin of Modern States (Princeton, 1970); Françoise Autrand, Prosopographie et genèse de l’état moderne (Paris, 1986); Jean-Philippe Genet, ed., L’État moderne: genèse (Paris, 1990); Wim P. Blockmans and Jean-Philippe Genet, eds., Visions sur le développement des états européens (Rome, 1993); Wolfgang Reinhard, Les élites du pouvoir et la construction de l’État en Europe (Paris, 1996); Richard Bonney, ed., Systèmes économiques et finances publiques (Paris, 1996); Jean-Philippe Genet and Günther Lottes, eds., L’État moderne et les élites, XIIIe–XVIIIe siècles (Paris, 1996).

2 Leopold Von Ranke, Geschichte der romanischen und germanischen Völker von 1494 bis 1514, 2nd ed. (Leipzig, 1874), p. 18. Cf. Susan Reynolds, “The Historiography of the Medieval State,” Companion to Historiography, ed. Michael Bentley (London, 1997), p. 117.

3 Historians have found highly specialized and bureaucratic institutions in the Norman Kingdom of Sicily, and it has been regarded as the forerunner of modern government. David C. Douglas, The Norman Fate 1100–1154 (Berkeley, 1976), pp. 2–3, 120, 217; Albert Brackmann, “The Beginning of the National State in Medieval Germany and the Norman Monarchies,” Medieval Germany 911–1250, trans. and ed. Geoffrey Barraclough, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1938), vol. 2, p. 289. In his book, Douglas assessed “the contribution made by the Normans to the political growth of Europe between 1100 and 1154” and underlined the effects of the Norman administration on the later development of secular government in Western Europe: “The Norman rulers everywhere, and particularly in the South, had initiated in Europe a new development in secular government” (Douglas, The Norman Fate, p. 120). Besides Douglas, no small number of scholars have considered comparing the administrative system of Norman Sicily with that in England, which is also regarded as the most advanced in Western Europe, in order to find the common Norman influence or to look for other important factors causing them. For example, Charles H. Haskins, “England and Sicily in the Twelfth Century,” English Historical Review, vol. 26 (1911), pp. 433–447, 641–665; Charles H. Haskins, The Normans in European History (Boston, 1915); Charles H. Haskins, Norman Institutions (Cambridge, MA, 1925), pp. 23–24, 61, 111–112, 232–234; Carmela Ceci, “Normanni d’Inghilterra e Normanni d’Italia,” Archivio scientifico del R. Istituto superiore di scienze economiche e commerciali di Bari, vol. 7 (1932–33); Dione Clementi, “Notes on Norman Sicilian Surveys,” The Making of Domesday Book, ed. Vivian H. Galbraith (Oxford, 1961), pp. 55–58; Antonio Marongiu, “I due regni normanni d’Inghilterra e d’Italia,” I normanni e la loro espansione in Europa nell’alto Medio Evo (Settimane di studio del centro italiano di studi sull’alto medioevo XVI, Spoleto 1969), pp. 497–557; Sally Harvey, “Domesday Book and Its Predecessors,” English Historical Review, vol. 86 (1971), p. 765.

 For a different view on the Norman administration, see Hiroshi Takayama, “The Financial and Administrative Organization of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily,” Viator, vol. 16 (1985), pp. 129–157; Hiroshi Takayama, The Administration of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily (Leiden/New York/Cologne, 1993); Hiroshi Takayama, “The Administrative Organization of the Norman Kingdom of Sicily,” Mezzogiorno – Federico II – Mezzogiorno, ed. Cosimo D. Fonseca, 2 vols. (Rome, 2000), vol. 1, pp. 61–78.

4 Reynolds, “The Historiography of the Medieval State,” p. 117; Heinrich Mitteis, Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte, ein Studienbuch, neubearbeitet von Heinz Lieberich (15. ergänzte Auflage, Munich, 1978), p. 186. See also Brackmann, “The Beginnings of the National State,” pp. 290–292.

5 For example, Jean-François Lemarignier, La France M édiévale: institutions et société (Paris, 1970); Karl F. Werner, “Kingdom and Principality in Twelfth-Century France,” The Medieval Nobility, ed. Timothy Reuter (New York, 1979); Jean-Pierre Poly and Eric Bournazel, La mutation féodale Xe–XIIe siècle (Paris, 1980); Jean-Louis Harouel, Jean Barbey, Eric Bournazel, and Jacqueline Thibaut-Payen, Histoire des institutions de l’époque franque à la Révolution (Paris, 1987); Olivier Guillot, Albert Rigaudière, and Yves Sassier, Pouvoirs et institutions dans la France médiévale, 2 vols. (Paris, 1994); Michel Kaplan, ed., Histoire médiévale, 2 vols. (Paris, 1994).

6 The words “princes territoriaux (territorial princes)” and “principautés territoriales (territorial principalities)” were first used by Jan Dhondt, but are now employed by many scholars to indicate powerful rulers who appeared at the end of the ninth century in the decline of the Carolingian kingship. Dhondt began to use this French word “prince territorial” based on a Latin word, “princeps,” which had been reserved for Carolingian kings but began to be used in documents and annals to indicate powerful people in the kingdom of Franks. Jan Dhondt, Études sur la naissance des principautés territoriales en France (IXe–Xe siècles) (Bruges, 1948). Cf. Yves Sassier, Hugues Capet (Paris, 1987), p. 62.

7 Poly and Bournazel, La mutation, pp. 275, 348; Werner, “Kingdom and Principality,” p. 251.

8 Poly and Bournazel, La mutation, p. 61.

9 See note 7 above.

10 Guillot et al., Pouvoirs et institutions, vol. 1, p. 158.

11 Dominique Barthélemy, L’ordre seigneurial XIe–XIIe siècle (Paris, 1990), p. 13.

12 Harouel et al., Histoire des institutions, p. 94.

13 Guillot et al., Pouvoirs et institutions, vol. 1, p. 157.

14 Dhont, Principautés, p. 231. Cf. Poly and Bournazel, La mutation, p. 64.

15 Barthélemy, L’ordre seigneurial, p. 13.

16 Régine Le Jan, Histoire de la France: origines et premier essor 480–1180 (Paris, 1996), p. 146; Sassier, Hugues Capet, p. 61.

17 Le Jean, Histoire, pp. 146, 156.

18 Le Jean, Histoire, pp. 146, 156; Harouel et al., Histoire des institutions, p. 94; Werner, “Kingdom and Principality,” p. 250.

19 Barthélemy, L’ordre seigneurial, p. 13. For recent arguments on this “massive social and institutional change towards the year 1000,” the so-called feudal revolution, and related bibliography, see Thomas N. Bisson, “The ‘Feudal Revolution’,” Past and Present, vol. 142 (1994), pp. 6–42; Dominique Barthélemy, Stephen D. White, Timothy Reuter, Chris Wickham, and Thomas N. Bisson, “Debate the ‘Feudal Revolution’,” Past and Present, vol. 152 (1996), pp. 196–223, vol. 155 (1997), pp. 197–225. See also classic works: George Duby, La société aux XIe et XIIe siècles dans la region mâconnaise (Paris, 1953); Jean-François Lemarignier, “La dislocation du ‘pagus’ et le problème de ‘consuetudines’,” Mélanges d’histoire du moyen âge dédié à la mémoire de Louis Halphen (Paris, 1951), pp. 401–410.

20 Harouel et al., Histoire des institutions, p. 101.

21 According to Poly and Bournazel, the principalities formed in the twelfth century are completely different from those in the tenth century. They think the principalities in the twelfth century were social organizations lasting for centuries, while those in the tenth centuries were a transitional form between the breakup of Carolingian order and the feudal crisis around the year 1000. Poly and Bournazel, La mutation, p. 348. See also Jean Favier, Le temps des principautés (Paris, 1984).

22 Harouel et al., Histoire des institutions, p. 92; Werner, “Kingdom and Principality,” p. 251.

23 Werner, “Kingdom and Principality,” pp. 248–249.

24 Dhondt, Principautés, p. 248.

25 The county of Flanders became a principality under Baldwin the Iron-Arm (Alfred Fierro-Domenech, Le pré carré [Paris, 1986], p. 44) or under Baldwin II (Le Jan, Histoire, p. 147; Harouel et al., Histoire des institutions, p. 92). The duchy of Normandy became a principality under Rollo (Guillot et al., Pouvoirs et institutions, vol. 1, p. 159; Fierro-Domenech, Le pré carré, p. 44) or under Rollo and William Longsword (Le Jan, Histoire, p. 147; Harouel et al., Histoire des institutions, p. 92). The county of Champagne became a principality under Herbert II, count of Vermandois (Fierro-Domenech, Le pré carré, p. 44), or Theobald the Trickster, count of Bois and Chartres (Le Jan, Histoire, p. 152). The duchy of France became a principality under Robert the Strong, Hugh and Robert I (Fierro-Domenech, Le pré carré, pp. 44–45), or under Hugues, Robert and Hugh the Great (Le Jan, Histoire, p. 148), or under Hugh the Great (Guillot et al., Pouvoirs et institutions, vol. 1, p. 162). The county of Anjou became a principality under Fulk le Roux (Harouel et al., Histoire des institutions, p. 94), or under Fulk II (Le Jan, Histoire, p. 152). The duchy of Aquitaine became a principality under Bernard Plantevelue (Laurent Theis, L’héritage des Charles [Paris, 1996], p. 154), or under William, count of Auvergne (Le Jan, Histoire, p. 147; Guillot et al., Pouvoirs et institutions, vol. 1, p. 157), or under Bernard Plantevelue and William (Harouel et al., Histoire des institutions, p. 92).

26 Most scholars think that the duchy of Burgundy became a principality under Richard, count of Autun. See Le Jan, Histoire, p. 147; Theis, L’héritage, p. 156; Harouel et al., Histoire des institutions, p. 92; Guillot et al., Pouvoirs et institutions, p. 156.

27 Most scholars think that the duchy of Gascony became a principality under Garcia Sanchez (Garcie Sanche), count of Fézansac. See Le Jan, Histoire, p. 147; Theis, L’héritage, pp. 153–154.

28 Some scholars think that the duchy of Normandy and the county of Flanders led the reunification of principalities. However, they had not been divided into subunits such as counties, but had simply maintained their unity. Other principalities, especially in the south, did not show any movement toward centralization.

29 This unification of principalities was not made by conquest but by inheritance and marriage. The “Angevin Empire” created by this unification drove centralization of administrative systems by suppressing feudal lords. However, it was a complex of the English kingdom and the continental principalities, and could not establish a centralized administrative system to govern the whole empire.

Appendix II–2

The local administrative system of France under Philip IV (1285–1314) – baillis and seneschals

It is well known that baillis and seneschals played an important role in local administration in medieval France. According to Joseph Strayer and other scholars, baillis and seneschals were local officials who had almost identical functions in administration, but were called baillis in the northern part of the kingdom and seneschals in the southern part.¹ According to Strayer,

the key man in local administration throughout Philip’s reign was the bailli or seneschal. He was ultimately responsible for every action in his district that touched the interests of the king – keeping the peace and defending the borders, arresting malefactors and seeing that the law courts performed their functions properly, collecting revenues and maintaining revenue-producing properties in proper condition, enforcing royal ordinances, and putting into effect the numerous mandates that ordered transfers of land, establishment of rents, compromises over jurisdiction, and enforcement of decisions of the Parlement. He was the highest judge and the final administrative authority; appeals from his decisions ran only to the Parlement or to the king and Council. The seneschals and baillis were capable men, as is shown by the fact that they were often promoted to positions in the central administration.²

In this paragraph, Strayer explains the administrative functions and duties of bailli and seneschal together, as if they functioned alike in administration. He even states elsewhere that “bailli and seneschal had almost identical functions by the era of Philip the Fourth. Officials freely moved between these two functions.”³ Similar assumptions have also been made by other scholars; one views the seneschal as “the provincial administrator in southern France, the counterpart of the northern bailli.”⁴

Despite this general identification of the administrative functions of baillis and seneschals, several scholars seem to have noticed slight differences between the two.⁵ Strayer himself points out different features of the two officials: (1) the seneschals had their origin in a great officer of a feudal court, while “the first baillis were simply working members of the administration”; (2) most of the baillis were of bourgeois origin, while many seneschals came from the aristocracy; (3) the annual salary of baillis was 365 l.t., while that of seneschals was much higher, i.e., between 500 l.t. and 700 l.t.; and (4) the seneschal had greater military responsibilities than baillis, but they were not as financially expert as baillis.⁶

I suspect that those scholars who had recognized the differences between the two officials might have interpreted them as a mere reflection of differing social conditions in the north and the south. In their general descriptions of local administration, they dismissed such differences as factors unimportant for an understanding of local administrative systems in medieval France.

Consequently, previous scholars proposed an overly simplified model of the French local administrative systems (see Figure BM2.1). In this model only prévôts are mentioned as subordinate officials of the baillis and seneschals; François Olivier-Martin insisted that the basic structure of the royal administration, which lasted until the end of the ancien régime, was composed of a large group of middle-rank officials called prévôts, with baillis or seneschals as their supervisors.⁷ In a few cases viscounts in Normandy were described as officials equivalent to prévôts, and viguiers or bayles are referred to as lower officials in other areas.

This article calls this overly general interpretation into question. I believe that baillis and seneschals should be treated differently, and they should not be considered as the same officials during the reign of Philip IV. This is not simply because I have confirmed the differences in origin and annual salary of baillis and seneschals, but also because the different titles of bailli and seneschal clearly reflect different ways of royal governance. I will describe the local administrative system of Philip IV in the following order: (1) administration in bailliages where baillis were assigned; (2) administration in sénéchaussées where seneschals were assigned; and (3) differences in royal governance between bailliages and sénéchaussées.⁸

Figure BM2.1 Simplified diagram of the local administrative system of medieval France

I. Bailliages in the northern part of the kingdom

Figure BM2.2 List of bailliages and sénéchaussées under Philip IV

Source: Léopold Delisle, “Chronologie des baillis et des sénéchaux royaux depuis les origines jusqu’à l’avènement de Phillipe de Valois,” Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, ed. Martin Bouquet et al., 24 vols. (Paris, 1738–1904), vol. 24 (1904), pp. *15–270*.

Figure BM2.2 shows all the thirty-seven bailliages and sénéchaussées under Philip IV, including the prévôté of Paris and excluding the gouvernement of Navarre. Out of the thirty-seven, ten bailliages and sénéchaussées were established in the reign of Philip IV. I will exclude these newly created ones from this analysis because we have far less information about them than about the others.⁹

As shown in Figure BM2.3, the bailliages and sénéchaussées are divided by a line across the kingdom from northwest to southeast. Bailliages covered the northeastern part while sénéchaussées characterize the southwestern part of the kingdom. The bailliages in the northeast include (1) the six bailliages of Rouen, Caen, Caux, Cotentin, Gisors and Verneuil in Normandy; (2) one prévôté of Paris and the eight bailliages of Senlis, Vermandois, Amiens, Sens, Orléans, Bourges, Touraine and Mâcon in the old royal demesnes (Île de France); (3) the four bailli-ages of Troyes, Meaux, Vitry and Chaumont in Champagne; and (4) the bailliage of Auvergne.

Figure BM2.3 Bailliages and sénéchaussées under Philip IV (map)

I classify the bailliages into two groups: The first group consists of the bail-liages in which viscounts worked as subordinate officials of the baillis, and the second group is made up of the bailliages in which prévôts worked under the supervision of the baillis.

A. Viscounts and baillis in Normandy

As shown in Figure BM2.4, Normandy consisted of bailliages. However, these bailliages were different from the other bailliages in one regard; in Normandy baillis had viscounts as their subordinate officials, while in other places they had prévôts as their subordinates.¹⁰

In Normandy there were six bailliages, each of which was controlled by one bailli, except those of Gisors and Verneuil. The two bailliages of Gisors and Verneuil were supervised together by one bailli whose title was “bailli of Gisors and Verneuil (baillivus Gisorti et Vernolii).” In the middle of the reign of Philip IV, however, this dual title was replaced by the simple “bailli of Gisors,” which implies that the bailliage of Verneuil was finally absorbed by that of Gisors.¹¹

The baillis had two major functions: financial and judicial. First, they were responsible for collecting royal revenues in their own bailliages.¹² Even though their subordinate officials collected royal revenues, the baillis had the ultimate responsibility. They sent the monies collected to the treasury in Paris and their accounts to the curia. The accounts were to be examined and approved when a special meeting, called curia in compotis, was held at the end of each accounting term.¹³

The baillis exercised justice as well. They held assizes. According to the Ordinance of 1303, assizes were supposed to be held six times a year within a bailliage,¹⁴ but I have not found sources verifying that this rule was actually followed. I have only confirmed that at least three assizes (May, September and December) were held in the bailliage of Caen in 1312.¹⁵ A considerable number of cases which were difficult to handle in assizes went to the Exchequer of Normandy, which was held by the members of the Parlement of Paris and which the baillis of Normandy attended.¹⁶

Each of the Norman bailliages, except those of Gisors and Vernouil, was divided into smaller administrative districts called viscounties. Each viscounty was supervised by a viscount. The bailliages of Gisors and Vernouil were exceptionally divided into viscounties or prévotés, a type of administrative district found in the old royal demesnes. Each of the prévotés was controlled by one prévot.¹⁷ According to Strayer, the viscounts were, like baillis, salaried officials who had financial and judicial duties. They were responsible for collecting royal revenues in their viscounties.¹⁸ The annual revenues of a large viscounty amounted to around 10,000 l.t., which was as much as the income of a small bailliage.¹⁹

The viscounts’ judicial duties were to hold court and handle preliminary acts for the higher courts.²⁰ They also acted as executive agents in carrying out the orders of the highest court.²¹ The viscounts had little to do with military affairs.

Figure BM2.4 Administrative districts in Normandy

They were not keepers of castles or commanders of troops. Instead, they were required to have skill and knowledge about accounting, administrative procedure, and Norman law in order to fulfill their financial and judicial duties. They seem to have attended the Exchequer regularly in order to acquire such expertise.²² Therefore, it is natural that a large proportion of the viscounts were of bourgeois origin and came from Normandy. Strayer has confirmed that six viscounts were almost certainly from a bourgeois background and only five were knights, and has found that twelve were recruited from Normandy and seven from the old royal demesne.²³

According to Strayer, the viscounts formed a surprisingly homogeneous group. They were all experts in accounting, Norman law and administrative procedures. Their duties did not differ according to region. Their salaries did not vary widely, as the range was from 60 to 100 l.t. per year.²⁴ This homogeneity probably made it possible for them to be transferred frequently to other bailliages within Normandy.²⁵

Although they formed a homogeneous group in terms of duties and salaries, the viscounts certainly were awarded promotions. They were usually transferred to more important viscounties, and received higher salaries. For example, Geoffroi d’Anisy moved from the viscounty of Mortain to the more important viscounty of Caen.²⁶ Guillaume au Cros moved from the viscounty of Neuchâtel to that of Falaise, and his annual salary increased from 60 l.t. to 100 l.t.²⁷

Some viscounts moving from one viscounty to another completed their careers as viscounts.²⁸ However, a fairly high number of viscounts became baillis. As shown in Figure BM2.5, nine viscounts out of forty became baillis.²⁹ This high rate of promotion from viscount to bailli should be emphasized, because it suggests that these two types of officials shared common skills and knowledge, and that the body of viscounts was the large pool from which new baillis were recruited.

The viscounties in the bailliages of Rouen and Caen were further divided into smaller administrative units called sergenteries, which were controlled by sergents. The sergents were responsible for keeping order within their own sergenteries.³⁰

B. Prévots and baillis in the old royal demesnes, Champagne and Auvergne

As shown in Figure BM2.6, the old royal demesnes, Champagne and Auvergne, were also divided into bailliages controlled by baillis, but the main subordinate officials of the baillis were prévôts; this differentiates these areas from Normandy.³¹

The old demesne consisted of the prévôté of Paris, which was not a bailliage but was treated as one, and the eight bailliages of northern and central France: Senlis, Vermandois, Amiens, Sens, Orléans, Bourges, Tours and Mâcon. These bailliages were divided into smaller administrative units called prévôtés. The size of the prévôtés and the degree of royal rights in them varied significantly. As Strayer explains, “a prévôté could be anything from a mere accounting unit to a

Figure BM2.5 Promotion from viscount to bailli

Figure BM2.6 Administrative officials in the old royal demesnes, Champagne and Auvergne

quite effective branch of local government.”³² Revenues of each prévôté varied as well. While the annual rents (redditus) of the prévôté of Melun were as much as 1,130 l. in 1305,³³ the whole revenues of the prévôtés of Grange was about 25 l., and that of the prévôté of Le Bourgneuf only about 14 l. in 1299.³⁴

Each prévôté was farmed out under the supervision of baillis. Those who had a contract for prévôtés were called prévôts, and became the lowest royal officials. Terms of a contract were short, usually three years.³⁵ Prévôts were responsible for collecting tolls, market dues and legal fines.³⁶ They enjoyed police-court jurisdiction,³⁷ and played the role of royal agents.³⁸ As shown in Figure BM2.7, some prévôts became baillis, although the number of such cases is small. This suggests a similarity between baillis and prévôts.³⁹

Like the old royal demesne, Champagne was divided into bailliages. Formally speaking, Champagne was a county separate from the royal demesne, since it was an inheritance of Queen Joan. In practice, however, it was under the king’s control and governed by his officials.⁴⁰ The institution of baillis, which had been introduced to the county a long time before, was taken over by Philip IV. The four bailliages of Troyes, Meaux, Vitry and Chaumont and their subdivided units (prévôtés) continued to exist and came to be used as royal administrative districts.⁴¹

Figure BM2.7 Promotion from prévôt to bailli

The administration of Champagne was almost the same as that of the old royal demesne except that its judicial system had a certain autonomy based on its Grands Jours, which played a similar role as the Exchequer did in Normandy. In Champagne, cases were first sent to a court of a prévôt, then to a court of a bailli and finally to the Grands Jours of Champagne. Some cases went back and forth between the Grands Jours of Champagne and the Parlement of Paris, and at the end of the reign of Philip IV more cases tended to go from the Grands Jours of Champagne to the Parlement of Paris, but most cases still seem to have been concluded within Champagne.⁴²

In the bailliage of Auvergne, which was located at the southern end of the area of bailliages and next to the region of sénéchaussées, prévôts were officials subordinate to baillis. This bailliage, however, had slight differences from the other bailliages. First, documents belonging to this period do not list Auvergne as a bailliage, but treat it as if it were a sénéchaussée. Second, in the reign of Philip IV, a large part of Auvergne was divided into prévôtés (baylies at the beginning of the reign), but its southern part consisted of small bailliages called “bailliages of the Mountains of Auvergne.” Despite these deceptive names, these small bailli-ages were subdivisions within the bailliage of Auvergne. Their accounting reports were included in those of the bailliage of Auvergne, and their baillis were not high officials.⁴³

The term of the baillis of Auvergne had probably been three years at the beginning, but this rule was seldom observed under the reign of Philip IV. Jean de Trie was bailli for eight years from 1289 until 1297, and Géraud de Parai was bailli for twelve years from 1298 until 1310.⁴⁴ The administrative system of the bailliage of Auvergne went through some changes under the reign of Philip IV. First, existing bayles began to be called prévots (as they were in other bailliages), and their administrative districts or baylies were renamed prévôtés. The actual function of the prévôts was almost identical with that of bayles. The office of prévôt was auctioned and farmed out by a contract under the supervision of the baillis. The administrative system seems to have become more organized by assigning one keeper of seals and one scribe to each prévôté. Second, the administration of the “bailliages of the Mountains of Auvergne” was changed. These bailliages remained part of the bailliage of Auvergne after they had fallen under royal control, but the baillis of the former count were replaced by those of the king. In 1299, new three prévôtés emerged for the first time in this area. Before 1299, there had been no such administrative districts, and archiprêtrés were used as lower administrative districts. Third, the number of royal officials working for baillis increased and administrative system seems to have become more organized.⁴⁵

As already discussed, the bailliages in the old royal demesne, Champagne and Auvergne, had one common characteristic: Major subordinate officials of the baillis were prévôts. Only the bailliages in Normandy had different subordinate officials – viscounts – who were salaried officials, unlike prévôts who held their offices based on a farming contract. The bailliages in Normandy seem to have had a more efficient administrative system than did the other bailliages. The baillis and their subordinate officials had few military responsibilities and mainly handled financial and judicial duties.⁴⁶

II. Sénéchaussées in the southern part of the kingdom

At the beginning of the reign of Philip IV, the royal demesnes in the southern part of the kingdom consisted of seven sénéchaussées of Poitou, Saintonge, Périgord-Quercy, Rouergue, Toulouse, Carcassonne and Beaucaire. The formation process of these sénéchaussées was quite different from that of the bailliages. While most of the bailliages had been administrative districts divided by kings or territorial princes, most of the sénéchaussées had their origins in former political units or traditionally cohesive units. Thus, sénéchaussées were much larger and varied greatly in size, in contrast to bailliages which were relatively small and uniform.⁴⁷

Each of the sénéchaussées was controlled by one seneschal, but the type of official subordinate to seneschals was significantly different in individual sénéchaussées. Smaller administrative divisions within the sénéchaussées were different as well. Around the seneschal we find officials such as viguiers, bayles and judges, in addition to prévôts as found in the bailliages of the northern part of the kingdom.

A. Viguiers (vicarii)

Viguiers were usually found among the advisors of seneschals and were frequently appointed as lieutenants when the seneschals were unable to perform their duties in person. Viguiers were not judges or financial officials but rather executive agents of the seneschals with military power. In peacetime “they saw that local administration ran smoothly, that orders were carried out, that the king’s rights and properties were preserved, that order and peace were maintained and that their districts were defended from attack.”⁴⁸ In 1302–1303, Mayalle Rebotin, viguier of Carcassonne, sought out malefactors and punished them.⁴⁹ In the same year, a viguier of Fenouillèdes sent his subordinates into Catalonia to investigate the military capabilities of the king of Aragon.⁵⁰ Also in the same year, a viguier of Béziers sent out several men to the coastal areas to investigate a certain Roger, who intended to invade the royal demesne with fourteen armed galleys.⁵¹

In wartime, the military function of the viguiers became very clear. They organized troops and sent supplies to the armies.⁵² Ex- viguiers played important roles in the military occupation of Gascony. Jean l’Archevêque, ex- viguier of Toulouse, was a paymaster for the Gascon war.⁵³ Blayn Loup, another ex- viguier of Toulouse, was a military governor of Gascony.⁵⁴ Many of the viguiers had been castellans before they became viguiers, or were castellans while they were viguiers.⁵⁵

The financial function of the viguiers was not so important compared with their military one. They had very limited responsibilities for collecting royal revenues,⁵⁶ except in some cases, such as that of a certain viguier of Toulouse who was responsible for large revenues (about 1,000 l. per year).⁵⁷ Viguiers generally reported only small sums from reliefs and transfer taxes. Most viguiers had few judicial functions, again excepting the viguiers of Toulouse.

The viguiers were not a uniform group. Their power and influence varied widely, and so did the sizes of their districts. In the sénéchaussée of Toulouse, there was only one viguier, who retained the old strong power of the office including judicial power, but in the sénéchaussée of Carcassonne there were no less than seven viguiers, each of which had his own district called a viguerie, and in the sénéchaussée of Beaucaire there were about thirteen viguiers. Despite the same title, the “difference in prestige and influence between the viguier of Béziers and that of Cabordès, and between the viguier of Nîmes and that of St.-Saturnin, was tremendous.”⁵⁸ Their salaries also varied widely. Blayn Loup, viguier of Toulouse, was paid about 200 l. per year in 1298–1299, while many viguiers in Beaucaire received only 20 or 30 l. per year in 1302–1303.⁵⁹

The majority of the viguiers (no fewer than twenty-two) were knights.⁶⁰ Their job probably required military skills which knights were expected to have, rather than the accounting skills of the bourgeois. A large number of viguiers were recruited from the south and were not officials sent from Paris. At least twenty-two of them were natives of Languedoc, but only ten were northerners.⁶¹

Some viguiers kept their office for a long time.⁶² Most of the viguiers moved from one viguerie to another within the limits of a single sénéchaussée, but they were often promoted. For example, Guillaume de Linière, who had been salaried 50 l. per year as viguier of Rochefort in the 1290s, received 120 l.t. per year in 1303 as viguier and castellan of Aigues Mortes.⁶³ Pierre de Bosco (de Buxio), who had been salaried 50 l.t. per year in the 1290s, was paid 146 l. 10 s.t. per year in 1303.⁶⁴

It should be emphasized that some viguiers became seneschals (Figure BM2.8). At least seven viguiers were promoted to seneschals.⁶⁵ Promotion from viguier to seneschal is important, because it implies that viguiers and seneschals shared common knowledge and skills.

B. Bayles (baiuli)

Another kind of official around the seneschals were bayles, who were found in the sénéchaussées of Rouergue, Toulouse and Carcassonne.⁶⁶ Bayles undertook financial and administrative duties for administrative units called baylies (baiuliae) within sénéchaussées by contract. Terms of contracts were very short, usually one year.⁶⁷ They were first of all responsible for collecting revenues within baylies. The amount of revenue from each baylie could vary widely. The revenue of the baylie of Villemur was 450 l.t. per year in 1293–1294, while that of the baylie of Villeréal was only 7 l. 10 s.t.⁶⁸ In general, however, the revenues of baylies were small.

Bayles also carried out orders of the seneschals. In 1293–1294, Pierre Trajeti, bayle of Saint Gavella, made Sicard Mascaroni return to the king the land within the baylie of Saint Gavella which had been granted by the seneschal.⁶⁹ Pierre Guillemi, bayle of Cazéres, searched for and arrested Pierre Uriol, a murderer, in 1293–1294.⁷⁰ Arnould de Rouaix, bayle of Verdun-sur-Garonne, carried out similar duties in the same year.⁷¹ Some bayles guarded prisoners.⁷²

Figure BM2.8 Promotion from viguier to seneschal

C. Judges (judices)

The most important officials around the seneschals were legal experts called juges (judices), i.e., judges. The judges were seen in the sénéchaussées of Périgord-Quercy, Rouergue, Toulouse, Carcassonne and Beaucaire. They were especially numerous in the courts of seneschals. They heard appeals from lower courts and gave judgments, but they gave legal advice to the seneschals.⁷³

One of the judges in the courts of seneschals came to be called the “seneschal’s judge,” and, by the reign of Philip IV, “juge-mage (judex maior),” that is, “major judge.” Each sénéchaussée had one juge-mage.⁷⁴ Some of the juges-mages, like Guillaume de Nogaret and Guillaume de Plaisians, were called to the royal court and were offered distinguished posts (far higher than that of any seneschal) by the king. The titles of other judges in the courts of seneschals varied greatly. In the sénéchaussée of Toulouse, we find the titles of “judge of appeals of the court (judex curie appelationum),”⁷⁵ “judge of criminal appeal of the sénéchaussée of Toulouse (judex appelationum criminalium senescallie Tolose),”⁷⁶ “criminal judge of the sénéchaussée of Toulouse (judex criminum senescallie Tholose),”⁷⁷ and “ordinary-judge (judex ordinarius).”⁷⁸ In the sénéchaussée of Rouergue, however, we do not find such a variety of titles. This suggests that the number and the degree of specialization of judges in the courts of seneschals differed widely in each sénéchaussé.

In the sénéchaussées there were also local judges who were responsible for their judicial districts called jugeries, and who presided over local courts. In the sénéchaussées of Beaucaire and Carcassonne, jugeries seem to have corresponded to vigueries, and each viguerie seems to have had one judge.⁷⁹ In the sénéchaussée of Toulouse, however, there was only one viguier while there were at least five local judges (those of Albigeois, Lauragais, Rieu combined with Rivière and Val d’Aran, Verdun-sur-Garonne and Villelongue) in addition to one judge of Toulouse.⁸⁰ The administrative districts (baylies) and the judicial districts (jugeries) were not related at all, since there were far fewer baylies than jugeries.

The salaries of local judges varied widely from district to district, but were almost equal to those of viguiers. In 1302–1303, local judges of Carcassonne and Béziers received 90 l.t. per year;⁸¹ those of Albi, Limoux and Fenouillèdes 40 l.t. per year;⁸² those of Beaucaire and Uzès 60 l. per year;⁸³ and those of Anduze and Lunel 50 l. and 30 l. per year.⁸⁴

Judges were highly educated and experts on law. Out of the eleven juge-mages of Beaucaire, eight were doctors of law and one a iurisperitus.⁸⁵ According to Strayer, out of the 131 judges of Languedoc under Philip IV, 45 were called doctors of law and 35 iurisperiti.⁸⁶ These experts on law were indispensable for the seneschals’ courts and local administration within the sénéchaussées. They were peculiar to the sénéchaussées and were not found in the bailliages.

D. Seneschals, viguiers, bayles and judges

Thus, the sénéchaussées had more complicated administrative systems than did the bailliages. Some of the sénéchaussées had three types of officials: viguiers, bayles and judges. This suggests a separation of executive, administrative and judicial functions among officials. But it should not be forgotten that not all sénéchaussées had these three officials. Figure BM2.9 shows that some

Figure BM2.9 Local administrative system of France under Philip IV

sénéchaussées had all three, but others had only prévôts. The two sénéchaussées of Poitou and Saintonge resembled the bailliages in that they had prévôts. The administrative systems of the sénéchaussées were very different from each other.

Each seneschal had great authority in his sénéchaussée, because all three types of officials were subordinate to the seneschal and obeyed his orders in almost all matters. This suggests that the seneschal himself exercised all military, judicial and financial functions. Other facts also suggest that the seneschals had great authority and power. A parliament held in the duchy of Aquitaine was dated as “in the days of the king of England and the seneschal of Périgord” (ad dies regis Anglie et senescallie Petragoricenses).⁸⁷ A seneschal of Carcassonne fired individuals appointed by royal letter in 1290.⁸⁸ Some seneschals, like Jean d’Arrabloy,⁸⁹ could ignore royal orders. The seneschals were, as it were, viceroys of the king who were entrusted with much of the king’s power.

III. The administrative structure of the kingdom

A. Difference between the bailliages and the sénéchaussées

Having examined the administrative systems in both bailliages and sénéchaussées, I suggest the following conclusions. In the bailliages there were fairly solid and homogeneous administrative systems. The baillis were experts on customary laws and administrative procedures and had both financial and judicial functions. They were civil servants and did not have as much military power as did seneschals.

The baillis’ subordinate officials, the viscounts in Normandy and the prévôts in other bailliages, helped them in these tasks. The viscounts performed duties similar to those of baillis and were responsible for their own districts (viscounties). They seem to have made the administration of the bailliages of Normandy far more rigid and far more efficient than the administration of other bailliages. The prévôts also helped baillis, especially in financial duties and also as royal agents. Actually, they exercised the baillis’ financial powers themselves, in return for a fixed fee paid to the baillis. The prévôts, however, did not have as much administrative training as the viscounts.

In the sénéchaussées there were completely different administrative systems. The seneschals were not civil servants as were the baillis, but had great authority as viceroys of the king. Their subordinate officials shared executive, administrative and judicial functions derived from the authority of the seneschals. The specialization of the subordinate officials in some sénéchaussées was remarkable, but we should not forget that degrees of specialization varied widely from one sénéchaussée to the next. The financial administration of the sénéchaussées does not seem to have been as rigid or efficient as that of the bailliages. In the sénéchaussées the king’s concern was focused more on peacekeeping and defense.

B. Functions of baillis and seneschals

If we consider the location of bailliages and sénéchaussées, we can easily understand the different administrations in the two areas. Sénéchaussées were situated in the southern part of the kingdom. This area lacked political stability and consisted of newly acquired lands. It bordered on the duchy of Aquitaine, held by the king of England, and was troubled by boundary conflicts. As shown in Figure BM2.10, the kings of both France and England claimed rights of possession over a large part of this area.⁹⁰

Moreover, the region of sénéchaussées bordered on the kingdom of Aragon and was exposed to the danger of invasion. Its great distance from Paris and its different customs weakened the king’s authority. There was always a possibility of revolt against the king. Therefore, the main duty of the officials there was to keep order and peace. It is natural that the seneschals had strong authority as viceroys of the king and that they held military power. It is also natural that viguiers with military power were assigned smaller districts to keep peace and order.

Figure BM2.10 Sénéchaussées of the French and English kings

In contrast, the area of bailliages in the northern part of the kingdom was politically stable. Most of it consisted of the older royal demesnes. The king’s authority was strong enough there. He could subdue revolts and expel invasions with his own armies. This area was under the direct protection of the royal army. Therefore, the king’s officials did not need to exercise military power. They were expected to concentrate on financial and judicial duties. In Normandy the old Norman system of justice and finance had not been abolished, and it had come to be used by the royal government. The baillis had few military functions – mainly financial and judicial functions instead – and were experts on law and administrative procedures.

Thus in the bailliages the king could control subjects and lands directly with his bureaucratic officials by his strong authority and military power, but in the sénéchaussées he was obliged to control people and lands indirectly, through seneschals, to whom he entrusted great powers, including military ones.

Conclusion

The administrative differences between the bailliages and sénéchaussées are not small variations in a basically homogeneous administrative system. The degree of royal control marked the essential difference between the bailliages and sénéchaussées. The bailliages in the northern part of the kingdom were under the direct control of the king. They were protected by the king’s army, and therefore their officials did not have to exercise strong military power, but they were expected to have specialized skills in administration, finance and justice. From an administrative point of view, baillis and their subordinate officials were delegated only a small portion of the king’s power. In sum, “a qualitative division of royal power” was made for royal officials in the bailliages.⁹¹

On the other hand, the sénéchaussées in the southern part of the kingdom were outside the direct protection of the king’s military power. Therefore the royal power was not divided into military and other functions such as financial and judicial ones. Instead the power was delegated as a whole to the seneschals. We may call this “a quantitative division of royal power.”⁹² A seneschal was a governor who was entrusted with complete control of his district. Therefore, in the reign of Philip IV the royal demesnes were not governed by a single administrative system. There was no homogeneous administrative system such as that associated with modern nation states.

I should like to emphasize that this difference of administration in the bailliages and sénéchaussées did not derive from differences in legal traditions or languages in the northern and southern parts of France.⁹³ Since the line between bailliages and sénéchaussées did not exactly correspond to regional variations in legal traditions or in language, we cannot assume that the differences between bailli and seneschal were caused by variations in law⁹⁴ and language.⁹⁵ The differences between them reflect different ways of royal governance. This two-layered system might appear complicated and unique at first glance, but further examination easily leads us to the conclusion that this type of administrative system could exist at any time during the formation process of a large territorial power. I suspect that this two-layered system was quite common in medieval Europe, where so many territorial princes successively tried to subject neighboring princes and enlarge their demesnes.

It is certain that both baillis and seneschals were key men in the king’s local administration, but we should not regard them as the same kind of official. If we do so, we will fail to notice key differences in royal governance in the bailliages and the sénéchaussées of medieval France.

Notes

Appendix II–2 is a revised version of my Japanese article published in Shigaku-Zasshi, vol. 101 (1992), no. 11, pp. 1–38. Its substance was presented at the 1994 meeting of the Medieval Association of the Pacific in Seattle, Washington. I should like to thank Professor Jonathan Rotondo-McCord (Xavier University of Louisiana) for his comments and help in revising this chapter.

1 Jean Favier, Philippe le Bel (Paris, 1978), p. 79; Jean F. Lemarignier, La France médiévale, institutions et sociétés (Paris, 1970), p. 340; James W. Fesler, “French Field Administration: The Beginnings,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, vol. 5 (1962–1963), pp. 82–83; Robert Fawtier, The Capetian Kings of France, Monarchy and Nation 987–1328, trans. Lionel Butler and Robin J. Adam (London, 1960), pp. 178–179, 189–190; François Olivier-Martin, Histoire du droit français des origines à la Révolution, 2e tirage (Paris, 1975), pp. 232–233.

2 Joseph R. Strayer, The Reign of Philip the Fair (Princeton, 1980), p. 111.

3 Strayer, The Reign, p. 112. In fact, however, there were not many individuals who held the offices of both bailli and seneschal under Philip IV. Through an examination of the careers of the baillis and seneschals of Philip IV, I have found that out of the sixty-six individuals who had held the office of bailli or seneschal more than once (I have included those who held the same office in different times), forty-two (63.3%) always retained the title of bailli, fifteen (22.7%) that of seneschal, while only ten (15.2%) moved between the offices of bailli and seneschal. If we take into account the possibilities of different individuals who had identical names, the number would decrease. I have also found that out of the sixty-two seneschals who served under Philip IV, forty-four (71.0%) held the title of knight (miles), although only twenty-eight (14.7%) out of the 191 baillis did so. “Un bailli pouvait-il devenir sénéchal? Rarement, car les sénéchaux sont ordinairement chevaliers et les baillis, pour la plupart, ne sont pas nobles.” (François Maillard, “Mouvements administratifs des baillis et des sénéchaux sous Philippe le Bel,” Bulletin philologique et historique (jusqu’à 1610) du Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques [1959], p. 407).

4 William C. Jordan, “Seneschal,” Dictionary of the Middle Ages, ed. Joseph R. Strayer, vol. 11 (1988), pp. 159–160. However, Jordan recognizes the slight difference in nature of the two officials, and states that seneschals were more militarily active than baillis, and tended to be recruited from more powerful nobles.

5 Some scholars have regarded these seneschals – local officials newly established by the kings – as the continuation of the old seneschals (high central officials serving territorial princes), and have paid attention to the differences between baillis and seneschals at earlier times, but most have thought that these differences had disappeared, and that the administrative functions of the two types of officials had come to be identical by the reign of Philip IV. See Lemarignier, La France médiévale, pp. 339–340; Jordan, “Seneschal,” p. 160; Olivier-Martin, Histoire du droit française, p. 233. However, Favier (Philippe le Bel, pp. 80–81) recognizes differences between baillis and seneschals under Philip IV.

6 Strayer, The Reign, p. 112. I describe Paris money as l. (pounds), s. (shillings), and d. (pence), and Tours money as l.t. (pounds), s.t. (shillings), and d.t. (pence). In the fourteenth century, 1 pound in Tours money equaled 0.8 pound in Paris money. See Strayer, The Reign, p. xvii.

7 Olivier-Martin, Histoire du droit française, p. 234; Fesler, “French Field Administration,” pp. 82–83, 86.

8 The most important works for this topic are Strayer, The Reign; Joseph R. Strayer, “Viscounts and Viguiers under Philip the Fair,” Speculum, vol. 38 (1963), pp. 242–255, repr. in Medieval Statecraft and the Perspective of History: Essays by Joseph Strayer, ed. John F. Benton and Thomas N. Bisson (Princeton, 1971), pp. 213–231 [I refer to the pages of the book]; Joseph R. Strayer, Le gens de justice du Languedoc sous Philippe le Bel (Toulouse, 1970); Joseph R. Strayer, The Royal Domain in the Bailliage of Rouen (Princeton, 1936); Joseph R. Strayer, Administration of Normandy under St. Louis (Cambridge, MA, 1932); Léopold Delisle, “Chronologie des baillis et des sénéchaux royaux depuis les origines jusqu’à l’avènement de Philippe de Valois,” Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, ed. Martin Bouquet, et al., 24 vols. (Paris, 1738–1904), vol. 24 (1904), pp. *15–270* [hereinafter Delisle, RHF, vol. 24]; Ferdinand Lot and Robert Fawtier, eds., Histoire des institutions françaises au Moyen Age, vol. 1: Institutions seigneuriales (Paris, 1957) [hereinafter Institution, vol. 1]; August Molinier, “Études sur l’administration féodale dans le Languedoc,” Histoire générale de Languedoc, avec des notes et les pièces justificatives, ed. Claude de Vic and Jean-Joseph Vissette, 16 vols. (Toulouse, 1872–1905), vol. 7, note 46, pp. 132–213; “Études sur l’administration de Louis IX et d’Alfonse de Poitiers (1226–1271),” Histoire générale de Languedoc, avec des notes et les pièces justificatives, ed. Claude de Vic and Jean-Joseph Vissette, 16 vols. (Toulouse, 1872–1905), vol. 7, note 59, pp. 462–570; Elizabeth Hallam, Capetian France 987–1328 (London/New York, 1980); Charles Petit-Dutaillis, La monarchie féodale en France et en Angle-terre (Paris, 1933; English translation, The Feudal Monarchy in France and England [London, 1936]); Gustave Dupont-Ferrier, Les officiers royaux des bailliages et des sénéchaussées (Paris, 1902); Kōichi Kabayama, Pari to Abinyon (Paris and Avignon) (Tokyo, 1990).

9 Strayer (The Reign, pp. 100–101) lists as the bailliages under Philip IV Paris, Senlis, Vermandois, Amiens, Sens, Orléans, Bourges, Tours, Mâcon and Lille in the old royal demesnes; Rouen, Caux, Caen, Cotentin and Gisors-Verneuil in Normandy; and Troyes-Meaux, Vitry and Chaumont in Champagne; and as the sénéchaussées Poitou, Saintonge, Auvergne, Périgord-Quercy, Rouergue, Toulouse, Carcassonne, Beaucaire and Lyons. Favier (Philippe le Bel, p. 79) has the same list as Strayer for the bailliages under Philip IV, although he mentions Gisors instead of Gisors-Verneuil and Troyes instead of Troyes-Meaux. For the sénéchaussées, he adds Montagne (Haute-Auvergne) and Angoulême to Strayer’s list, and he mentions Toulouse-Albi instead of Toulouse.

10 Prévôts were also working in Normandy, however. In the bailliages of Gisors and Verneuil – the regions first conquered by Philip II – there were prévôtés similar to those in the old royal demesnes, which seem to have functioned as important administrative units. In other areas, there were small prévôtés, which were not so important in terms of administration. See Comptes royaux 1285–1314, ed. Robert Fawtier and François Maillard, 3 vols. (Paris, 1930), vol. 1, pp. 343–347, 353–355, 357–359; Strayer, Administration, p. 10. Concerning the bailliages of Normandy, there are accounts of 1292 for Caen and Verneuil (Comptes royaux, vol. 1, pp. 337–348), of 1296 for Rouen (vol. 2, pp. 123–126), of 1297 for Caen and Verneuil (vol. 1, pp. 349–356), of 1298 for Caux, Caen and Coutance (vol. 2, pp. 397–398, 402–403), of 1299 for Verneuil and Caux (vol. 1, pp. 357–360; vol. 2, pp. 416–418), of 1302 for Rouen and Verneuil-Gisors (vol. 2, pp. 127–149), and of 1303 for Caen (vol. 2, pp. 435–462).

11 Delisle, RHF, vol. 24, pp. 116*–130*.

12 Ordonnances des roys de France de la troisième race..., ed. Eusèbe-Jacob de Laurière, et al., 22 vols. (Paris, 1723–1849), vol. 1, p. 464; Strayer, The Reign, p. 114.

13 Strayer, The Reign, p. 144.

14 Ordonnances, vol. 1, p. 362, art. 26. Cf. Strayer, The Reign, p. 123.

15 Delisle, RHF, vol. 24, p. 142*. Strayer (The Reign, p. 123) states that four assizes were held within the bailliage of Caen in February, May, September and December of 1312, but I could not find evidence for the assize of February. The royal ordinance of 1190 seems to suggest that Philip II wanted assizes to be held every month, and the ordinance of 1302 by Philip IV demanded that assizes should be held every two months. Philippe de Beaumanoir, in the late thirteenth century, recommended that bail-lis should hold assizes at least every six or seven weeks, and Boutiller in the fourteenth century stated that baillis were supposed to hold assizes every three months according to the royal ordinance, but that this was not a good custom. See Henri Waquet, Le Bail-liage de Vermandois aux XIIIe et XIVe siècle. Études d’histoire administrative (Paris, 1919), pp. 48–49.

16 Strayer, The Reign, p. 139.

17 Viscounts’ activities were not strictly limited within their viscounties. They had to deal with various problems in the regions neighboring their viscounties. In 1299 Geoffroi d’Anisy, viscount of Bayeux, investigated a tax collector in the bailliage of Touraine outside Normandy. See Ordonnance, p. 332.

18 In the Easter exchequer of 1301 Geoffroi d’Anisy, viscount of Bayeux, reported 5,600 l.t. as total revenues, and Jean le Hanapier reported 3,536 l. 3 d.t. (Les journaux du Trésor de Philippe IV le Bel, ed., Jule Viard [Paris, 1940], no. 4635; Strayer, “Viscounts,” p. 215). In the St. Michael exchequer, Geoffroi Avice, viscount of Bayeux, reported 5,355 l. 6 d.t. as total revenues (Les journaux, no. 5372; Strayer, “Viscounts,” p. 215).

19 A viscount of Rouen collected about 8,700 l.t. in 1301 (Les journaux, nos. 4550, 4633, 5372, 5776, 5780), and a viscount of Bayeux collected 9,800 l.t. in 1299 and 9,600 l.t. in 1301 (Les journaux, nos. 2548, 3468, 4635, 5374; Strayer, “Viscounts,” p. 216, note 14).

20 Strayer, “Viscounts,” p. 215; Strayer, The Reign, p. 122; Strayer, Administration of Normandy, p. 25.

21 Strayer, “Viscounts,” p. 215.

22 Strayer, “Viscounts,” pp. 215–216, 218.

23 Strayer, “Viscounts,” pp. 220–221.

24 The viscount of Rouen was paid the highest salary of 100 l.t. per year, while the viscount of Avranches received the lowest of 60 l.t. per year. Strayer, Administration of Normandy, pp. 121–122; Strayer, “Viscounts,” p. 219; Strayer, The Reign, p. 56.

25 Guillaume au Cros (aux Cros/as Cros) was once viscount of Neuchâtel in the bailliage of Caux, but in 1299 he became viscount of Falaise in the bailliage of Caen (Journaux, nos. 3467–3468; Strayer, “Viscounts,” p. 219). Pierre Dalart was viscount of Orbec in the bailliage of Rouen in 1321, but became viscount of Carentan in the bailliage of Cotentin in 1317 (Strayer, “Viscounts,” p. 228).

26 Delisle, RHF, vol. 24, p. 12* note, p. 150*.

27 Journaux, no. 3467; Delisle, RHF, vol. 24, p. 12* note, p. 150*.

28 Geoffroi d’Anisy held the office of viscount for sixteen years between 1285 (Delisle, RHF, vol. 24, p. 150*) and 1301 (Journaux, nos. 4260, 4635), and Guillaume au Cros held the office at least for eleven years between 1290 (Delisle, RHF, vol. 24, p. 373) and 1301 (Journaux, nos. 3467–3468, 4364, 5802). See Strayer, “Viscounts,” p. 227. Laurent Tihart, having held the offices of prévôt of Belmont (Journaux, nos. 3222 [1299], 3815, 4285 [1300]) and of prévôt of Gournay (Journaux, no. 5373), became viscount of Auge in 1301 (Journaux, nos. 5372, 5396) and held the office of viscount more than ten years (Strayer, “Viscounts,” p. 227).

29 Strayer, “Viscounts,” p. 223.

30 Collection of revenues from the royal demesnes or royal rights and properties within the sergenteries seems to have been farmed out. For the bailliage of Rouen, see Strayer, The Royal Domain; for the bailliage of Caen, see Delisle, RHF, vol. 24, p. *143. Cf. Comptes royaux, vol. 1, pp. 337–342, 349–352; vol. 2, pp. 123–129.

31 Of the bailliages in the old royal demesnes, we have accounts for the following: Paris (Comptes royaux, vol. 1, pp. 29–40, 63–78), Senlis (Comptes royaux, vol. 1, pp. 41–45, 79–85), Vermandois (Comptes royaux, vol. 1, pp. 46–48, 86, 94), Amiens (Comptes royaux, vol. 1, pp. 49–50, 95–109), Sens (Comptes royaux, vol. 1, pp. 51–56, 101–102), Orléans (Comptes royaux, vol. 1, pp. 57–60, 103–124), Bourges (Comptes royaux, vol. 1, pp. 61–62, 125–131), Tours (Comptes royaux, vol. 1, pp. 132–147) in 1299; Paris (Comptes royaux, vol. 1, pp. 169–183), Senlis (Comptes royaux, vol. 1, pp. 184–189, 220–236), Vermandois (Comptes royaux, vol. 1, pp. 190–191, 237–243), Amiens (Comptes royaux, vol. 1, pp. 192–193, 244–252), Sens (Comptes royaux, vol. 1, pp. 194–200, 253–264), Orléans (Comptes royaux, vol. 1, pp. 201–205, 265–280), Mâcon (Comptes royaux, vol. 1, pp. 289–291), Bourges (Comptes royaux, vol. 1, pp. 206, 292–299), Tours (Comptes royaux, vol. 1, pp. 300–314) in 1305; report of debts in the bailliage of Sens in 1308 (Comptes royaux, vol. 2, pp. 109–111); report of the prévôts of Orléans in 1295; accounts of 1295, 1296 and 1297 for the bailliage of Touraine (Comptes royaux, vol. 2, pp. 315–340); report of 1311 on the bailliage of Bourges (Comptes royaux, vol. 2, pp. 345–366); and report of 1300 on the bailliage of Mâcon (Comptes royaux, vol. 2, pp. 475–478).

32 Strayer, The Reign, p. 102. For prévôts and prévôtés, see Henri Gravier, “Essai sur les prévôts royaux du XIe au XVIe siècles,” Revue historique de droit français et étranger, ser. 3, vol. 27 (1903), pp. 539–574, 648–672, 806–874. Prévôts worked in the bail-liages in the old royal demesnes, Champagne, Auvergne and Normandy, and in the sénéchaussées of Poitou and Saintonge. They also worked in Anjou and Maine.

33 Comptes royaux, vol. 1, nos. 4111–4112.

34 Comptes royaux, vol. 1, nos. 1009, 1020, 1125; Strayer, The Reign, p. 102 and note.

35 Strayer, The Reign, pp. 102, 134. For the financial function of prévôts, see Gravier, pp. 558–574; for their judicial function, see Gravier, pp. 648–665.

36 Strayer, The Reign, p. 142.

37 Strayer, The Reign, p. 122 and note 114. Prévôts could try criminal cases, although they could not judge suits about noble land or rights annexed to land. See Gravier, pp. 665–672.

38 Simon de Courceaux, prévôt of Orléans, visited the bailliages of Troyes-Meaux, Vitry, Chaumont in Champagne in order to carry out a royal order (Comptes royaux, vol. 1, p. 153, nos. 3257–3260). A prévôt of St. Quentin played an important role for the royal policy in Flanders (Strayer, The Reign, p. 102).

39 According to Strayer (The Reign, p. 102), a prévôt of Péronne became bailli. For farming out of prévôtés, see Gravier, pp. 546–555.

40 When Henry le Gras, count of Champagne, died in 1274, his daughter Joan (Jeanne) of Navarre succeeded the kingdom of Navarre, county of Champagne, and county of Brie. Joan married Philip, son of Philip III in 1284. When Philip III died, Philip succeeded the crown of France. The counties of Champagne and Brie were Joan’s inheritance and were not united with the royal demesne but were under the royal officials. When Joan died in 1305, her eldest son Louis succeeded the county and unified it with the royal demesne. Cf. Fawtier, The Capetian Kings, pp. 116, 127–129.

41 Jean Longnon, “La Champagne,” Institutions, vol. 1, pp. 131–132. For Champagne, we have reports on debts in 1292 (Comptes royaux, vol. 2, pp. 94–104), account of the bailliage of Troyes-Vitry in 1302, accounts of the bailliage of Chaumont in 1295 (Comptes royaux, vol. 2, pp. 463–466), 1296 (Comptes royaux, vol. 2, pp. 427–431) and 1300 (Comptes royaux, vol. 2, pp. 419–426), and a report on the bailliage of Vitry in 1296 (Comptes royaux, vol. 2, pp. 419–426) and 1300 (Comptes royaux, vol. 2, p. 404). For baillis of Troyes, Meaux, Vitry and Chaumont, see Delisle, RHF, vol. 24, pp. 166*–172*.

42 Strayer, The Reign, p. 199.

43 For the bailliage of Auvergne, we have accounts of the baillis in 1293 (Comptes royaux, vol. 1, pp. 400–414), 1294 (Comptes royaux, vol. 1, pp. 415–425) and 1299 (Comptes royaux, vol. 1, pp. 507–517). Cf. Strayer, The Reign, pp. 103–104. For the historical changes in the administrative system of Auvergne, see André Bossuat, “L’Auvergne,” Institutions, vol. 1, pp. 101–122.

44 For the baillis of Auvergne and the baillis of “the Mountains of Auvergne,” see Recueil des historiens, vol. 24, pp. 204*–210*. Delisle (RHF, vol. 24, p. *207) has confirmed that Jean de Trie was bailli of Auvergne at least between 1289 and 1295. Bossuat (“L’Auvergne,” p. 108) states that Jean de Trie held the office between 1289 and 1297 (Bossuat does not show the source for 1297).

45 Bossuat, “L’Auvergne,” p. 109.

46 Philippe de Beaumanoir (Coutumes de Beauvaisis, vol. 1, pp. 16–42) left detailed accounts of the duties of baillis. He emphasized their financial duties by stating that a good bailli should be good at accounting and should increase profits from his lord’s lands (Coutumes de Beauvaisis, vol. 1, p. 25). We find similar statements in the writing of Guillaume de Hangest, bailli of Chaumont, in 1289 (Fritz Kern, ed., Acta imperii Angliae et Franciae (1267–1313) [Tübingen, 1911], no. 62), and in the writing of Guiars de la Porte, bailli of Chaumont, in 1291 (Kern, ed., Acta, no. 68).

47 The sénéchaussée of Lyons was different from the other sénéchaussées, since it had been newly created by Philip IV. In 1310 Philip unified Lyons, which had been independent archbishopric, with the royal demesne. He took Forez out of the bailliage of Mâcon, Le Puy and Velay out of the sénéchaussée of Beaucaire, and made them together with Lyons into the sénéchaussée of Lyons. Cf. Strayer, The Reign, pp. 356–364. For these sénéchaussées, we have the accounts of Poitou-Limousin in 1293 (Comptes royaux, vol. 1, pp. 363–368) and 1294 (Comptes royaux, vol. 1, pp. 369–375); Saintonge in 1293 (Comptes royaux, vol. 1, pp. 376–383), 1294 (Comptes royaux, vol. 1, pp. 384–399), 1299 (Comptes royaux, vol. 2, pp. 412–415) and 1305–1306 (Comptes royaux, vol. 2, pp. 154–166); Périgord-Quercy in 1293–1294 (Comptes royaux, vol. 1, pp. 426–431), 1299 (Comptes royaux, vol. 1, pp. 518–523) and 1296–1297 (Comptes royaux, vol. 2, pp. 237–238); Toulouse-Albi in 1274 (Comptes royaux, vol. 2, pp. 112–113), 1293–1294 (Comptes royaux, vol. 1, pp. 432–495), 1298–1299 (Comptes royaux, vol. 1, pp. 524–592) and 1301 (Comptes royaux, vol. 2, pp. 114–115); Rouergue in 1293–1294 (Comptes royaux, vol. 1, pp. 496–596) and 1298–1299 (Comptes royaux, vol. 1, pp. 593–604); Carcassone-Béziers in 1300 (Comptes royaux, vol. 2, pp. 11–13, 105–108), 1302–1303 (Comptes royaux, vol. 1, pp. 605–634) and 1306–1307 (Comptes royaux, vol. 2, pp. 167–176); and Beaucaire-Nîmes in 1302–1303 (Comptes royaux, vol. 1, pp. 636–679) and 1304 (Comptes royaux, vol. 2, pp. 14–18, 432–434).

48 Strayer, “Viscounts,” p. 217.

49 Comptes royaux, vol. 1, no. 12983: “Item, per expensis, tam Mayolli Rebotini, vicarii Carcassonne, querendo malefactores et puniendos eosdem.”

50 Comptes royaux, vol. 1, no. 12985: “Item, per vicarium Fenoledesii et Terminesii, eodem modo, et pro pluribus iusidiatoribus missis in Cataloniam, ad investigandum de armatis per regem Aragonie, tam in mari quam in terra.”

51 Comptes royaux, vol. 1, no. 12987: “Item, per vicarium Bitteris, eodem modo, et pro mittendo probos viros et discretos per maritimam ad investigandum de fratre Rogerio, olim Templario, qui venerat cum 14 galeis armatis ad invadendum terram domini Regis.”

52 Strayer, “Viscounts,” p. 218.

53 Comptes royaux, vol. 1, nos. 12363–12386.

54 Comptes royaux, vol. 1, nos. 11643, 25453; Histoire générale de Languedoc, vol. 10, col. 253.

55 According to Strayer (“Viscounts,” p. 217, note 25, p. 218, note 26), Guillaume Bocuce, viguier of Aigues-Mortes, was castellan of Sommières in 1280; Guillaume de Charenton, viguier of St.-Saturnin about 1303, was castellan of Sauveterre in 1295–1297; Jean l’Archevêque, viguier of Toulouse, was once castellan of Verdun-sur-Garonne; Jean de Machery, viguier of Toulouse in 1311, was castellan of Montréal in 1307; Pierre de Mach-ery, viguier of Béziers in 1310, was constable of Carcassonne in 1306; Gui Chevalier was viguier and castellan of Beaucaire in 1293–1295; Guillaume de Châtelet was viguier and castellan of Alais in 1308; Jean d’Arrablai was viguier and castellan of Beaucaire in 1289–1291; Philippe de Marolles, viguier of Minervois in 1304–1314, was constable of Carcassonne in 1305; and Pierre de Busco was viguier and castellan of Beaucaire in 1303.

56 Strayer, “Viscounts,” p. 217 and note 23. Cf. Compters royaux, vol. 1, nos. 12667–12722.

57 Comptes royaux, vol. 1, nos. 9535, 11572.

58 Strayer, “Viscounts,” p. 219.

59 Comptes royaux, vol. 1, nos. 11643, 13653, 13694, 13849; Strayer, “Viscounts,” p. 219. Viguiers of Béziers received an annual salary of about 90 l.t., while those of Carcassonne, Fenouillèdes and Limaux were paid about 44 l.t. (Comptes royaux, vol. 1, nos. 12995, 12801).

60 Strayer, “Viscounts,” p. 221, note 39.

61 Strayer, “Viscounts,” p. 220.

62 Guillaume de Linières was viguier (first, of Rochefort, then, of Lunel, and finally of Aigues-Mortes) between 1289 and 1311; Mayeul Robutin was viguier of Carcassonne between 1302 and 1312; Raymond Arnaud was viguier of Toulouse for at least ten years, possibly for twenty years between 1274 and 1294; and Pierre de Provino was viguier of Carcassone in 1263, and still had the office of viguier in 1295 (Strayer, “Viscounts,” p. 227).

63 Comptes royaux, vol. 1, nos. 13768, 14103; vol. 2, no. 15091; Strayer, “Viscounts,” p. 223 and note 47.

64 Comptes royaux, vol. 1, no. 13567; vol. 2, no. 26913; Histoire générale de Languedoc, vol. 10, cols. 311, 314.

65 Strayer, “Viscounts,” p. 226, note 64.

66 The bayles played important roles within the sénéchaussées, and therefore it is essential for us to know their functions in order to understand the administrative system in the sénéchaussées. However, few scholars have paid much attention to them. Strayer mentions almost nothing about their functions, except his suggestion of their financial functions in relation to the farming out of offices. Strayer, The Reign, pp. 136–137.

67 Bayles seem to have made a one-year contract. See Comptes royaux, vol. 1, no. 10040: “Quatuor servientes missis per 4 judicaturas senescallis Tholose ad faciendum tornare baiulias sive arendationem baiuliarum presentis anni.”

68 Comptes royaux, vol. 1, nos. 9129, 9172.

69 Comptes royaux, vol. 1, no. 10034: “Petrus Traieti, baiulo de sancta Gavella, pro restitutione excambii facti cum domino Sicardo Mascaroni de 50 l.t., quas habebat apud Podium Syvranum in baiulia Sancte Gavelle.”

70 Comptes royaux, vol. 1, no. 10093: “Petro de Caxtilhone et Petro Guillelmi de Casselis, baiulo dicte baiulie, pro expensis factis in perquirendo et capiendo et captum Tholose ducendo Petrum Uriodum, murtrerium.”

71 Comptes royaux, vol. 1, no. 10090: “Arnaldo de Roaxis, baiulo Verdumi, pro expensis factis in prisonibus capiendis, justiciandis et perquirendis.”

72 Comptes royaux, vol. 1, no. 10094: “Poncio Gayraldi, baiulo Montis Albani in Tholosano, pro expensa prisionum.” See also Comptes royaux, vol. 1, nos. 10095–10097, 10111, 10119.

73 In 1293 the seneschal of Toulouse asked Sicard de Lavaur, juge-mage, for advice about the order which he was asked to promulgate by the consuls of Beaumont-en- Lomagne (Strayer, Les gens de justice, p. 39). For judicial functions and advisers of the seneschals of Beaucaire, see Jan Rogozinski, “The Counsellors of the Seneschal of Beau-caire and Nîmes 1250–1350,” Speculum, vol. 44 (1969), pp. 421–439.

74 For example, the juges-mages of the sénéchaussée of Beaucaire under Philip IV were Raimond Bossigoni (1279–1286), Maître Bernard de Montuzorgue (1286), Bremond (1287–91), Yvo de Doulas (1291–1292), Guillaume de Nogaret (1293–1295), Raimond de Ponjoulat (1299–1300), Guillaume de Palaisians (1300–1303), Maître Raoul de Courjumelles (1305–1317) and Enguerrand de Fieffes (1319–1323) (Strayer, Les gens de justice, pp. 54–62).

75 Florius Agni, Etienne Motel, Hugues Guirand, Etienne Aubert and Guihem Bringuier were called judices curie appelationum (Strayer, Les gens de justice, pp. 172–174; Comptes royaux, vol. 1, no. 10226).

76 Maître Raimond Curti was called judex appelationum criminalium senescallie Tolose (Strayer, Les gens de justice, p. 175).

77 Guilhem de Cassitis, Jacque de Boulogne, Maître Bardin de Rabastens and Maître Jean Sirvent were called judex criminum senescallie Tholose (Strayer, Les gens de justice, pp. 175–183; Comptes royaux, vol. 1, nos. 9094, 9800).

78 Etienne Motel, Maître Guîlem de Mesuil-Aubery, Maître Arnand Mestre, Nicolas Foul-que de Tournai, Yves de Loudéac, Guilhem de Molas and Guilhem Bringnies were called judex ordinarius (Strayer, Les gens de justice, pp. 177–183).

79 Strayer, Les gens de justice, pp. 62–92, 107–122.

80 Strayer, Les gens de justice, pp. 177–194: Comptes royaux, vol. 1, nos. 9526–9535.

81 Comptes royaux, vol. 1, nos. 12806–12807.

82 Comptes royaux, vol. 1, nos. 12795, 12801.

83 Comptes royaux, vol. 1, nos. 13568, 13689.

84 Comptes royaux, vol. 1, nos. 13661, 13820.

85 Strayer, Les gens de justice, pp. 54–62.

86 Strayer, Les gens de justice, p. 27.

87 Les Olim, ou registres des arrêts rendus par la cour du roi..., ed. Arthur Beugnot, 3 vols. in 4 parts (Paris, 1723–1849), vol. 2, pp. 46–47.

88 Histoire générale de Languedoc, vol. 10, col. 248.

89 Strayer, “Viscounts,” p. 227, note 71.

90 Yves Renouard, “Les institutions du Duché d’Aquitaine (des origines à 1453),” Ferdinand Lot and Robert Fawtier, eds., Histoire des institutions françaises au Moyen Age, vol. 1: Institutions seigneuriales (Paris, 1957), p. 172. These seneschals of the king of England were seneschals subordinate to the seneschal of Gascogne.

91 I owe the idea of “a qualitative/quantitative division of public power (kōken no shit-suteki/ryōteki bunkatsu)” to Naohiko Tonomura, Hikaku Hōkenseiron [Comparative Studies in Feudalism] (Tokyo, 1991), p. 50.

92 See note 91 above.

93 It is true that the area of bailliages and that of sénéchaussées were divided by the line from the northwest to the southeast of the kingdom, and this division seems to have corresponded with the boundary lines between different legal traditions and different languages. Some might well think that the different features observed between baillis and seneschals were caused by these social differences, and simply show variations of the same kind of officials who had substantially the same functions. However, if we closely examine distribution of bailliages and sénéchaussées, we will find that the dividing line between the area of sénéchaussées and that of bailliages does not identically correspond to the line between different legal traditions or languages.

94 According to Olivier-Martin (Histoire du droit français, p. 112), the border line of the area of written law and that of customary law in the thirteenth century starts with the coast opposite to the island of Oléron, passes by Saintonge, Périgord and Limousin on their northern sides, runs through Auvergne, Vivarais, Forez, Lyonnais and Mâconnais, and reaches Gex. Thus, the area of written law in the south included most of the sénéchaussées, but not the sénéchaussée of Poitou. Instead, it included a part of the bailliage of Auvergne and the bailliage of Mâcon. On the other hand, the area of customary law in the north included many of the bailliages but not a part of the bailliage of Auvergne or the bailliage of Mâcon. It did, however, include the sénéchaussée of Poitou.

95 According to Ferdinand Brunot (Histoire de la langue française des origines à 1900, vol. 1 [Paris, 1924], p. 304), the border line of the area of langue d’oc and that of langue d’oil starts with Grave on the Atlantic coast, and passes Lesparre, Bordeaux, Libourne, Mussidan, Périgueux, Nontron, Rochefoucauld, Confolens, Bellac, Guéret, Montluçon, Clermont-Ferrand, Boën, St.-Georges, St.-Bonnet-le-Château and St.-Sauveur. Thus, the area of langue d’oc in the south included most of the sénéchaussées, but not the sénéchaussées of Poitou and Saintonge. However, it included a part of the bailliage of Auvergne. On the other hand, the area of langue d’oil in the north included all bailliages except a part of the bailliage of Auvergne, and the sénéchaussées of Poitou and Saintonge.