Between the King and the Dominus, The Seneschals of Plantagenet Maine and Anjou

7/30/2019 Between the King and the Dominus, The Seneschals of Plantagenet Maine and Anjou

1/28

lesseigneuriesdans

lespaceplantagent

(c.

1150 - c.

1250)


2/28


3/28

AUSONIUS DITIONS tudes 24

lesseigneuriesdanslespaceplantagent

(c. 1150 - c. 1250)

Textes runis parMartinaurell& Frdric Boutoulle

Actes du colloque international organis par lInstitut Ausonius (Universitde Bordeaux / CNRS) et le Centre dtudes Suprieures de Civilisation Mdivale(Universit de Poitiers / CNRS), les 3, 4 et 5 mai 2007 Bordeaux et Saint-milion

Ouvrage publi avec le concours de lInstitut Universitaire de France

Diffusion de Boccard 11 rue de Mdicis F - 75006 paris

Bordeaux 2009


4/28

AUSONIUSMaison de lArchologieF - 33607 Pessac Cedexhttp://ausonius.u-bordeaux3.fr/EditionsAusonius

DIFFUSION DE BOCCARD11 rue de Mdicis

75006 Parishttp://www.deboccard.com

Directeur des Publications : Jrme FranceSecrtaire des Publications : Nathalie tranGraphisme de couverture : StphanieVincent AUSONIUS 2009ISSN : 1283-2200ISBN : 978-2-35613-020-4

Achev dimprimer sur les pressesde limprimerie Grficas Calima, S.A.

Avda. Candina, s/nE - 39011 Santander Cantabria

novembre 2009

Illustration de couverture :

Donation aux Hospitaliers de lglise et de la dme de Lugaut par Amanieu V dAlbret (chapelle de Lugaut,

Retjons, Landes, premire moiti du xiiie

sicle). Clich Jacques Lacoste, Centre Lo Drouyn, Bouliac.


5/28

betweenthekingandthedominus: the

seneschalsofplantagenetmaineandanjou1

Richard E. barton

Centrally located in the heart of that agglomeration of territories that historianscall the Angevin Empire, the counties of Anjou, Maine and the Touraine served asan essential strategic and seigneurial bastion for Henry II and his sons2. Despite theregions strategic prominence, however, Henry and his sons spent comparatively littletime there3. To safeguard comital rights during their absence, therefore, the Angevinsconstructed a network of royal officials to whom they delegated the power to maintaincomital estates, guard their castles, and to oversee justice. The construction of sucha network of seneschals, prvts, and voyers was, of course, hardly unusual, since it

reflected the natural method by which all medieval rulers attempted to govern largeterritories4. But Jacques Boussard has argued that the Angevins elevation of what hadbeen essentially rural estate managers into true viceroys reflected a deeper and moreimportant change in mentality and administrative precision. For Boussard, the twelfthcentury witnessed a gradual but inevitable transformation of the jurisdictional andseigneurial scope of the old office of dapifer or seneschal. By the 1150s, he argued, theformer seneschal of the Angevin comital household boasted a new title, that of seneschalof Anjou, and a greatly expanded jurisdiction which extended across the counties of

Anjou, Maine and the Touraine5. For Boussard, this new officers jurisdiction and

1. I am grateful to Martin Aurell for inviting me to participate in the 2007 colloque and toFrdric Boutoulle for his generous practical and editorial assistance. This paper has benefitted from thecomments of the participants of the colloque, and particularly those of Nicholas Vincent, Daniel Power,and Martin Aurell.

2. Boussard 1938, 5-13.3. Eyton 1878; Delisle & Berger eds. 1916-1927, III, 1-27; and Tonnerre 2006, 212-213.4. Guillot 1972, 397-429; Chartrou 1929, 107-130; Boussard 1938, 113-163; Boussard 1956, 285-

287, 357-359; Baldwin 1986, 233-239.5. Chartrou 1929, 122-126; Boussard 1938, 113-128.


6/28

140 RICHARD E. BARTONindependence only grew in the period between 1165 and 1180. Whereas the seneschalhad only acted in response to direct commands from the king through the 1160s, he

had, by 1180, evolved into a true viceroy, able to act independently and forcefullyin the royal interest6. For Boussard, this evolution of the seneschalcy into a formof administration rgulire was extremely important, for it paralleled and permittedan increase in the power and prestige of the count-king (Henry II), as well as theregularization of his relations with his vassals. These changes amounted to nothing lessthan a major change in mentality, in which a formerly feudal power was replaced bya monarchical power that was absolute and capable of imposing itself on its subjects7.For Boussard, the transformation could be simply stated: Le pouvoir, de fodal, estdevenu monarchique; ladministration, de domaniale, est devenue souveraine8.

Boussards thesis that the growth of sovereign royal power in Anjou occurredunder Henry II and was directly linked to the extension of the duties and jurisdictionsof the seneschal is an important and persuasive one. The very fact that the yearsbetween 1140 and 1220 saw not merely the creation of the new office of seneschalof Anjou but his rise in social and political stature into one of the greatest baronsof the Loire region serves to undergird Boussards thesis. And yet, if Boussard wasclearly correct in the broad view, his thesis is worth revisiting in some of its detailsand implications. Indeed, this essay attempts to complicate Boussards thesis in several

ways. First, it suggests that the jurisdictional competency of the seneschal of Anjou was

never as wide as Boussard assumed. In particular, it argues that the county of Mainepossessed its own seneschalcy and royal curia which largely operated independently ofthe seneschals of Anjou until the Capetian conquest in 1203. Secondly, it argues thatthe rise in the judicial competence of the seneschal of Anjou (or that of Maine) maynot necessarily have led to a meaningful extension of royal authority over all of Anjou.For one, the great lordships, particularly those in western Maine and Anjou and in theeastern Touraine, continued to hold their own baronial courts, at which men of thesurrounding neighborhood sought assistance and settled disputes. Third, it suggeststhat the lords of these important baronies of Craon, Sabl, Chteau-Gontier,

Mayenne, Laval, Sainte-Maure, and others did not seem ordinarily to have subjectedthemselves to the curia regis as administered by either the seneschal of Anjou or theseneschal of Le Mans. Indeed, it is almost impossible to find cases in which one ofthe great barons appears as a litigant before the seneschals. All of this suggests that themajor baronies of greater Anjou retained substantial judicial and perhaps substantial

6. Boussard 1938, 113-128, and Boussard 1956, 357-359. Baldwin 1986, 233-237, broadly acceptsBoussards evolutionary thesis.

7. Boussard 1938, 106.8. Boussard 1938, 109.


7/28

BETWEEN THE KING AND THE DOMINUS 141

financial independence at the same time as the Angevin seneschals were becomingmore significant symbols of royal judicial competence.

These trends would appear to present a paradox. But there are ways to reconcilethese two patterns. If one looks closely at the specific details of the legal cases resolvedby the seneschals of Anjou (and of Maine), it is apparent that almost all of thesecases involve estates, rights, and men who were directly beholden to the count-king.In other words, the seneschals tended to resolve cases brought by a tenant or vassalof the count, or by an abbey under direct comital protection; moreover, cases arguedbefore the seneschal derive almost exclusively from disputes arising from the territoryof (or neighboring) the comital fisc or fief. The seneschals never seem to have involvedthemselves in cases in which the count was not a direct tenurial protector of one or

more parties, or which involved estates or goods not clearly a part of the comital fisc.This pattern helps explain the independence of the great baronies of Anjou; since thecount had never possessed estates in these areas, his judicial competence (as expressedthrough his seneschal) was in those places minimal. In essence, then, this essay arguesthat the administrative authority and social power of the seneschals was limited ina very real way by the extent of the traditional rights and estates of the counts of

Anjou and of Maine. Such a conclusion is nevertheless a worthy corrective to someof Boussards arguments, since it reminds us that Anjou was, above all, a world ofoverlapping jurisdictions centered on fiefs, or lordships, and that belonging to one of

these fiefs defined a mans legal privileges and obligations.The rise of comital justice in the Loire Valley has been ably traced by scholarssuch as Halphen and Guillot. In short, comital administration in Anjou grew out ofthe domanial administration of voyers (vicarii) and prvts (prepositi)9. The counts ofthe eleventh century established numerous prvts in comital castles, as well as threemore important prvts in the main comital cities of Angers, Vendme, and Tours10.The latter were the progenitors of the twelfth-century seneschals of Anjou, since alreadyin the eleventh century the three superior prvts combined traditional elements ofseigneurial compulsion with a newer sense of comital authority, particularly in the

absence of the count11. The eleventh century also saw the development of comitalhousehold officers following the royal model; thus by 1085 there was a seneschal ofthe count, who was sometimes a man of castellan rank12. In the first half of the twelfthcentury these seneschals increasingly took part in judicial activities, sometimes as thepresident of the comital court; in this role they brought some of the responsibilities of

9. Halphen 1902; Halphen 1901; Boussard 1938, 131-150; Guillot 1972, 398-417.10. Guillot 1972, 404-417.11. Guillot 1972, 407, 415-417.12. Guillot 1972, 423-424.


8/28

142 RICHARD E. BARTONthe domanial prvt to their function as master of the comital household and court13.

With the meteoric expansion of Angevin territory through the absorption of Maine

in 1110 and the conquest of Normandy by 1144, the counts time and energy couldnot be as frequently spent in Anjou, and thus the seneschal came to be given moreresponsibility to run the comital administration in his absence.

The chronology of the seneschals of Anjou is also relatively well-known. Josselinde Tours is first glimpsed as seneschal in 1146 during the comital reign of Geoffrey leBel; he acted as seneschal until at least 116214. His successor was Stephen de Tours,sometimes also called Stephen de Marsay15. Stephen had previously been a royalchamberlain, and appears as seneschal for the first time around 1165 16. Althoughhe served Henry II loyally for the rest of the kings life, his fidelity to the king and,

especially, his financial exactions earned Stephen many enemies. Indeed, once hewas crowned in 1189, Richard I had Stephen arrested, stripped of his office, andonly released upon payment of an enormous ransom 17. Richard replaced Stephen perhaps only temporarily with Pagan de Rochefort, and then, in 1196, with histrusted servant, the Englishman Robert de Thornham18. Robert remained loyal to thePlantagenets until the bitter end, appearing as seneschal until at least 1202 19. But hehad competition, since Prince Arthur offered the seneschalcy to the Manceau Williamdes Roches in 119920. Williams political acumen and ability allowed him to thrive in

13. Chartrou 1929, 122-126.14. Josselin appears in acts of 1161 and 1162; see Delisle & Berger eds. 1916-1927, no 201 and

226. He is mentioned in an act of 1166 ( ibid., no 260), but this confirmation clearly post-dates the eventsdescribed in the body of the act. Some scholars have dated another act in which Josselin appears to themiddle 1160s, but the dating of the act is not at all secure: Boussard 1938, 178-179 (with commentary atibid., 114 n. 3). Josselins successor, Stephen de Tours, appears in 1165 (see infra, n. 16).

15. The charter and narrative evidence strongly suggests that Stephen de Marsay and Stephen deTours were the same man: Boussard 1938, 115 n. 2; and Delisle 1909, 459-463.

16. Stephen as royal chamberlain; Delisle & Berger eds. 1916-1927, 203. He replaced Josselin

between 1162 and 1165: id., no 200, also printed in Laurain ed. 1911-1945, I, 59-62. Laurain demonstratedconvincingly that this act must have been issued in 1165.

17. Devizes ed. Appleby 1963, 4-6 and 85; Boussard 1938, 116-117; and Gillingham 1999, 106.18. Pagan de Rochefort appears in at least five acts dated circa 1190: see Boussard 1938, 127

n. 5, Marchegay ed. 1875, no 40, and Paris, BN, Collection Housseau, no 1412. Gillingham 1999, 124,suggested that Stephen de Tours may have returned to his office in May 1190. Since evidence is scant forthe years 1190 and 1196, this supposition is entirely possible. For Robert de Thornham, see Boussard1938, 117, and Gillingham 2001, 77, 83.

19. For Robert as seneschal of Anjou, see BN ms n. a. latin 2301, no 2, and Bertrand deBroussillon ed. 1903, no 764.

20. Dubois 1869-1873; Vincent 1996, 21-26; and Everard & Jones eds. 1999, 193-194.


9/28


the unstable years after 1199, and he ended up serving as seneschal for Arthur, Johnand Philip Augustus in turn. He died in 1222 as one of the most powerful barons of

Anjou. At this point, despite having defined the duties of the seneschal more carefullythan any of his Angevin predecessors21, Philip Augustus allowed the office to becomehereditary, and it passed to the husbands of Williams daughters22.

Although clearly the most significant comital administrative officer by the1140s, the seneschals title was not yet fixed at that date; charters alternately call himdapifer and seneschal into the early 1160s 23. Furthermore, the territorial designation(of Anjou) was used only on rare occasions in the 1150s, and only with regularitybeginning in the 1170s 24. This means that through the 1150s and 1160s it was commonfor Josselin or Stephen to be called simply senescallus or senescallus regis. Only after

the great revolt of 1172-3 did the title permanently shift to senescallus andegavensis.This point is worth highlighting, for it suggests that on a symbolic level the seneschalsduties were still considered to be personal that is, connected to the kings personand household until the 1170s; only after this point did his role shift to encompassa broad territorial jurisdiction.

Yet if the evidence of the seneschals entitulature suggests that Boussard wasbroadly correct in seeing a gradual symbolic expansion of the seneschals competence,the charter evidence calls into question some of his assumptions about the scope of hisjurisdiction. In particular, Boussard ignored completely the evidence for at least one

other comparable regional administrator, the seneschal of Le Mans. Indeed, DanielPower is the only modern scholar to have commented upon this officer 25. As we shallsee, the existence of a seneschal in Le Mans from the 1140s through 1207 directlycontrasts with Angevin practice in the other great cities and regions of the Loire Valley.In Tours, which had been incorporated into Anjou proper in the 1040s, royal justice

21. Delaborde et al. eds. 1943, no 829 and 948; Baldwin 1986, 235-236.22. Baldwin 1986, 237; Nortier 1979, no 1564 and 1565.

23. Josselin de Tours was called both dapiferand seneschal. Dapifer: Cronne & Davis eds. 1968,no 1006; Delisle & Berger eds. 1916-1927, no 81, 107, 190; Boussard 1938, 120 n. 5; Marchegay ed.1854,no 320. Seneschal: Chauvin ed. 1997, no 403; Delisle & Berger eds. 1916-1927, no 224; AD de la Mayenne,H 154, f. 26v-27v; Marchegay ed. 1854, no 359 and 401; BN, Collection Housseau, no 1882; Chauvin ed.1997, no 405. Stephen de Tours was only ever called seneschal.

24. Josselin de Tours was called dapifer Andegavensis in 1159 and senescaldus Andegavensis at apoint probably in the early 1160s; see Boussard 1938, 120 n. 5, and ibid., 178-179 (dated byibid., 114 n. 3).The rest of the time he either appears simply as dapifer(or senescallus) or as dapifer regis. Stephen de Toursappears with the geographic designation andegavensis as early as 1165 (Laurain ed. 1911-1945, I, 59), butthe formula only became regular in the middle of the 1170s.

25. Power 2004, 68.


10/28

144 RICHARD E. BARTONwas administered by a prvt acting under the broader authority of the seneschal ofAnjou; we can identify Malet as prvt in the 1140s and 1150s, Nicholas in 1165, Ledet

in 1178, and Hamelin de Rorta in 120126. Angers, too, boasted prvts who actedunder the aegis of the seneschal; among them was Calo, who was either the brother orbrother-in-law of the seneschal Stephen de Tours27. Other portions of the royal/comitaldemesne in Anjou and the Touraine were governed by prvts, as at Baug, Brissac,Langeais, Loches, Loudun, Saumur, and Chinon 28, by baillis, as at Chteauneuf-sur-Sarthe 29, or even, until the 1160s, by seneschals, as at La Flche 30. These lesser judicialand administrative officers were all subordinate to the seneschal of Anjou.

But Le Mans and Maine were different. From 1146 onward a steady streamof men bearing the title seneschal or dapifer of Le Mans (or Maine) 31 appear in the

charter record32. By and large these men seem to have operated independently of theseneschals of Anjou, at least until 1204 and the ascendancy of William des Roches overthe entire region33. The list of seneschals is fairly clear. Although Le Mans possessed a

26. Boussard 1938, 195; BN, ms n. a. Latin 2301, no 3; and Salmon ed. 1854, 147. The prvtMalet was probably the same person as Malet des Roches: Delisle & Berger 1916-1927, no 129.

27. Boussard 1938, 193. For Calo, or Chalo, see id., 132 n. 8; Delisle & Berger eds. 1916-1927,

no 131, 224 and 267. Calo had a son, named Bernard, to whom King Henry gave the wardship of thebarony of Mayenne in the 1170s: AN L 970, no 537, and AN L 977, no 1254. See infra, n. 32.

28. Boussard 1938, 193-195. Boussards lists could be greatly expanded. One could cite, amongothers,Thomas de Saint-Cassiano, prvt of Chinon (Marchegay ed. 1875, no 40); Sazay, prvt of Saumur(AD Maine-et-Loire, H 2136, no 1); and Ernaldus de Rochefort, prvt of Brissac (Chauvin ed. 1997,no 403).

29. Laurain ed. 1911-1945, I, 63-64.30. The seneschals of La Flche in the first half of the twelfth century came from the family of

Clers, for which see Tonnerre 2006, 218-219 (the comments of Chartrou 1929, 101-106, are not alwaysaccurate). Geoffrey de Clers was seneschal under Count Geoffrey le Bel: Marchegay ed. 1854, no 399.

Geoffreys brother Hugh was dapiferof Baug and Lisle in 1146 (Mtais ed. 1893-1897, no 514), andwas seneschal of La Flche in the 1160s (Delisle & Berger eds. 1916-1927, no 201 and 226; Bertrand deBroussillon ed. 1903, no 762).

31. It is not clear whether the title should be read as seneschal of Maine or seneschal of LeMans, as the charters are not consistent in their Latin usage. In theory Cenomannis should refer to thecity, while Cenomannia should refer to the county. The adjective Cenomanensis could refer to either,however.

32. Power 2004, 67-70; Renoux 2006, 243 and n. 49.33. My argument differs from that of Power, who sees the seneschal of Maine as clearly under

the authority of the seneschal of Anjou (Power 2004, 67). But, as Power admits (ibid., 67-68), the bestevidence for the superiority of the seneschal of Anjou comes only after 1203.


11/28


prvt in 1133, a certain Burgundius appears as seneschal of Le Mans in 114634. By themiddle of the century, the seneschal was Pagan Mauchien. Pagan had previously served

Geoffrey le Bel, including a stint as castellan of the tower of Le Mans, before beingmade seneschal of Le Mans at some time in the 1150s or 1160s. He appears severaltimes with the title seneschal, and was one of the three men commanded by HenryII to make an inquest into the extent of the comital rights in and around Le Mans 35.

At some point in the late 1170s, probably, Pagan was replaced by John de Melna,who appears in a handful of acts from at least 1178 to some point before 118436.Between 1184 and 1189, the seneschal was Geoffrey Mauchien, probably a relative ofhis predecessor Pagan37.

Although he was replaced as seneschal in the early 1190s by Josselin dAunay,

who appears in charters dated 1192, 1192, and 1194-120038, Geoffrey Mauchienreturned to the office at some point after 1199 and probably kept it until the Capetianconquest of Le Mans in the spring of 120339. Geoffreys roller coaster career is wortha brief comment. It seems very likely that he was removed as seneschal of Le Mans

34. Renaud de Roche, prvt of Le Mans: Bertrand de Broussillon ed. 1903, n o 627 (1133).Burgundius, senescallus Cenomannis: Cronne & Davis eds. 1968, no 1006 (1146).

35. Pagan Malus Canis as custos turris Cenomannis: Cronne & Davis eds. 1968, no 1006 (1146).

Pagan as senescallus regis or senescallus Cenomannis: Delisle & Berger eds. 1916-1927, no 355 (1156-72/3);Bndictins de Solesmes eds. 1881, no 110 (c. 1170); Chdeville ed. 1968, no 91 (probably 1169, despitethe editors arguments for 1200-1203). Power 2004, 68 n. 254 (is surely correct that the queen in questionshould be seen as Eleanor, not Isabella). Pagan conducting Henry IIs inquest: Bndictins de Solesmeseds. 1881, no 252. Pagan appeared without title in acts of 1149 and 1145-87: Cronne & Davis eds. 1968,no 1005; Bndictins de Solesmes eds. 1881, no 89.

36. John de Melna, or Malna, or Maime, as seneschal: Paris, BN, Latin 17124, 174 (1178);Chdeville 1968, no 22 (sd). John is not called seneschal in Bndictins de Solesmes 1881, no 139-141 (1172-1183), but his presence in the act (alongside Stephen seneschal of Anjou and Peter fitz Guy)indicates his stature as a royal administrator in Maine. Two later acts recall decisions made while John was

seneschal: Bndictins de Solesmes eds. 1881, no 142, and Denis ed. 1894, St Martin no 2.37. Geoffrey Mauchien as seneschal: Bndictins de Solesmes eds. 1881, no 142 (1184), no 145 (c.

1185), 146 (1186), 152 (c. 1189) and 162 (prob. ante 1190); Lottin ed. 1869, no 468 (1187). The dating ofLaurain 1911-1945, II, 135, is problematic; the document is likely interpolated.

38. Josselin dAunay (de Alneto): Chdeville ed. 1968, no 146 (1192), 275 (1194-1200), and 340(1192). Geoffrey Mauchien attested two of these acts.

39. Geoffrey Mauchien as seneschal: Bndictins de Solesmes eds. 1881, no 178 (after 1195);Chdeville ed. 1968, no 320 (c. 1200-1206) and 331 (17 March 1203); Denis ed. 1894, 131-132. Althoughnot called seneschal, he presided over the curia regis at Auvers c. 1200: Bndictins de Solesmes eds. 1881,no 160. Power 2004, 68-69, offers additional evidence for Geoffreys seneschalcy during the reign of John,including receipt of letters patent from the king in May 1203.


12/28

146 RICHARD E. BARTONin 1189 or 1190 when Richard I became king; this hypothesis would fit well with thecharter evidence and with what we know of Richards antipathy towards his fathers

men. Richard seems, at least initially, to have wanted to make a complete break withthe entrenched Angevin and Manceau administrative class. Yet as someone with deeplocal ties in Le Mans, Geoffrey remained influential even during his eclipse 40, and

was a natural candidate to return as seneschal, perhaps at the same time that Arthurmade William des Roches his seneschal for Anjou. Geoffrey appeared in an early actof Arthurs (April 1199), albeit without title, and was still described as seneschal in anact of March 1203, only months before the final Capetian conquest of the region 41.

The evidence is thus clear that Le Mans boasted a locally coherent administrativeclique, one probably linked by kinship. The question, however, is whether the seneschals

of Le Mans operated independently of the seneschal of Anjou. Most scholars, notingthat the Angevins never used the title count of Maine and that Maine seems tohave been absorbed into greater Anjou from the 1140s, have assumed that theseneschals of Anjou therefore enjoyed jurisdiction over Le Mans and its pagus42. Thereis naturally some evidence to warrant this assumption. For one, it is absolutely clearthat the seneschal of Anjou was a far more important figure than any of the seneschalsof Le Mans; Stephen de Tours, for instance, seems to have been one of Henry IIsprinciple advisors, at least in France. Stephen is found at the kings side wheneverand wherever the king travelled in Anjou, Maine or the Touraine; in addition, he

occasionally accompanied the king to Normandy, England, or Aquitaine43. Noneof the seneschals of Le Mans can be found outside of Maine, and none were royalfamiliares. Second, the seneschals of Anjou can on occasion be glimpsed acting in thekings name in Maine, although less often in Le Mans itself. For instance, Stephende Tours took a more important role than Pagan Mauchien in the inquest held at theroyal command at Mayet to resolve the simmering dispute over the status of the fief ofHugh de Semur44. The dispute centered on whether or not the church of Ponvallain

was part of the royal demesne in Maine. At the inquest, Stephen de Tours, seneschal of

40. Although not described as seneschal, Geoffrey Mauchien received the oaths of the warrantorsto a newly settled dispute: Bndictins de Solesmes eds. 1881, no 153 (Pentecost, 1190). His appearancesin ibid., no 155, 156 and 162 probably came at about the same time. He appeared as witness in two actsof Josselin, seneschal of Le Mans (supra, n. 38). Geoffrey also appeared in an early act of Prince Arthurgiven in Le Mans, although not as seneschal: Everard 1999, no A11 (April 1199). Geoffrey possessed someproperty around Le Mans: Chdeville ed. 1968, no 82.

41. Chdeville ed. 1968, no 331; Powicke 1960, 159 and note 196.42. Boussard 1938; Baldwin 1986, 233-237; Power 2004, 66-71.43. Vincent 2007, 289, 296-297.44. Delisle & Berger eds. 1916-1927, no 580; Bndictins de Solesmes eds. 1881, no 139-141.


13/28


Anjou, and Peter fitz Guy45 were the most important local figures; indeed, they issuedcharters of protection for the abbey of La Couture at the end of the inquest. Although

present, Pagan Mauchien played only a minor role in the process. Similarly, it wasStephen de Tours whom King Henry ordered to resolve a dispute between HamelindAnthenaise and the monks of Marmoutier concerning wine presses at Boure46. Theseneschal of Le Mans was utterly absent from these proceedings. Other examples couldbe adduced47, but it seems clear that at least in some areas of Maine, the seneschalof Anjou was expected to oversee royal interests. Indeed, when Henry II attemptedto extend royal influence in the powerful Manceau lordship of Mayenne during aminority, he turned to Stephen de Tours, and not to the Mauchien clan 48. It wasBernard son of Calo, Stephens nephew, who appears in Savigny charters as seneschal

and custos of Mayenne 49. Finally, as we shall see, evidence from the period after 1204shows that the seneschal of Anjou had complete authority over most of Maine. It ispossible, then, that Philip Augustus merely retained the same system that the Angevinshad employed; if so, then one might conclude that the Angevin seneschals had alsopossessed jurisdiction over all of Maine. Given the palpably greater importance of theseneschals of Anjou and the evidence just adduced, it might thus be tempting to viewthe seneschals of Le Mans as simple deputies of their counterparts to the south, muchlike the prvts of Angers or Tours.

And yet there is some evidence to believe that the seneschals of Le Mans may

have enjoyed a greater degree of independence than the prvts of Tours or Angers.The fact that there were seneschals, and not prvts, in Le Mans is significant in and of

45. Peter served Henry II in Maine and Anjou in the 1160s, perhaps as an assistant to theseneschal Stephen de Tours. Peter was one of the seneschals of the Young King Henrys household inthe 1170s. Although the acta are hard to date with certainty, it seems possible that Peter was added to the

Young Kings household after the rebellion of 1172, perhaps because of his long service to the Old King.For Peters attestations, often in the company of Stephen de Tours, see Delisle & Berger eds. 1916-1927,no 352, 354, 503, 519, 539, 573, 581, 618, 630, 655, 736, 749, and 766. For Peter in the young Kings

household, Turner 2000, 53, and Smith 2001, 300. Peter returned to Le Mans after the Young Kingsdeath in 1183: Lottin ed. 1869, no 468; Bndictins de Solesmes eds. 1881, no 153. Along with PaganMauchien, Peter was one of the men who conducted Henry IIs inquest into comital rights in Le Mans,probably between 1154 and 1178; id., no 252.

46. Delisle & Berger eds. 1916-1927, no 199-200.47. Bndictins de Solesmes eds. 1881, no 134; Lottin ed. 1869, no 468.48. Two other Mauchiens Warin and Ralph appear in the 1190s and 1200s: Chdeville ed.

1968, no 146. Neither seems to have held office. I have not been able to demonstrate kinship betweenany of the individuals who shared this cognomen. For still more Mauchiens, see Bndictins de Solesmeseds. 1881, no 237.

49. Power 2004, 70-71.


14/28

148 RICHARD E. BARTONitself. There were also other officers in Le Mans, including a custos of the donjon; thissuggests that the seneschal may have had supervisory authority that the prvts to the

south lacked50. An important writ from the king to the Manceau baron William de Sillis also revelatory. The king commanded William to defend the rights of the canons ofLa Cour and concluded by saying unless you do this, Pagan my seneschal will 51. Theseneschal in question is clearly Pagan Mauchien. What the writ suggests, moreover,is that the king communicated directly with his seneschal in Le Mans, without themediation of the seneschal of Anjou. This might then lead us to conclude that theseneschal of Le Mans enjoyed an independent status. One might also note that thefirst explicit evidence that the seneschal of Anjous jurisdiction included Le Mans onlycame in 119952, and that Philip Augustus decision in 1204 to allow Queen Berengaria

to establish her own seneschal in Le Mans looks much like a reversion to previouspractice53. Finally, it is the case that the best evidence for the intervention of Stephende Tours in Maine comes not in Le Mans, but in specific parts of the countrysideand in specific periods of Henry IIs reign. As we shall see below, Stephens actionsin Maine are found primarily in areas where the king either had major estates (atPonvallain) or where litigants estates fell under explicit royal protection (at Boure).One might conclude that the seneschal of Le Mans had jurisdiction in the city, whilethe seneschal of Anjou operated when he could in the rest of the county. It is alsotrue that the best evidence for Stephens activity in Maine comes in the 1170s and

1180s, at a time when his own role was expanding and when the loyalties of Le Mansand the Manceau barons were called into question. Given that Stephen had a militaryrole that the seneschals of Le Mans never possessed, it might not be surprising to seeStephens role expand perhaps temporarily during the struggles of the middle1170s and the late 1180s.

In the final analysis it is difficult to follow Boussard and others in concludingthat the seneschals of Anjou had always possessed jurisdiction over Le Mans. While thegreater wealth and strategic significance of the Loire Valley meant that the seneschalsof Anjou would always possess a greater geo-political importance to the Angevin realm,

it seems that for much of the second half of the twelfth century the seneschals of LeMans enjoyed a fair degree of independence in Le Mans itself.The Capetian conquest of Normandy, Maine, and Anjou wrought important

changes to the administrative structure of the region. Most significantly, it led to the

50. Pagan Mauchien was custos in 1146: Cronne & Davis eds. 1968, no 1006. Peter fitz Guy wascustos in 1165: Delisle & Berger eds. 1916-1927, no 199.

51. Id., no 355.52. Delaborde et al. eds. 1943, no 607.53. Id. no 840-841; infra, notes 54-56.


15/28


end of the seneschals of Le Mans. The causes of this demise are twofold. First, a newfigure had emerged as the focus of royal interests in both Angers and Maine. This was

William des Roches, whose famous shifting loyalties between 1199 and 1203 havetended to obscure the remarkable fact that he was perceived by all of the princes Arthur, John, and Philip Augustus as the only candidate for royal administrationin both Anjou and Maine 54. All three princes turned to William, whose apparentcharisma was bolstered by his considerable resources as lord of Sabl by marriage.

William was a different sort of seneschal than Stephen de Tours, who, although clearlya trusted administrator, was not really of baronial rank. Despite his modest knightlybackground, Williams marriage made him an equal of the other great barons of theregion. As seneschal, then, William combined royal trust and administrative ability

with an independent seigneurial power base in southern Maine and northern Anjou.In finalizing the nature of Williams seneschalship between 1204 and 1207 andparticularly in allowing it to become hereditary Philip Augustus had consciouslyaltered the nature of the seneschalship; from royal servant for whom the seneschalcyitself was the sole source of power, the seneschal had become a baron for whom theseneschalcy was only one component of his regional importance. The seigneurializationof the seneschalcy, when combined with Williams tenurial interests in both Anjouand Maine, seems therefore to have meant the end of the independent seneschal of LeMans. The latter city would henceforth be governed by baillis working under Williams

broad regional jurisdiction, or, as we shall see, by the private administrators of the ladyof Le Mans.The second reason for the demise of the seneschal of Le Mans is the fact that

Philip Augustus alienated Le Mans from the royal demesne in early autumn 1204,an action which clearly obviated the need for a separate seneschal for Le Mans. Atthat time Philip exchanged his rights in and around Le Mans for a set of Normancastles which Berengaria, widow of Richard I, had received as her marriage portion55.The exchange led to a conflict between William des Roches and Berengaria, each of

whom claimed and desired lordship in Le Mans. King Philip was forced to negotiate a

second settlement in which Berengaria gave William her rights in the Manceau castleof Chteau-du-Loir and William in turn surrendered the seneschalcy of Le Mans toher56. Berengaria lived in Le Mans for the rest of her life and ruled the city as count 57.

54. Baldwin 1986, 234-237; Vincent 1996, 21-26.55. Berengaria received Le Mans in return for her castles of Falaise, Domfront and Bonneville-

sur-Tocques: Delaborde et al. eds. 1943, no 837; Baldwin 1986, 249; Trindade 1999, 144-149.56. Delaborde et al. eds. 1943, no 840 and 841; and Baldwin 1986, 235 n. 66.57. . For Berengaria exercising lordship in Le Mans, see Menjot dElbenne eds. 1904-1907,

no 39.


16/28

150 RICHARD E. BARTONGiven her lordship over the city, it is necessary to see Herbert de Tuss, who appearsonce as seneschal of Le Mans in 1207 and several other times as a witness until 1218, as

Berengarias man58. This was certainly the case with Simon Lancelin, who was explicitlydescribed in 1207 as Berengarias castellan in charge of the citadel of Le Mans 59. Simonwas an old hand in Le Mans, since when he was called as a witness during the 1217inquest into comital rights in Le Mans, he was able to provide first hand evidenceabout the previous inquest into this subject, held some fifty years previously duringthe reign of Henry II 60. In setting up her own seigneurial administration over the city,Berengaria thus recognized the value in employing men familiar with the local politicsof Le Mans. Indeed, Geoffrey Mauchien was still alive and active in Manceau affairs,although clearly not in his former role; in 1204, for instance, Geoffrey assisted Herbert

de Tuss in resolving a local dispute, and in 1208 Geoffrey acted as royal bailli in thecity61.Yet if Berengarias lordship meant the end of the royal seneschal of Le Mans,

King Philip did not surrender all jurisdiction over the region. Royal interests weresafeguarded by William des Roches, the seneschal of Anjou, and by baillis delegated by

William62. As we have seen, William was quite active in judicial and tenurial businessin and around Le Mans even after 1204 63. One charter demonstrates the extent ofhis ability to compel men to appear before the royal curia, albeit in castles outside ofLe Mans proper64. The act in question was issued c. 1210 by one of Williams trusted

men, Hamelin de Roorta65, who stated explicitly that he was acting in the names ofthe king and the seneschal of Anjou. In it Hamelin ordered two men to proceed toDangeul, seize the castle and its lord, and publish bans against the lords brother for

58. Herbert as seneschal: Chdeville ed. 1968, no 96. Herbert acting without title in chartersconcerning Le Mans: Chdeville ed. 1968, no 82 and 321; Bndictins de Solesmes eds. 1881, no 224 and252; Paris, BN, Latin 17124, 178. Trindade 1999, 146, 148-149, also identifies Herbert as Berengariasseneschal.

59. Chdeville ed. 1968, no 96.60. Bndictins de Solesmes eds. 1881, no 252. Simon Lancelin provided sworn testimony

concerning the inquest into comital rights held in the time of King Henry.61. Bertrand de Broussillon ed. 1895, no 47; Baldwin 1986, 236 n. 73. See also: Port ed. 1870,

no 41, 51 and 68; BN, Latin 17124, f. 101.62. King Philip had authorized William des Roches to create baillis wherever needed in his

seneschalcy: Delaborde et al. eds. 1943, no 838, and Baldwin 1986, 236.63. Dubois ed. 1869-1873. For example, Philip Augustus ordered William to conduct an inquest

into William de Jaills tenurial claims in Maine: Lottin ed. 1869, no 54, 55, 654 and 693.64. Chdeville ed. 1968, no 352.65. Supra, n. 26; Baldwin 1986, 236.


17/28


violence inflicted against royal property. Hamelin also ordered his agents to summonthe lord, Robert of Dangeul, to appear at Saumur ready to answer these charges before

William des Roches. It should be noted that the same Hamelin de Roorta continuedto act as bailli of the king and of the seneschal of Anjou in Maine until at least 1211,and probably after66. The evidence thus suggests a sort of power-sharing arrangementin Le Mans in the early decades of the thirteenth century. Berengaria was the titularlord of the city, with (probably) a seneschal and her own warden of the citadel of LeMans. As such, she and her officers interfaced with the older Manceau administratorssuch as Geoffrey Mauchien to provide one source of justice and lordship in the cityand its immediate environment. Yet another pole of authority existed at the samemoment in the form of William des Roches and his baillis, who acted to protect the

remaining royal interests in Le Mans and in the royal castles in the wider county.The previous paragraphs have suggested that the structure of Angevin (andCapetian) administration in Anjou and Maine was more fluid than Boussard hadallowed. Indeed, they have suggested that for at least part of the reign of Henry II,the seneschals of Anjou did not enjoy full jurisdiction over the city of Le Mans.But from these issues of structure it is now necessary to examine the nature of theseneschals authority. How far did that authority extend, and how efficacious was it?The remainder of this essay will consider three points in an effort to address thesequestions: first, the degree to which the greater barons of Anjou participated in royal

administration; second, the range of locations within Anjou and Maine where theseneschals writ held sway; and third, the degree to which the curia regis was able tocompel and constrain men to appear before it.

It is broadly clear that the major barons of Anjou, whether Angevin, Manceauor Tourangeau, played only a limited role in the politics and administration of the

Angevin Empire. Despite Boussards comment that the Angevin barons frequentlyattested Henry IIs charters and were often at his court67, a systematic examination ofHenrys acta suggests otherwise68. Indeed, even given Bates warnings concerning theuse of charter attestations 69, the pattern of attestation by Angevins is revelatory. It is

significant that of the major Angevin and Manceau barons, only Maurice de Craonappears more than a handful of times70. Indeed, the counts of Vendme, the vicomtesof Maine, and the lords of Sabl, Chteau-Gontier, Laval, Montreuil-Bellay, Mayenneand Sainte-Maure attest royal acta so infrequently that they do not even appear on

66. Chdeville ed. 1968, no 289, 290, 321. See also Bndictins de Solesmes eds. 1881, no 224.67. Boussard 1938, 104.68. Tonnerre 2006, 215-216; Vincent 2007, 288-291 and 296.69. Bates 1997, 89-102.70. Tonnerre 2006, 217; Vincent 2007, 290.


18/28

152 RICHARD E. BARTONNicholas Vincents recent table of frequent attestors 71. While other patterns can bedrawn from this evidence, including the fact that attestations by Angevins clump

together at the beginning and end of the reign 72, the point is still clear. Aside fromMaurice de Craon, none of the important barons of Anjou or Maine attended theking when he was in the West.

The reason for the absence of the great barons from the royal charters andcourts is to be explained partly by the kings absence from Anjou73, partly by thetradition of independence that many of these baronies had possessed over manydecades74, and partly by the absence of comital demesne in certain parts of greater

Anjou. Clearly the last two points are linked, since the rise of mostly independentbaronies was only possible in the absence of significant comital demesne lands. Thus,

it is worth noting that the baronies of Laval and Mayenne, the two greatest lordshipsof western Maine, were independent of the counts of Maine from at least the 1050s 75.That is not to say that they refused to recognize powerful counts when needed, forthey certainly did. But it is to say that because of the early decline in the authorityof the Manceau comital dynasty, these baronies were able to develop in ways thatunderscored their practical independence from the Plantagenet count-kings. It istherefore not particularly surprising that the lords of neither barony appear in the actsof Henry II. While other important baronies such as Sabl and Craon may havehad traditionally closer connections with the Angevin comital dynasty,76 their special

ties were loosened as the Angevin counts accumulated more and more territory in thetwelfth century.It is also worth pointing out that neither the counts of Maine in the eleventh

century nor the counts of Anjou in the twelfth century had any demesne lands inwestern Maine, nor in western Anjou, nor much of anything in the eastern Touraine77.The comital demesne was limited to very specific regions, namely, in Anjou, the valleyof the Loire between Angers and Saumur and the valley of the Sarthe from Angersto Chteauneuf; in Maine, the city of Le Mans and the valley of the Loir from LaFlche to Chteau-du-Loir; in the Touraine, the city of Tours, the Chinonais, Loches,

71. Vincent 2007, 289-291.72. Tonnerre 2006, 215-216.73. Tonnerre 2006, 212-216.74. Aurell 2003, 216; Gillingham 2001, 51; Baldwin 1986, 233.75. For the decline of the comital dynasty of Maine, see Pichot 1995; Lemesle 1999; and Barton

2004. For the great lordships of the Bas-Maine, see Pichot 1994; Renoux 2000.76. On the traditionally close relationship between the lords of Sabl and the counts of Anjou,

see Jessee 2000.77. Boussard 1938, 15-22.


19/28


Montbazon, and a variety of lesser properties. This meant that the places over which thecount-king could claim direct seigneurial jurisdiction were concentrated in a limited

area. These areas were wealthy, and strategically centered, but relatively limited in theirgeographic distribution78. The lack of comital estates was particularly profound inMaine, where first Henry II and then Philip Augustus held inquests to determine

what were the traditional comital rights in Le Mans. The record of Philips inquestsurvives, and includes testimony from men who had participated in the prior inquestconducted by Henry II. Both inquests confirm the impression left by the charters thatthe counts rights were limited to the city and its suburbs79.

The geographic dispersal of the comital demesne correlates well with thedistribution of locations where the seneschals of Anjou operated. Despite Boussards

assumptions about their broad competency, the evidence reveals that the seneschalstended to operate primarily in and around the areas of comital demesne. The mostnotable of these domains were the major towns of the county, Le Mans, Angers, andTours; as a result, it is not surprising that the curia regis, as led by one of the seneschalsor a deputy, was often found sitting in one of these three towns. In a well-known case,Malet the prvt of Tours and the curia regis listened to the dispute between RenaudEspeudri and the monks of Marmoutier concerning Foncher 80. In this case, Maletscompetence was not merely a function of royal authority, but derived from the monksargument in the case: they argued that they held Foncher from the gift of previous

counts of Anjou. As a result, it was right that the current count, Henry II, defend thegifts of his ancestors; the place for such a defense was the curia regis. In a case from theearly 1160s, the seneschal Josselin de Tours presided in Angers over an accord formedbetween the nuns of Fontevraud and the men of Angers concerning customs at Pont-de-C81. In this act, Josselin stated that he put an end to the dispute at the directcommand of Henry II, who himself had rights at Pont-de-C 82. Because the litigants

78. On the difficulty of gauging royal revenues in Anjou, see Baldwin 1986, 236 and 241. On

the division of income from the royal demesne between the king and William des Roches, see ibid., 236;Delaborde et al. eds. 1943, no 829 and 838.

79. For Philip Augustus inquest of 1217, see Bndictins de Solesmes eds. 1881, no 252. Thetext describes a previous inquest undertaken by King Henry between (probably) 1154 and 1178. KingPhilip ordered a similar inquest to determine the extent of the comital demesne in Beaufort-en-Valle,just outside Angers; Boussard 1938, p.j. no 12.

80. Three accounts of the case exist: that of Henry II (Delisle & Berger eds. 1916-1927, no 190 );of Malet the prvt (AD dIndre-et-Loir, H 270, non-cot; published from a later copy in Delisle & Bergereds. 1916-1927, 322 n. 1); and of the monks of Marmoutier (Boussard 1938, p.j. no 5).

81. Delisle & Berger eds. 1916-1927, no 224.82. For Angevin comital rights at Pont-de-C, see Boussard 1938, 16 and n. 10.


20/28

154 RICHARD E. BARTONcame from areas within the comital demesne, the curia regis in Angers was the naturalplace to resolve this dispute83. In another case from some point before 1172/3, Henry

II commanded the Manceau baron William de Sill to cause a priest to restore goodsto the comital chapel of Saint-Pierre-de-la-Cour, saying that he did not want the canonsto plead anywhere save in the curia regis; the king closed by noting that if Williamdidnt make this happen, Henrys seneschal, Pagan Mauchien, would84. In this act,Henry asserted that the canons possessed the land in question, at Roz in Sarg,from his own alms. Roz lay within the quinte of Le Mans, and thus fell under thejurisdiction of the count of Le Mans and his seneschal for Le Mans. The link betweenthe competency of the curia regis and the specific geographic location of the goodsin question is seen in two more cases from the early thirteenth century. In an act of

William des Roches given at Angers, William settled a dispute between the nuns ofle Ronceray and the Hospitallers of Angers concerning possession of an alms-housein Angers85; not only was the disputed property located within a prominent comitaldemesne, the house had also been built by Stephen de Tours, the former seneschalof Anjou. Here again, the curia regis in Angers possessed clear jurisdiction over thecase. Finally, in a case settled before 1204 concerning land and a taille at Rouillon,

within the quinte of Le Mans, the seneschal of Le Mans, Geoffrey Mauchien, firstdescribed a previous dispute about this property which had been settled by a previousseneschal of Le Mans, and then, with the curia regis, settled the problem anew86.

Both the precedent of a previous decision by a seneschal of Le Mans and the locationof the land within the quinte of Le Mans combined to bring this dispute before therepresentative of royal administration.

The sites at which comital administration took place were thus, not surprisingly,part of the comital demesne, and the goods discussed in the curia regis almost alwayspertained to the counts fisc. If this is true, we must turn next to two related questions:

whether the seneschals were able to compel men from outside the comital demesneto attend the comital court, and, if they could, whether they could compel men ofbaronial rank to attend the curia regis. Such a power, if it existed, would be the true

measure of the extension of a monarchical, absolute power of the sort which Boussardimagined. The evidence from the first part of the reign of Henry II (to 1174), asBoussard himself admitted, does not suggest that the seneschals of Anjou Josselin deTours and Stephen de Tours were in a position to compel men of any status to attend

83. For a similar kind of case, see Boussard 1938, p.j. no 6.84. Delisle & Berger eds. 1916-1927, no 355. See also Menjot dElbenne ed. 1904-1907, no 21.85. Boussard 1938, p.j. no 10.86. Denis ed. 1894, 131-132.


21/28


their courts87. Instead, they relied on a direct command from the king to initiate ajudicial proceeding. Thus, if a litigant could not reach the count-king and convince

him to command the seneschal to act, there was little likelihood that the comitalcourt would take action. This was the case when Josselin settled a dispute betweenthe nuns of le Ronceray and Nivard, when Josselin judged the dispute between thenuns of Fontevraud and the men of Angers, and when Stephen de Tours attemptedto settle the dispute between Marmoutier and Hamelin dAnthenaise 88. Similarly,in the charter narrating their dispute with Renaud Espeudri a dispute which wassettled before Malet the prvt in Tours the monks of Marmoutier make it very clearthat they had to seek out King Henry before the case would be heard by the comitalcourt89.

Yet just because the seneschal or his men had to wait for the count-king to initiatelegal action does not mean that the seneschal was without any coercive authority.Indeed, Henry II could himself occasionally summon a great baron to court, as inthe case of Bellay de Montreuil-Bellay, whom Henry summoned to Tours between1156 and 1159 to answer concerning the tithes of Mron90. While this summonsundoubtedly reflects Henrys power as lord, it is also significant that the summons

was issued not out of any concept of universal jurisdiction, but because this issue hadalready been settled by a previous count of Anjou and because, as a result, the landsof Mron were under special comital protection. In essence, Bellay had offended the

count-king as much as the monks, and it was therefore incumbent upon the king tosummon this important baron to answer for those injuries.In at least two cases, the seneschal of Anjou can be seen commanding men to

appear before him. Both are well known, and worthy of more extended analysis. Thefirst occurred before 1162, when Aimery de Toureil disputed possession of the churchof Vaux with the canons of La Ro91. After the canons clamor to Bishop Matthew of

Angers did not produce results, they sought the aid of Josselin de Tours. The seneschalmandavit Aimery to him and commanded him to make right with the canons. Thejudges did not directly claim judicial competence in the case, but did state that Aimery

should not touch those things which had been given to La Ro, since, as they said, allof the alms of La Ro lay in the hand of the king92. The case is important, if only for

87. Boussard 1938, 117-121.88. Boussard 1938, 118 and n. 3; ibid. 119-120, and Delisle & Berger eds. 1916-1927, no 224;

ibid., no 199-200.89. AD dIndre-et-Loir, H 270, non-cot; Boussard 1938, p.j. no 5.90. Delisle & Berger eds. 1916-1927, no 11891. AD de la Mayenne, H 154, f. 26v-27v (portions printed by Boussard 1938, p.j. no 4).92. Id., f. 27r.


22/28

156 RICHARD E. BARTONdemonstrating how the seneschal could summon an aristocrat to court and imposea judgment on him. And yet it is also true that the seneschal did not initiate the

summons; he did so only at the request of Abbot Michael. Moreover, the rationale forthe seneschals decision lay not in his claim to a generic judicial authority, but ratherin the fact that La Ros lands and rights had been previously granted the status ofroyal demesne, at least in terms of judicial protection. For this reason, any complaintcould be rightfully taken up by the curia regis. The second notable case of a seneschalsummoning an aristocrat to the curia regis derives from the dispute between HamelindAnthenaise and Marmoutier over the wine-press of Boure93. It is not necessaryto summarize the entire case, merely to point out that Hamelin refused to heed oreven acknowledge repeated summonses issued by Stephen de Tours. At one point,

frustrated by this impasse, Stephen dissembled due to Hamelins nobility, therebyacting less than justly to the monks94. The monks complained to the king, who angrilyordered Stephen to take up the case again. But Hamelin refused all summons, evena final one instigated by one of the important barons of the region, Robert de Sabl.Ultimately the curia regis judged him in absentia, after the entire court argued hisside against the monks. The monks produced witnesses to show possession over sixty

years, and the seneschals servants swore that they had delivered the summonses; thecourt finally judged the vines and press to belong to Marmoutier. Among the judges

were the lords of Sabl, Craon, and Chteau-Gontier. Ultimately Henry II confirmed

the courts decision in a charter prompted in part, he said, by the wishes of HamelindAnthenaise95. We also possess Hamelins concession, made not before the curiaregis, but before Bishop William of Le Mans at Solesmes96. In this document Hamelinstates that he has been made aware by the testimony of many that his ancestors hadgiven lands and rights at Boure; he also acknowledges that he had acted unjustly inmaking his own press at Boure, just as the curia regis had pronounced. Thus, while itis worth noting that Hamelin never seems to have come to the curia regis, ultimatelyhe accepted the judgment rendered by three of the most powerful lords of the regionin a court presided over by the seneschal of Anjou.

This is an important case, made well-known by the richness of its narrativedescription, by the legal concepts embodied in it, and by the identity of theparticipants97. Bruno Lemesle has offered an important new reading of this dispute,

93. Laurain ed. 1911-1945, I, 59-66 (portions edited by Delisle & Berger eds. 1916-1927, no 333-334).

94. Laurain ed. 1911-1945, I, 59-62.95. Id., I, 63-64.96. Id., I, 64.97. Commentary by Boussard 1938, 121-122; Lemesle 2003, 138-143; Barton 2004, 213-218.


23/28


in which he emphasizes the growing ability of the curia regis to constrain 98. In thismatter, Lemesle is undoubtedly correct. One of the lessons of this case is the ability

of the curia regis to finally, by hook or crook, effect the settlement desired by theking. If the case also shows that the court might have to work to overcome aristocraticresentment and, perhaps, solidarity99, it does bear witness, in the end, to the courtstriumph. But we should note some complicating factors. First, the court did not claimjurisdiction over Hamelin in any absolute sense; the only reason why it intervened

was because Henry II had claimed a seigneurial, patriarchal authority over the monksliving at Boure. Indeed, in his notification he states that he has taken all the monkspossessions, and particularly those at Boure, into his hand, as if they were his owndemesne possessions100. In this sense, even if Hamelin didnt agree, the curia regis was

operating to defend the property and interests of its lord, King Henry. Second, it issignificant that the curia regis was filled with great barons, men whose fiefs abutted thatof Hamelin dAnthenaise, and men to whom he owed respect, if not outright service.Given their presence, this judgment still retains much of the flavor of a negotiatedsettlement in which the personal and tenurial relationships of the participants shapedthe course and the outcome of the dispute.

The evidence for the ability of the seneschal to compel men to appear beforehim, and particular to compel men of baronial rank, is thus mixed. The king couldand did summon barons. So, too, did the seneschal. There is clearly power in such

summoning, whether it lay in the coercive force of the kings financial and militaryresources, or in a a more social pressure enforced by kin, neighbors and lords. Andyet that power was not truly sovereign, at least not in the way implied by Boussard, forthere were large parts of the county where the count had little in the way of demesneand, consequently, over which the comital administration was either unwilling orunable to extend its arm.

What of the period after 1174, which Boussard saw as reflecting a new confidenceand authority in the seneschalcy and its legal decisions? It is difficult to gauge. For one,the style of documentation changes during the second half of the twelfth century,

from one which embraced detailed narratives and frequently included statementsabout motives and behaviors, to one which favored concise statements of legal claim

98. Lemesle 2003, 141-142.99. Lemesle does not interpret Hamelins actions as stemming from aristocratic disdain either

for Stephen (as a curialis) or the comital court; rather, he interprets Hamelins intransigence as proof of aconservative lack of trust in a new phenomenon, namely the notion that a delegate (the seneschal) couldjudge him in the place of his lord (Lemesle 2003, 142). These two poles of interpretation do not seemmutually opposed, however.

100. Laurain ed. 1911-1945, I, 63-4.


24/28

158 RICHARD E. BARTONand decision101. The texts are thus less likely to include details of the sort found inthe accounts of Aimery de Toureil and Hamelin dAnthenaise. But if the texts are

less forthcoming, they are more numerous, especially after 1199. King Henry himselfrendered a judgment between 1172 and 1183 at which the seneschal was present 102,and we find the seneschal Pagan de Rochefort settling a dispute concerning rights atSaumur in 1190, the seneschal William des Roches settling disputes over goods andrights in Tours and Angers in 1199-1200, and the deputies of Robert de Thornhamresolving a dispute at Loches in 1201103. We have already seen, moreover, the seneschalof Le Mans judging disputes involving affairs in the quinte of Le Mans. In all of thesecases the matter debated was purely local, concerning either the royal demesne itselfor men or abbeys which fell under direct comital authority. In none of them did the

king or seneschal summon a major baron to answer under the mantle of a broaderjurisdiction.If the comital courts, while active, were still largely concerned with affairs directly

pertaining to the comital demesne, it is equally true that a large number of alternativecourts were busily exerting jurisdiction through active resolution of disputes. It isnot necessary to say much about the prominence of church courts, especially after1180 and especially after the appearance of the bishops official. Needless to say thebishops of Le Mans and Angers and their representatives were as busy as the curiaregis104. Secular lords, too, held courts in which matters germane to their fiefs were

heard and settled. The charters of Savigny bear witness to the active court of the lordsof Mayenne105, just as the records of the priory of Vivoin and of the monastery ofChampagne demonstrate the active courts of the vicomtes of Maine and the lords of

Ass-le-Riboul106. Typical is a case heard by Robert, the son of count John dAlenonbetween 1188 and 1203; Robert brokered a compromise and peace between themonks of Saint-Vincent and Pagan de Dive because the lands in question fell withinhis jurisdiction107. These baronial courts were sometimes operated by seigneurialseneschals. One of the most active in Maine was Jordan Cortaruel, seneschal for the

101. Barthlemy 1997.102. Delisle & Berger eds. 1916-1927, no 580. For another example, see Id., no 730.103. Pagan de Rochefort at Saumur, Marchegay ed. 1875, no 40. William des Roches at Tours,

Boussard 1938, p.j. no 9; and at Angers, Boussard 1938, p.j. no 10. Robert de Thornhams men at Loches,Paris, BN, n.Latin 2301, no 2.

104. For instance, Chdeville ed. 1968, no 53, 57, 62, 65, 67, 119, and 73. The growth ofecclesiastical courts in Maine and Anjou is a topic worthy of further study.

105. AN L 974, no 851; AN L 967, no 100. See also BN, ms latin 17125, f. 48r and f. 49r.106. Vivoin: Denis ed. 1894, no 57. Champagne: BN, ms latin 17125, f. 11v and f. 34r.107. Chdeville ed. 1968, no 85.


25/28


lordship of Sill108; one act notes clearly that Jordans lord had sent him to Beron tohear and settle a dispute in the lords name109.

Not only were the seneschals often unable or unwilling to interfere in seigneurialjustice in a general sense, they did not necessarily pursue all crimes which fell intothe category of High Justice. The case of the murder of Geoffrey Belvant, abbot ofLa Couture, is instructive110. The only record of this serious offense is a charter ofconcord established between the murderer, Hamelin of La Feigne, and the subsequentabbot of La Couture several years after the murder. In the charter Hamelin admittedto his actions, and gave the monks a perpetual cens of 10 s. as well as the right to take

wood in his forest. In return, the abbot and monks, in as much as it belonged to themto do so, absolved Hamelin of wrong in the murder. Although the charter hints that

it might belong to some other authority to absolve Hamelin fully of his crime, we haveno extant record that the secular authorities intervened in this case. This case is notunique. In another, Pagan de Sourches, a mid-level baron from Maine, was widelysuspected of killing a monk of La Couture. While he pled innocent, he acknowledgedthat the murder had occurred in his lands and therefore thought it wise to offersubstantial gifts to La Couture 111. The episode is known only from a confirmationissued by Bishop William of Le Mans; to our knowledge the curia regis never becameinvolved112. These cases should not be taken to mean that royal officials could not takepreventive actions in the case of crime, for they certainly did. Indeed, we have seen

that around 1210 Hamelin Roorta, bailli of Le Mans, took direct and foreceful actionin response to violence done to the kings property near Dangeul113. Clearly the royalofficers had coercive power. The point is that their power was not comprehensive anduniversal. Instead, the seneschals willingness to intervene depended on a host of localcircumstances, not least whether the case was connected to the comital demesne andthe men living in it.

In conclusion, this essay has offered a new reading of the role of the seneschalsof Anjou and Maine. The seneschals acting largely in and around the centers of comitaldemesne in greater Anjou: the three main towns, the castles of the Touraine, the

valleys of the Loir, Sarthe, and Loire, and so forth. While clearly boasting expanded

108. BN, ms latin 17125, f. 25r, 52r. Jordan possessed his own seal: AD de la Sarthe, H 754,n 330.

109. Bndictins de Solesmes eds. 1881, no 152.110. Id., no 246. The murder probably occurred around 1208, although the exact date is not

clear.111. Id., 82.112. For a similar case from Normandy, see Delisle & Berger eds. 1916-1927, no 162 and 194.113. Chdeville ed. 1968, no 352.


26/28

160 RICHARD E. BARTONindependence of action and more sophisticated judicial techniques and authority,the seneschals were nonetheless stymied by the geographic distribution of lordship

in greater Anjou. They were effective where the king was a lord, or where he couldclaim a kind of overlordship, particularly over ecclesiastical institutions. They wereineffective indeed, invisible in those substantial sections of Anjou and Maine

where the great barons lordships lay and, by implication, where the count-king had nodemesne. This reading of the judicial and administrative evolution of greater Anjou inthe twelfth century differs from that of Boussard not so much in what happened butin how we should interpet what happened. After all, his account of the developmentof the institutions of justice particularly of the seneschalcy remains unmatched.

Yet elements of his narrative require rethinking. For one, his assumption that the

seneschals of Anjou enjoyed jurisdiction over Maine ignores the role of the seneschalsof Le Mans. His claim that the seneschals of Anjou could effectively coerce the baronsof the region after c. 1175 also inspires less confidence. And finally, his argument fora shift in mentality of power, in which feudal ideas were replaced by sovereign orabsolute ones, seriously underplays the continuing variety of jurisdictions whichexisted in Greater Anjou in 1200, and cannot therefore truly convince. The seneschalsof Anjou were truly caught between two distinct forces with largely divergent goals.The Angevin and Capetian kings could and did expect much in the way of financial,judicial and military administration from their seneschals of Anjou. And yet the great

lords of Maine, of Anjou, and of the Touraine retained a local judicial independenceand social status well beyond the Capetian conquest, and thereby acted at times asa barrier to the seneschals fulfillment of royal expectations. Trapped as they werebetween the king and the domini, the seneschals needed to employ non-institutionalmethods to maximize their masters goals. Rather than simply holding sovereignpower, the best of the seneschals men like Stephen de Tours, William des Rochesand even Geoffrey Mauchien employed a range of constantly changing strategiesto compete with local barons for honor, favor, and jurisdiction in those places wherecomital and baronial jurisdictions overlapped and conflicted.


27/28


sources

Bndictins de Solesmes, les, eds. (1881): Cartulaire des abbayes de Saint-Pierre de la Couture et de Saint-Pierrede Solesmes, Le Mans.

Bertrand de Broussillon, A., ed. (1895): Cartulaire de Saint-Victeur au Mans, prieur de labbaye de Mont-Saint-Michel (994-1400), Paris.

ed. (1903): Cartulaire de labbaye de Saint-Aubin dAngers, Paris.Boussard, J., et al., eds. (1966): Recueil des actes de Philippe Auguste, roi de France, III, Paris.Chauvin, Y., ed. (1997): Premier et second livres des Cartulaires de labbaye Saint-Serge et Saint-Bach dAngers (XIe

et XIIe sicles), Angers.Chdeville, A., ed. (1968): Liber controversarium Sancti Vincentii Cenomannensis (ou second cartulaire de

labbaye de Saint-Vincent du Mans), Paris.

Cronne, H.A. and R.H.C. Davis, eds. (1968): Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, 1066-1154, III, Oxford.Delaborde, H.-F., et al., eds (1943): Recueil des actes de Philippe Auguste, roi de France, II, Paris.Delisle, L. and . Berger, eds. (1916-1927): Recueil des actes de Henri II, roi dAngleterre et duc de Normandie

concernant les provinces franaises et les affaires de France, Paris.Denis, L.-J., ed. (1894): Cartulaire du prieur de Saint-Hippolyte de Vivoin et des ses annexes, Paris.Devizes, Richard of, ed. J. T. Appleby (1963): The Chronicle of Richard of Devizes, London.Everard, J. and M. Jones, ed. (1999): The Charters of Duchess Constance of Brittany and her Family, 1171-1221,

Woodbridge.Laurain, E., ed. (1911-1945): Cartulaire manceau de Marmoutier, Laval.Lottin, R., ed., (1869): Chartularium insignis ecclesia cenomannensis quod dicitur Liber albus capituli, Le

Mans.

Marchegay, P., ed. (1854): Cartularium monasterii beatae mariae caritatis andegavensis, Angers., ed. (1875): Chartes angevines des onzime et douzime sicles, in Bibliothque de lcole des chartes,

no 36, 381-444.Menjot dElbenne, S., ed. (1904-1907): Cartulaire du chapitre royal de Saint-Pierre-de-la-Cour, au Mans, Le

Mans.Mtais, C., ed. (1893-1897): Cartulaire de labbaye cardinale de la Trinit de Vendme, Paris.Nortier, M., ed. (1979): Recueil des actes de Philippe Auguste, roi de France, IV, Paris.Port, C., ed. (1870): Inventaire des archives anciennes de lHpital Saint-Jean dAngers: prcd dune notice

historique et suivi dun cartulaire de cet Htel-Dieu, Angers.Salmon, A., ed. (1854): Chronicon Turonense magnum, Recueil de chroniques de Touraine,Tours.

references

Aurell, M. (2003): Lempire des Plantagent, Paris.Baldwin, J. (1986): The Government of Philip Augustus, Berkeley.Barthlemy, D. (1997): Une crise de lcrit ? Observations sur des actes de Saint-Aubin dAngers (xie

sicle), Bibliothque de lcole des chartes, no 155, 95-117.Barton, R. (2004): Lordship in the County of Maine, c. 890-1160, Woodbridge.


28/28

162 RICHARD E. BARTONBates, D. (1997): The Prosopographical Study of Anglo-Norman Royal Charters, Family Trees and the

Roots of Politics: the Prosopography of Britain and France from the Tenth to the Twelfth Century , ed.K.S.B. Keats-Rohan, Woodbridge, 89-102.

Boussard, J. (1938): Le comt dAnjou sous Henri Plantagent et ses fils (1151-1204), Paris. (1956): Le gouvernement dHenri II Plantagent, Paris.Chartrou, J. (1929): LAnjou de 1109 1151, Paris.Delisle, L. (1909): Recueil des actes de Henri II, roi dAngleterre et duc de Normandie. Introduction, ed. . Berger,

Paris.Dubois, G. (1869-1873): Recherches sur la vie de Guillaume des Roches, snchal dAnjou, du Maine et

de Touraine, Bibliothque de lcole des chartes, no 30, 376-424, no 32, 88-145, no 34, 502-541.Eyton, R. W. (1878): Court, Household and Itinerary of King Henry II, London.Gillingham, J. (1999): Richard I, New Haven. (2001): The Angevin Empire, 2nd ed., London.

Guillot, O. (1972): Le comte dAnjou et son entourage auxie

sicle, Paris.Halphen, L. (1901): Les institutions judiciaires en France auxie sicle, rgion angevine, Revue historique,no 77, 279-307.

Halphen, L. (1902): Prvts et voyers du xie sicle, rgion angevine, Le moyen ge, no 15, 297-325.Jessee, W. S. (2000): Robert the Burgundian and the Counts of Anjou, ca. 1025-1098, Washington, D.C.Lemesle, B. (1999): La socit aristocratique dans le Haut-Maine (xie-xiie sicle), Rennes. (2003): Ils donnrent leur accord ce judgment: Rflexions sur la contrainte judiciaire (Anjou, xie-

xiie sicle), La justice en lan mil, Collection Histoire de la justice, no 15, Paris, 123-149.Pichot, D. (1994): La seigneurie de Laval auxxie etxiie sicles, La Mayenne. Archologie, Histoire, no 17,

5-22. (1995): Le Bas-Maine du xe au xiiie sicle: tude dune socit, Laval.

Power, D. (2004): The Norman Frontier in the Twelfth and Early Thirteenth Century, Cambridge.Powicke, F. M. (1960): The Loss of Normandy, 1189-1204: Studies in the History of the Angevin Empire, 2nd ed.,

Manchester.Renoux, A. (2000): Chteau et pouvoir dans le comt du Maine: Mayenne du dernier tiers du ixe sicle

au dbut duxiie sicle (c 870-1120), Chteau-Gaillard, no 20, 205-215. (2006): Le roi Jean, sil avait captur le comte Robert dAlenon et le sire Juhel de Mayenne, il laurait

gagne sa guerre (1203), Plantagents et Captiens: confrontations et hritages, ed. Martin Aurell,Turnhout, 227-265.

Smith, R. J. (2001): Henry IIs Heir: the Acta and Seal of Henry the Young King, 1170-1183, EnglishHistorical Review, no 116, 297-326.

Tonnerre, N.-Y. (2006): Henri II et lAnjou, Plantagents et Captiens: confrontations et hritages, ed. MartinAurell,Turnhout, 211-225.

Trindade, A. (1999): Berengaria: In Search of Richard the Lion Hearts Queen, Dublin.Turner, R. (2000): The Households of the Sons of Henry II, La cour Plantagent (1154-1204), ed. Martin

Aurell, Poitiers, 49-62.Vincent, N. (1996): Peter des Roches: an Alien in English Politics, 1205-1238, Cambridge. (2007): The Court of Henry II, in Henry II: New Interpretations, ed. C. Harper-Bill and N. Vincent,

Woodbridge, 278-334.

Date post:	14-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	gerardo-larghi
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Between the King and the Dominus, The Seneschals of Plantagenet Maine and Anjou

Documents