Version classiqueVersion mobile
OpenEdition Books

Les seigneuries dans l’espace Plantagenêt

 | 
Martin Aurell
, 
Frédéric Boutoulle

Gascogne-Agenais

The Plantagenets and the Agenais (1150-1250)

Nicholas Vincent

Texte intégral

  • 1 See in particular Martindale 1997 and 2001; Gillingham 1999 and 2001; Benjamin 1988; Boutoulle 200 (...)

1Until very recently, the history of Gascony under the rule of the first three Plantagenet kings–Henry II, Richard I and John–remained both unwritten and, to many observers, apparently unwritable. The comparative dearth of cartulary or administrative sources south of the Dordogne, the unwillingness of English historians to venture into unfamiliar southern territory, and of the historians of southern France to lift their gaze northwards to the Anglo-Norman chronicles and chancery rolls, ensured that the impact of the Plantagenets upon le sud profond was discussed principally by local historians, in local histories themselves more often concerned with the recycling of accepted myth than with any more scholarly critique of twelfthcentury facts. This sad state of incomprehension has at last begun to improve, thanks in part to the determination of English scholars to pierce through the Gascon mists–most notably Jane Martindale, Richard Benjamin and John Gillingham–and in part to the recent and remarkable investigations of Frédéric Boutoulle who has both meticulously chronicled and broadly contextualized the role of Henry II, Richard and John in southern French affairs1.

  • 2 For geo-political definitions of the Agenais, see Bisson 1961, 254-6, reprinted in Bisson 1989, 3- (...)
  • 3 Below appendix nos. 1-7, of which only no. 5 is noticed in Landon 1935, 15 no. 129, which itself i (...)
  • 4 Tropamer ed. 1911 (held by the British Library but apparently not to be found at either Oxford or (...)
  • 5 Boussard 1956, 151, and see also 147-8: “Il semble que toute cette partie sud-ouest du Périgord, c (...)
  • 6 Taylor 2005, 185.

2In what follows, I hope further to stimulate this rediscovery of Plantagenet Gascony by drawing attention to a body of evidence which links the Plantagenets more closely than has previously been supposed to the history of the city of Agen and its hinterland, the Agenais: that region lying for the most part on the north bank of the Garonne, bisected by the river Lot, midway between Bordeaux and Toulouse2. Little of the evidence that I shall deploy here is “new”. Letters of King John relating to Agen and the Agenais have been in print since the 1830s, albeit entirely ignored by historians writing in French. In the same way, of the seven charters of Henry II and Richard I printed below as an appendix, all but two have been known, cited or printed by local historians of Agen since at least the 1890s, although only one of them has been so much as noticed in the standard collections of the charters of Henry and Richard used by English and French historians3. Besides the charter evidence, exemplary studies have been published in the twentieth century, by Henri Tropamer, Paul Ourliac and Monique Gilles, of the various customs and custumals of Agen and the Agenais. Yet it is surely symptomatic of Anglo-Gascon incomprehension that the single copy of Tropamer’s edition of the Coutume d’Agen available in England, lodged since 1911 in the British Library in London, remained entirely unread by any English historian until April 2007. I know this because it was with my own Visa card, and ignoring the dire penalties threatened against anyone wielding a paper knife in the reading room at St Pancras, that the inviolate, although already sadly crumbling pages of Tropamer’s edition were first cut open4. Writing in 1956 of Plantagenet rule over the Agenais, Jacques Boussard remarked that “au point de vue féodal, nous ne savons rien”5. A more recent authority has suggested that “there is little indication that (the Plantagenets) were interested in the immediate government of the region”6. I hope that in what follows I may demonstrate to quite what an extent such remarks fail to do justice to the documentary resources now at our disposal.

  • 7 Amongst the many general histories of the region and city, see in particular Labenazie 1888; Andri (...)
  • 8 The charters of William IX are best published by Wolff (1962), 119-20, with commentary at 115-19, (...)
  • 9 For the “monnaie anuldèse” or “arnaudine”, see Saint-Amans 1855; Nony 1959; Williams 1991, who at (...)
  • 10 Tropamer ed. 1911, 5-9, noting the existence of manuscripts at Agen, including the so-called” manu (...)
  • 11 The customs of the vill of Marmande, said to have been established by Richard as count of Poitiers (...)
  • 12 Tropamer ed. 1911, esp. 37-42 no. 6, 54-69 nos. 14-21, 96-9 no. 37.
  • 13 For the fullest list of such rights exercised by the bishops, surviving from 1263 and including su (...)

3Let us begin, then, with the history of Agen prior to 1152: the year in which Henry II came to rule over Gascony. The seat of a bishopric, lying on a major axis both of trade and pilgrimage, eleventh-century Agen and the Agenais were contested between the dukes of Aquitaine in Bordeaux and the counts of St-Gilles from their base at Toulouse7. Our early evidences are extremely scanty, but include two important charters of the dukes of Aquitaine, probably both to be attributed to duke William IX (1086-1127), the first addressed by William to “the whole clergy and people of the city of Agen” granting bishop Simon of Agen (1083-1101) the comitalia of Agen as held by the bishop’s predecessors by grant of the duke’s father, instructing a man named simply as Jordan to support the bishop’s claims and to pay over the 60 sous owed from his defeat in a recently fought judicial duel (pro bello in quo nuper victus fuisti), expressing the duke’s wish that his rights over the minting of coin now pass to the bishop to be done in the sight of “those who wish to see”8. As at Cahors, 50 kilometres northeastwards on the Lot, the bishop’s right to mint coin–at Agen the so-called monnaie arnuldèse or arnaudine supposedly named after bishop Arnaud de Beauville, who had held the see of Agen in the 1040s, and who is reputed to have instituted the episcopal mint, although more plausibly named from a corruption of the term monnaie agenaise–suggests the emergence of a particularly firm degree of episcopal lordship, marked by possession of the comitalia granted to bishop Simon, which presumably comprised that body of seigneurial privileges that a comes would otherwise have exercised, had there been a comes to take control at Agen9. The comitalia, the minting rights, rights of justice over the 60 sous fines taken for duels and false measures “and all other justice” previously pertaining to the duke were further confirmed to bishop Simon’s successor, bishop Aldebert (1118-1130), by a second charter of duke William, couched in much the same language as the first. The precise extent of the seigneurial rights granted in this way remains difficult to assess. We can attempt here to exploit the much later testimony, supplied by the Coutume d’Agen, which may first have been codified in the twelfth century but which in its present form survives in no version before the late thirteenth or early fourteenth century10. The customs of Agen share a great deal in common with those of nearby Marmande, themselves traditionally supposed to have been granted or recognised by Richard count of Poitiers in 1182, but of which we in fact have no copy earlier than their confirmation by the King of France in the 1340s, even later than our earliest surviving manuscripts of the customs of Agen11. The fourteenth century also saw the confirmation under French royal authority of the customs of Agen. Hence there is a distinct risk here that we may be enticed into a circular argument in which the late copies of the customs of Marmande are allowed to supply a firm but inherently untrustworthy date of 1182 for the existence of the Agen customs. Be that as it may, and here assuming that they are a late thirteenth or early fourteenth-rather than a twelfth-century compilation, the customs of Agen nonetheless set out a wide range of rights invested in the city’s “seigneur”, including authority over, and the right to take judicial profits from, both criminal and civil justice: over pleas involving debt, false measures, theft, arson, adultery, false testimony, murder and assault12. To these can be added that authority over judicial duels and over the minting of coin bestowed by the dukes of Aquitaine upon bishops Simon and Aldebert: in short, a substantial range of those late Carolingian public jurisdictions which were themselves inherited from the Roman or sub-Roman past and which were characteristic of seigneurial authority not only in Gascony but in most regions of Europe once subject to Roman imperial law13. Whatever the means by which these rights were handed down to the “seigneurs” described in our earliest copies of the Coutume d’Agen, it was on some such understanding of the extent of his own authority that William IX of Aquitaine granted bishop Simon his rights to comitalia and a mint. Whatever the practical extent of this jurisdiction, the duke’s grant seems quite clearly to have transferred the right to wide-ranging seigneurial authority over Agen from ducal into episcopal hands, with the bishops acting in theory as delegated agents of the dukes, in practice as semi-independent lords. From the duke’s point of view, better this, one suspects, than that Agen lie open to the ambitions of the counts of St-Gilles-Toulouse to extend their own authority further westwards down the Garonne.

  • 14 See here, in particular, Eché 1975, 333-9.
  • 15 Ducros 1666, esp. 37-8, apparently reiterated by the city’s leaders in 1789, as cited by Samazeuil (...)
  • 16 Below appendix no. 5, concedimus duobus hominibus qui communi consilio ville Agen’et pontenarii el (...)
  • 17 Below appendix nos. 1, 3
  • 18 Above n. 8, and note the address to universus clerus et populus civitatis Agennensis in Richard’s (...)
  • 19 Bisson 1989, 3-39, esp 4-6, and for the earliest reference to clerical participation delayed to 12 (...)

4As a result, all commentators are agreed that the century or so after the 1080s marked the apogee of episcopal lordship in Agen, with the bishops for a time exercising their jurisdiction over the city, virtually unchallenged by any rival authority14. There are nonetheless at least two serious problems with such an interpretation. The first lies in the emergence of a rival authority to the bishops in the shape of a city commune or council. Once again, the exact chronology here remains uncertain. To the more patriotic of local commentators, writing from the seventeenth century onwards, the consular authority of the “universitas” and prudhommes of Agen was at least as old, if not older, than the authority of the bishops, being itself a Roman or sub-Roman creation, undocumented but nonetheless supposedly in continuous existence from the fourth to the late twelfth century when it first emerges into the light of documentary day15. Agen clearly had some sort of consular institution by 1189, when a charter of King Richard I referred to the election of bridge keepers or ferry-men for the city “by the common council of the vill”16. Even earlier than this, after 1183 but before his accession as King, Richard had addressed instructions to his “all his faithful burgenses and the bailiff(s) of Agen”, just as before 1172, probably in the early 1160s, his father, King Henry II, had addressed written instructions to “all burgenses” of the city17. The charters of the dukes of Aquitaine granting rights to the bishops of Agen, from the 1080s onwards, had themselves been addressed to “the whole clergy and people of Agen”, and had insisted that the bishop’s mint be established so that the minting of coin could be seen “by all who wish to see it”: statements which by no means rule out the possibility that the “populus” had some recognized role in decision-making within the city18. Furthermore, the issue of these letters and charters may imply the existence of a public assembly at which such letters and charters could be publicly proclaimed. Professor Bisson long ago drew attention to just such an assembly–the general court of the Agenais–comprising representatives of the region’s chief towns and the local nobility but without any very significant clerical component, charged with military and defensive as well as judicial responsibilities, whose existence is implied in the customs of Marmande attributed to 1182, which was certainly meeting by 1232, and which Bisson believed had emerged from a much older tradition of local peacekeeping and defence19.

  • 20 Below appendix nos. 8 (addressed to all barons and knights throughout the bishopric of Agen), 9 (t (...)
  • 21 Clémens 1986b, 72-3, 78 n. 21; below appendix no. 10; Cuttino ed. 1975, ii, 332-3 nos. 55-6.

5Bisson was not aware of letters of King John, copied into the English chancery Patent Roll for 1203, addressed to the burgenses “prudhommes” (probis hominibus) and men of the city and bishopric of Agen, promising the abolition of all bad and the maintenance of all good customs, and offering to defend the city’s interests, in particular against the count of Toulouse, “through all courts” (per omnes curias)20. No details are supplied here of what exactly these “courts” may have been, but the letters of 1203 at the very least imply that the Plantagenet kings themselves assumed that they could deal with Agen and its region via appeals to its men and via significant communal institutions, including courts beyond the one seigneurial court supposedly presided over by the bishops of Agen. By 1212, other courts in south-west France were acknowledging the right of the men of the Agenais to appeal to a curia Agennensis, and the customs of Agen themselves were sufficiently well-established by 1203 to be referred to by King John and, two years later, to be granted by Raymond VI of Toulouse to the men of Sauvetat-de-Savéres21. To this extent it seems clear that the grants of comitalia by duke William IX had done little to stifle the survival or the spread of communal decision-making, and that by the 1180s, and probably for several decades before this, the bishop and his exercise of comitalia was only one element within a much more sophisticated and diverse landscape of interlocking and potentially conflicting claims to exercise local authority.

  • 22 For an introduction to the principal sources here, and to the antiquaries Bernard Labénazie (1635- (...)

6If the evidence for communal or regional courts and councils already clouds the accepted picture of an episcopal stranglehold over twelfth-century Agen, then that picture shatters entirely when we consider the evidence for direct Plantagenet intervention in the Agenais after 1152. This evidence is supplied from three principal sources: from the chroniclers, from the Coutume d’Agen, and from charters of Henry II and Richard I surviving in the much depleted episcopal and capitular archives of Agen, not as originals but as copies by seventeenth-or eighteenth-century antiquaries from cartularies and other records that are themselves now lost22. From this evidence, it is possible to construct a very different picture of the history of twelfth-century Agen: a picture in which the impact of Henry II was far more direct and far more dynamic than has previously been suspected.

  • 23 Continuation of Richard of Poitiers, in Bouquet ed., xii, 417 (coadunato apud Agennensium exercitu(...)
  • 24 Delisle & Berger eds. (1916-27), i, nos. 127-8, ii, supplement no. 15, shortly to be published in (...)
  • 25 Michel & Bémont eds. 1885-1904, ii, 224 no. 800 (secundum concessionem et confirmationem inclite r (...)
  • 26 Torigny “Chronica”, in Howlett ed. 1884-9, iv, 211: post festum sancti Iohannis, Henricus rex Angl (...)
  • 27 Clémens 1992, 206-8, whose arguments are accepted by Boutoulle 2006, 297-8, despite the evidence e (...)
  • 28 The homage rendered by the Bouville family for Castellionem, almost certainly to be identified as (...)
  • 29 Boutoulle, 2006, 297-8, and for Brulhois, see 288, 291. For the devastation of the site, see the i (...)
  • 30 Most notably Warren 1973, 82-7; Benjamin 1988, 270-85; Martindale 2001, 115-54.

7Henry II is recorded visiting Agen only once, in the summer of 1159, when it was at Agen, as the chronicle of Richard of Poitiers informs us, that Henry mustered his army before laying siege to Toulouse23. No charters of Henry II issued at Agen on this, or any subsequent occasion survive, but we do have charters, certainly issued during the 1159 campaign, supplemented by Richard of Anstey’s extraordinary account of his expenses in attending the King’s court, by which we can establish something of the King’s movements up the Garonne from Agen to the sieges of Auvillar, Verdunsur-Garonne (Tarn-et-Garonne) and Villemur-sur-Tarn (Haute-Garonne), and thence northwards to Cahors24. A much later reference to an otherwise lost charter of protection issued by Henry II to the Benedictine Priory of Clairac (Lot-et-Garonne) describes Henry II as “then lord of the land of Agen’’and may well record a document issued in the period during or shortly after the siege of Toulouse25. Robert of Torigny, abbot and chronicler of Mont-Saint-Michel in Normandy, makes no reference to Agen or the Agenais in his account of the 1159 Toulouse campaign, but does tell us that in 1161 Henry II returned to the Garonne, laying siege to the castle of Castillon, almost certainly to be identified as Castillon-sur-Agen, on the escarpment immediately to the west of, and dominating the city of Agen26. In recent years, doubt has been cast upon this account which, it has been suggested, represents a confusion on Robert of Torigny’s behalf with the siege of Castillon-sur-Agen undoubtedly conducted by the future King Richard I in the summer of 117527. Yet so reliable is Torigny in all other respects that it seems entirely capricious to reject his testimony for 1161. In reality, Castillon must be assumed to have been besieged and taken at least twice, both in 1161 and 1175. In 1175, as indeed for a century or more afterwards, the castle appears to have been occupied by the family of Bouville, allied to the vicomtes of Béarn who themselves commanded the important lordship of Brulhois, to the south of the Garonne, opposite Agen, and it may have been against these same local lords, and hence against the threat posed by the vicomtes of Béarn that Henry’s siege was conducted a dozen years earlier28. The drastic measures taken after 1175, which reputedly involved the razing of the castle at Castillon and the sowing of its site with salt as a deterrent against future reoccupation, perhaps reflect the frustration of the Plantagenets with the castellan’s repeated disobedience29. In general, Henry II’s interventions here are to be seen as part of a wider initiative after 1159, both to maintain pressure against Toulouse and to stamp his authority over the whole of Gascony, from the Atlantic coast to the upper reaches of the Garonne, and from the Dordogne southwards to the Pyrenees. Previous writers have generally appreciated the importance of Henry’s engagement with Toulouse30. They have, nonetheless, entirely overlooked two highly significant pieces of evidence, both of them surviving in the archives at Agen which suggest that, of all his southern initiatives, it may have been those involving Agen which loomed largest in the King’s own mind.

  • 31 Below appendix no. 1.

8The first of these is a charter of Henry II, not included in Delisle’s great edition of Henry’s charters and therefore ignored by all subsequent historians of Plantagenet Gascony31. Issued at Woodstock, almost certainly after the King’s return to England in 1163, but before the introduction of the Dei gratia clause and hence before 1172, the charter is addressed, significantly, not only to bishop Elias and the canons of his cathedral church of St-Etienne at Agen, but to the burgenses of the city (burgensibus eiusdem ciuitatis): perhaps our very earliest reference to the men of Agen as a collective entity considered capable of receiving and implementing instructions. The terms of this charter are no less remarkable than its address. By it, Henry ordered the bishop, cathedral canons and burgenses of Agen to make peace with the canons of the collegiate church of St-Caprais and their men, who were to be permitted all their customary rents and usages, both within and without the city, on water (presumably on the Garonne and its tributaries) and in fees. Furthermore, and here revealing a fact which neither the local historians nor the archaeologists of Agen have previously taken properly into account, the King commanded that bishop, canons and burgenses, acting with the counsel of the prior of St-Caprais and of William Maengot the constable, ensure that a door or gate be built into the wall which the King wished to be constructed between the church of St-Etienne and the church of St-Caprais, of sufficient dimensions to ensure that the canons of St-Caprais and their parishioners might have access both by day and by night.

  • 32 For William, see Boussard 1956, 354-5n.; Vincent 2000, 114.
  • 33 For Hamelin, see the charter of Richard, Henry II’s son, dated 31 July 1175 and referring to an ea (...)
  • 34 For a detailed attempt to map the fortifications of medieval Agen, see Higounet et al. 1985.

9From this, at least three highly significant conclusions can be drawn: firstly, that the King was determined to support the claims of the canons of St-Caprais against those of the bishop, cathedral canons and burgenses of Agen, revealing the significance of yet another element within the already complicated power-structure of twelfthcentury Agen. Secondly, our charter suggests that Henry II took sufficient interest in the city and its topography to command that a wall be built to divide the precincts of St-Caprais and St-Etienne, and to ensure that Agen be placed under the authority of William Maengot, known elsewhere as lord of Surgères in the Aunis to the east of La Rochelle, subsequently appointed as seneschal of Aquitaine and Poitou32. William Maengot is described in our charter as “constable”, perhaps of Agen but more likely of Gascony: a few years later, we find the same title, “constable in Gascony”, being applied to Hamelin of Warenne, the King’s half-brother, clearly as a military office carrying with it responsibilities over much of southern Aquitaine33. Thirdly, various of the topographical details revealed by the archaeologists of medieval Agen, and in particular the wall that is known once to have encircled the precinct of St-Caprais, can now be securely dated to the mid twelfth century, having been first built, or at the very least significantly extended, on the direct authority of King Henry II34.

  • 35 For what follows, see Tropamer 1911, 30-7 nos. 4-5, of which a further, closely related copy, also (...)

10This in itself would surely be sufficient to demonstrate that, in the 1160s, Henry II took a remarkably close personal interest in the disposition of Agen, far in excess of the interest that has previously been attributed to the King in his dealings with the southernmost parts of his dominion. In general, the charter for Agen is one of only a tiny handful of writs of execution, commanding specific individuals to carry out particular and practical tasks, that survive for the whole span of Henry II’s lordship of his lands south of the Loire. As such, it is of the very greatest historical importance. Not only this, but it can now be matched by evidence surviving in the Coutume d’Agen to suggest that Agen attracted a quite disproportionate interest on the part of the King: far greater, for example, than that which Henry can be proved to have shown elsewhere, even in the chief seats of his ducal authority, at Bordeaux or even at Poitiers35.

  • 36 For the bridges, see Eché 1962, 141, citing Granat 1924, esp. 14-17. For a definition of pugneria (...)
  • 37 For emina/hemina, employed in the rule of St Benedict to imply a measure of wine, elsewhere freque (...)
  • 38 The Pont de Moncorni appears to have derived its name from one of the internal divisions of the me (...)
  • 39 That pack animals were nonetheless employed for the transport of salt at Agen is implied by a list (...)

11According to the Coutume d’Agen, because the lord of Agen, here clearly identified not as the bishop but as the Plantagenet king, had only few rents in the Agenais, the “universitas” of Agen gave to King Henry, who at that time was lord of the land, customary rights over salt and of measures of grain at Agen (la universitat d’Agen donet al rei Henric.... sali a Agen e las punheras), to assist the King in his great expenses and his great wars. These rights over salt and “pugnères” of grain are then defined in considerable detail. With respect to “pugnères’or measures of grain, every mill operating on the Garonne between the Pont de Merdalo and the Pont de l’Evêque (two bridges, now lost, that once connected islands in the Garonne to the Agen bank of the river) was to pay one measure of corn (una punhera d’aital) on the Saturday of each week in which any particular mill was in operation, as well as an annual tax of five sous in the money of Agen36. With respect to every “émine” (emina) of corn bought and weighed at Agen from a single vendor, a render of half a denier was payable, and for every “conque” (conqua) one denier37. If this custom of measurage (lo mezuralge) was not paid within a day, a penalty of five sous was due to the lord. With respect to salt, the lord of Agen had the right to bring up the Garonne thirteen boatloads of salt each year. For those others bringing salt up river, when they reached the Pont de Moncorni “below the arches” (de sos los pilars d’Agen), they were to show their salt to the officer of the salt (senhor del sali) who had the right to buy it, provided that he offered the market rate38. Salt not bought in this way might be offered for sale in Agen, although neither the buyer nor the seller might remove it from the city without authorization from the officer of the salt, on pain of the confiscation of their salt and under a fixed penalty of 65 sous in the money of Agen. Men of Agen might buy salt for their own personal needs and those of their households, livestock and land, and might accept it as a gift from boatmen on the river, subject to the officer of the salt enquiring under oath, and on pain of forfeiture and a penalty of 65 sous, that such salt was indeed for personal use. To carry salt up river from Agen, it had first to be measured at the Pont de Moncorni and then carried in sacks back to the Garonne, to the boats of Agen by which, alone, it might be carried up river. Men of Agen might transport salt up river without payment to their lord, but no salt was to be carried by boat up the Lot, or by pack animal of any sort between the bridges of Barbaste and Aiguillon (effectively closing off the transport of salt on the Baïse, flowing from Condom northwards into the Garonne at Aiguillon, where the Lot and the Garonne also meet), or across country between the Lot and the Garonne, on pain of confiscation and a 65 sous penalty for any infringement39. Men coming from beyond the Garonne to buy salt at the salt pit of Agen (sali d’Agen) were to pay seven deniers for each small measure less than the price paid by the inhabitants of Agen, provided that the officer of the salt took no more than a third of the purchase price. Any adulterated salt was to be confiscated under a penalty of 65 sous. In exchange for all of these rights–over salt, “pugnères” and measurage of grain–the lord of Agen, when the city was at war, was to install a garrison of twenty knights, thirty mounted serjeants and ten mounted crossbowmen for the whole period of war and at his own expense.

  • 40 Clémens 1986b, 72-80.
  • 41 Below appendix nos. 2, 6.
  • 42 Ourliac & Gilles eds. 1976, i, 118-19 no. 29, 124-5 no. 39.
  • 43 Agen AD Lot-et-Garonne E Suppl. Agen AA5 no. 17 (letters of Philip of Valois, 12 December 1339, or (...)
  • 44 Below appendix no. 5.
  • 45 Bnf mss. Doat 80 fos. 300v-301r (Ricardus comes Pictavensis filius regis Anglie ballivis Aginnii e (...)
  • 46 Bnf mss. Doat 91 fos. 202v-203r (for Belleperche); Doat 80 fo. 297r-v (for Grandselve), both writs (...)
  • 47 Round ed. 1899, 392-3 nos. 1104-5. Fontevraud’s rights over salt at Agen were still being enforced (...)

12If this description of customs bears any relation to those actually taken by Henry II from the 1150s onwards, then the Coutume d’Agen supplies quite the most detailed account of Henry’s seigneurial privileges that we have for any of the outposts of Plantagenet authority in Gascony: more extensive even than our evidence for Henry’s government in the ducal capital at Bordeaux. Although the reference in our text to privileges granted to the King by the “universitas” of Agen may suggest a considerable degree of anachronism to the Coutume, we have already seen that the burgenses of Agen feature in several of the charters granted by Henry and Richard from the 1150s onwards. The recognition of mutual obligations between King and city, with the “universitas” awarding or recognizing the King’s authority over grain and salt in return for the King supplying a stipulated garrison of knights and serjeants in time of war, may likewise appear suspiciously precocious for the 1150s or 60s, and suggests a degree of equity in Henry’s dealings with the city, at odds with what elsewhere might be supposed to have been his imposition of raw seigneurial power. No doubt the historical details here were represented by those who drafted the Coutume in the late-thirteenth-century so as to portray the position of the city, and in particular its communal self-government, in the best possible light. Nonetheless, there seems little doubt that the essential details of the King’s right to exercise authority over mills, grain and salt reflect twelfth-century realities, and that a set of customs, if not precisely those codified in the later thirteenth century was already in existence for Agen by the 1190s if not for some years before this40. The Plantagenet claim to both the “pugnères” and the “émines” of grain are specifically referred to in charters of Richard I issued in the 1180s and 90s, by which these seigneurial privileges were transferred by Richard to bishop Bertrand of Agen41. The right to “pugnères” and “émines” likewise occurs as a seigneurial privilege at Marmande further down the Garonne, first recorded in the customs of 1430, themselves supposedly based upon an exemplar granted by Richard as count of Poitiers in 118242. At Marmande, likewise, from the 1330s, we have evidence that the men of Agen had paid reduced customs or péage (pedagium), said to have been fixed “in the time of King Henry (II)” at the rate of 4 deniers Bordeaux per barrel of wine and one denier per “conque” of grain43. Richard’s authority over the mills at Agen is specifically referred to in his charter of 1189 relating to the construction of a bridge over the Garonne44, and seigneurial control over the salt trade and over shipping at Agen are independently recorded in a writ addressed by Richard in the 1170s or 80s to the bailiffs and burgenses of Agen, commanding them to grant free passage to the ships of the abbey of Grandselve near Toulouse, elsewhere described in a notification addressed by Richard to the seneschal and citizens of Agen (senescallo Aginnensi et universis civibus Aginnensibus suis dilectis et fidelibus) as ships sent to trade and to obtain salt, clearly from the ducal salt pit at Bordeaux45. For the Bordeaux salt pit, we have charters of Richard commanding those who governed it to allow the monks both of Grandselve and of Belleperche fixed measures of salt each year, with the right to transport this salt by boat up the Garonne46. The salt pit at Agen is first independently referred to in the late 1190s, when Joan, the daughter of Henry II and from 1196 until her death in 1199 countess of Toulouse, made deathbed bequests to the nuns of Fontevraud of 50 livres each year in salino de Agensh’, with her will stipulating that Peter the Poitevin and other burgenses of Agen and Condom were to hold the salt pit and to take its profits in discharge of any debts that she owed to them47.

  • 48 Trabut-Cussac ed. 1962, 158-9, 167, citing Edward I’s grant to the men of Villeneuve in 1286 (from (...)
  • 49 See above n. 29. Abimelech, let it be noted, was, like Richard, to meet his end besieging another (...)
  • 50 Higounet 1975, 330-1. For the equally lucrative customs, distinct from péage, charged on traffic u (...)

13Salt was an essential commodity for the people, the cattle and the preservation of the foodstuffs of the Pays-de-Garonne, and the seigneurial control exercised over its transport up river from Bordeaux is specifically referred to in the customs and privileges of several other towns of the region, including, albeit at a later date, those of La Sauvetat (dép. Gers, 1271), Villeneuve-sur-Lot (dép. Lot-et-Garonne, 1286) and Lunas (dép. Dordogne, 1296)48. By their control of trade and the transport of salt up the Garonne, the Plantagenets obtained a significant economic stranglehold over the entire region, not least as a means of restricting the access of their enemies in Toulouse to an essential commodity throughout the so-called “forty years war” between the Plantagenets and Toulouse. In these circumstances, and given the close association between salt and seigneurial power, the reported decision of Richard to sow the former site of the castle of Castillon-sur-Agen with salt, in imitation of the destruction of the city of Shechem by the Old Testament tyrant Abimelech, may be have been deliberately enacted and reported so as to emphasise the brute reality of Plantagenet power in the Pays-de-Garonne49. The seigneurial control over salt, let it be noticed, was not amongst those privileges granted away by Richard to the bishop of Agen in the 1180s, suggesting perhaps the degree of importance that continued to be attached to it by the Plantagenet dukes. Likewise, although it goes entirely unmentioned in the Coutume d’Agen, the ducal right to “péage” on all grain and especially wine transported up the Garonne to Bordeaux remained one of the most significant sources of ducal income in Gascony, like the salt monopoly jealously retained in ducal hands. By the mid-thirteenth century, when accounts first survive, the “péage” from traffic on the Garonne was yielding sufficient income for the counts of Toulouse, by then lords of Agen, to grant 500 livres tournois (£150 sterling) from the revenues of “péage” each year to the order of Cîteaux, with total annual revenue by the 1260s approaching 5000 livres tournois (£1500 sterling)50.

  • 51 Boutoulle 2006, 289-92.
  • 52 For Richard’s charters to Grandselve, see above n. 45. For Henry II’s charter, see below appendix (...)
  • 53 For Richard’s charter to the abbey, see Bnf ms. Latin 12751 pp. 583-4, witnessed at Dax by William (...)
  • 54 Below appendix nos. 5, 7, of which the latter is only briefly abstracted in Sainte-Marthe ed., ii, (...)
  • 55 Round ed. 1899, 9 no. 37.
  • 56 Ryckebusch 2001, 73-4; Sainte-Marthe ed., ii, col. 912, recording Bertrand’s gift to La Sauve-Maje (...)
  • 57 Below appendix no. 4. For the priory of Brives-la-Gaillarde, and for alternative possibilities inc (...)
  • 58 For the abbey of St-Etienne at Baignes (Beaniam), see Cholet 1868.
  • 59 Below appendix nos. 2-3.
  • 60 Innocent III’s letters, 30 June 1205 (Potthast ed. 1873-5, no. 2554), are printed from the papal r (...)
  • 61 Below appendix nos. 6-7, which accord with the King’s itinerary as recorded in Landon 1935, 45-8. (...)
  • 62 Below appendix nos. 6, 7. Archbishop William’s inspeximus, now known only from an antiquarian copy (...)

14The Coutume d’Agen supplies one of our most significant insights into Henry II’s activities in Gascony, previously unnoticed by historians of Plantagenet rule. The authority newly acquired by Henry at Agen during the 1150s and 60s coincides with that period of Henry’s reign in which, as Fréderic Boutoulle has demonstrated, the King was most active in the south51. After 1170, by contrast, it was the King’s son Richard, count of Poitiers and duke of Aquitaine, who henceforth exercised day to day authority over the Plantagenet lands in the south. For signs of Richard’s continued interest in Agen and the Agenais, besides his siege and destruction of Castillon-sur-Agen in 1175, and his supposed grant of privileges to the newly established community at Marmande in 1182, we can now add the significant evidence of Richard’s letters and writs addressed to the seneschal and citizens of Agen, relating to the privileges of the monks of Grandselve, from which we can infer that by the 1180s at the latest Richard commanded a significant local administration, apparently greater than that implied in the 1160s when, besides his constable William Maengot, Henry II appears to had no official resident in Agen to whom his letters, sent to the bishop, canons and burgenses of Agen, could be addressed52. Elsewhere in the Agenais, on the Lot, Richard granted protection to the abbey of Sainte-Livrade and possibly also customs to the men of the town, now known only from brief references but in their day perhaps as significant as the customs that he is said to have awarded to the men of Marmande53. Beyond this, we can now add to our collection of evidences six highly significant charters, issued by Richard in favour of the city or bishop of Agen, only two of which have previously been known to historians outside the immediate vicinity of Agen54. The date of the first three of these charters, issued to bishop Bertrand by Richard as count of Poitiers, before 1189, can only be inferred from the date at which Bertrand obtained the see of Agen, and Bertrand himself is first recorded as bishop in June 1183 when he served as an envoy of Henry II to the dying Henry the Young King at Martel in the Limousin, administering extreme unction and, despite his suggestion that the dying man choose nearby Grandmont as his place of burial, being entrusted with the Young King’s request for burial at Rouen55. Son of Walter de Beyceras, sprung from a minor Gascon family, Bertrand is said to have granted part of his ancestral estate to the monks of La Sauve-Majeure near Bordeaux, having himself served as canon of the cathedral of St-André at Bordeaux prior to his election as bishop56. Of the three charters of the 1180s in his favour issued by Richard as count of Poitiers, one was given at Agen, witnessed by Bernard de Ravignan, by the bishop of Lectoure and by the prior of “Biuei” or “Briues”, perhaps to be identified as the Augustinian priory of Brivesla-Gaillarde (Corrèze, in the diocese of Limoges). Here Richard merely confirmed bishop Bertrand in the earlier awards of jurisdiction over comitalia, justice, duels, false measures and a mint granted earlier, and in very similar language by Duke William IX of Aquitaine to bishops Simon and Aldebert57. Richard’s other two charters of the 1180s were granted at an unidentified location, “Beaniam” or “Biangne”, perhaps Baignes-Sainte-Radegonde, site of a major Benedictine abbey between the Charente and the Dordogne58. Both were witnessed by the same three witnesses: Raymond Bernard de Ravignan, Stephen de Caumont and William Raymond de Pins, all of them major landholders in the Agenais, who themselves occur elsewhere in charters of Richard issued at “Beania”59. By these charters–the first a general notification, the second addressed specifically to the burgenses and bailli(s) of Agen–Richard granted the bishop those privileges over “pugnères” of grain from mills and “émines” of grain sent to market which, according to the Coutume d’Agen, had first been conferred upon Henry II by the men of Agen in return for defence in time of war. Although the copies in which these charters survive leave much to be desired, there seems little reason to doubt the authenticity of the texts themselves, not least because Richard’s grant of “pugnères” and “émines” was specifically confirmed in papal letters, also mentioning his confirmation of earlier ducal privileges concerning the comitalia and the mint, copied into the register of Pope Innocent III in 1205, with further full recital of these letters in later papal confirmations, by Gregory IX issued in August 1234, and by a Pope Clement, almost certainly Clement V, issued at Avignon on 2 June 1309, themselves known only through inadequate copies preserved at Agen but nonetheless apparently recording genuine papal letters, with dating clauses that fit what else we know of the popes’ itineraries60. Both sets of Richard’s ducal charters–that confirming the comitalia and mint, and those awarding the “pugnères” and “émines” of grain–were further confirmed by Richard himself as King, first in a writ issued at Messina on 26 December 1190 covering all earlier grants, addressed like Duke William’s charters “to the whole clergy and people of the city of Agen”, and again, but this time excluding any mention of Richard’s own grant of “pugnêres” and “émines”, in a charter issued at Messina on 3 April 1191, witnessed by the archbishop of Auch and the bishop of Bayonne “who were together with us in our crusade (in peregrinatione)”61. Richard’s letters of 1190-1, although not themselves mentioned in the papal confirmation of 1205, survive today not only in antiquarian copies, but in an original inspeximus issued c. 1210 by Guido de Papa, cardinal-bishop of Preneste, following a hearing of disputes between the bishop of Agen and Raymond VI of Toulouse held before the Pope in person, itself further recited in a copy of a lost inspeximus of a slightly later date by William archbishop of Bordeaux, an active participant in the Albigensian Crusade, with the archbishop addressing his inspeximus to the Pope62.

  • 63 Landon 1935, 25 nos. 216-17; Round ed. 1899, 472 no. 1301. Bishop Bertrand witnesses further chart (...)

15For all of these reasons, the basic authenticity of Richard’s five charters in favour of bishop Bertrand, as duke and as King, seems beyond any reasonable doubt. What is perhaps most interesting about them is Richard’s apparent willingness to divest himself of seigneurial privileges, and to transfer to the bishop rights over mills and grain sales that, according to the Coutume d’Agen, had only recently been secured by his father, Henry II. Only the seigneurial authority over salt, mentioned in the Coutume d’Agen, appears to have been retained in Richard’s own hands and, to judge from Richard’s charters for Grandselve and Belleperche, continued to be jealously guarded. The transfer of authority from Richard to bishop Bertrand was therefore far from complete. Richard appears to have had his own seneschal established at Agen, presumably charged with supervision of the salt trade there and of the collection of “péage” on the Garonne. The men of Agen, apparently free from complete subjection to the bishop, likewise continue to loom large in Richard’s letters of the 1180s and 90s. Nonetheless, Richard’s willingness to reward bishop Bertrand reflects a wider co-operation between King and Bishop, revealed both during the preliminaries to Richard’s crusade, when Bertrand of Agen was one of those southern French bishops who attended Richard at La Réole in February 1190, and again, at the very end of Richard’s life, when bishop Bertrand is to be found with the King’s mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, at Chinon in April 1199, making provisions for the obit of the late King. Bertrand may have had the unique experience of attending the death beds of both Henry the Young King in 1183 and Richard I in 119963. Of all the twelfth-century bishops of Agen, it was Bertrand alone who appears as a witness to Plantagenet charters and who seems to have been unique in his degree of contact with the Plantagenet court. It is even possible that the timing of his charters from Richard I, issued at Messina on 26 December 1190 and 3 April 1191 suggests Bertrand’s personal attendance on the King during at the least the opening stages of Richard’s crusade. We have no firm evidence here, but it is at least suggestive that Richard’s second charter in favour of bishop Bertrand should have been issued on 3 April 1191, at the exact time that Richard is known to have been joined at Messina by his mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, and his bride to be, Berengaria of Navarre. Had bishop Bertrand of Agen, perhaps, accompanied Eleanor and Berengaria from Gascony to Messina?

  • 64 Below appendix no. 5.
  • 65 Ourliac & Gilles eds., i, 111-19 nos. 16-27.
  • 66 Ibid., 116-17 no. 25.
  • 67 Ducom 1892, 286, from the 1263 inquest into episcopal privileges.

16There is one other charter of Richard, better known than the five charters so far considered, which throws light on Richard’s relations with Agen. Issued at London on 12 November 1189, only a few days after the King’ coronation, and addressed to the bishop and all the King’s ministers and faithful men of Agen, this charter offers notification of the King’s grant that the bridge of Agen be quit from passage, pontage and all exaction or custom, with the King granting that space at either end of the bridge be cleared of all mills and other hindrances, granting further that two men chosen as “pontenarii” by the common counsel of the vill of Agen (duobus hominibus qui communi consilio ville Agen’et pontenarii eligantur) have charge of the collection of alms for the bridge, with Stephen de Artiges being appointed for life as master “pontenarius” (magister pontenarius) over and above the other two men so elected64. There are several interesting features to this charter. First and foremost it reveals the continuing degree of attention paid by Richard to Agen, and the extent to which Richard exercised day to day lordship there. Assumed by some historians to prove the existence of a bridge across the Garonne at Agen as early as 1189, the charter in fact should be read as evidence not of the building of such a bridge but of the hope that such a bridge might in future be built. The “pontenarii” elected by the common council of the city are perhaps best identified not as bridge keepers but as ferrymen. Thus, slightly further down river, at Marmande, the “pontoniers”, again appointed by communal assent, are clearly to be identified as ferrymen rather than as bridge-keepers65. At Marmande, measures were in force to prevent anyone from crossing the river surreptitiously or by night without paying their proper fine for passage: defaulters here being punishable with a fine of 65 sous, set at the same, slightly peculiar rate as the fines mentioned in the Coutume d’Agen for infringements of the ducal legislation over the salt trade66. At Agen, in the 1260s, we find the “pontenarii” exempt from various customs otherwise payable to the bishop, in return for their obligation always to grant the bishop and his familia crossing (transitum) whether by day or by night: an obligation which once again suggests that the “pontenarii”, even by 1263, were in command of a ferry service rather than a completed bridge67.

  • 68 Tamizey de Larroque ed. 1866, 281-2 nos. 47, 49, with further reference to a fishery “near the bri (...)
  • 69 For full details here, see Labrunie & Tholin 1878, at 441-2 noting the renewed appeal for funds fo (...)
  • 70 Labrunie & Tholin 1878, 441, citing a charter of Raymond VI of Toulouse, printed by Magen and Thol (...)
  • 71 See here the extremely useful map by Burias 1979, plan XV. 4, showing bridges on the Lot at Saint- (...)

17As late as 1311, the building of a stone bridge at Agen continues to appear as an aspiration rather than an accomplished fact, with the consuls of Agen for the past twenty-five years or more charging special levies of upwards of 300 livres each year towards the costs of the bridge68. In all probability, no bridge was finished until the 1390s, two hundred years after Richard’s charter, and then only temporarily as a wooden footbridge, swept away by flooding in 1435. As at Bordeaux, it was not until the time of Napoleon that measures were taken to put the building of a stone bridge at Agen into proper commission, eventually completed in 182769. As Richard’s charter should remind us, until 1189 and probably for most of the ensuing seven hundred years, there was no bridge on the Garonne at any point from the sea as far inland as Toulouse. The problem here, in engineering terms, may have been the variable flow of the river and the fact that, at Agen, as soon as stone piers were sunk, shortly after 1189, the river merely altered course, threatening to leave the bridge stranded on dry land and the city itself further distanced from the chief artery of its trade70. Road traffic continued to pass the Garonne at the ford of Lécussan, a few kilometres to the east of Agen71.

18At the principal points of ducal authority on the river–Bordeaux, La Réole, Marmande and Agen–the only crossings available were by boat. Even when the dukes of Aquitaine wished to visit Bordeaux, their only access to the city was by ferry across the fast flowing, and at this point still tidal Garonne. As a result, during the Middle Ages, not only was Bordeaux accessible chiefly by water, but once established within the city, the duke of Aquitaine was extremely well protected against attack: a fact that explains, for example, why in 1242, after his standoff against the forces of Louis IX across the Charente, at the bridge of Taillebourg, the withdrawal of both King Henry III and his army, across the Garonne to Bordeaux could be interpreted as a complete, and to some cowardly disengagement from the Capetian forces to the north. The fact that it was at Agen, some 200 kilometres upstream, that the first bridge could be built across the Garonne, and that it was there that Plantagenet Gascony reached its eastwards frontier against the lands of the counts of Toulouse, once again reinforces the strategic significance that Agen clearly held for the Plantagenet kings. As I have already attempted to demonstrate here, through to the 1190s, Agen appears to have been regarded as every bit as significant to the Plantagenets as the city of Bordeaux itself.

  • 72 Benjamin 1988, 281-3.
  • 73 Cuttino ed. 1956; Trabut-Cussac 1972, pp. xxi-ii

19Thus we come to the 1190s, and the establishment, in 1196, of peace between King Richard I and count Raymond VI of Toulouse, after nearly forty years of intermittent warfare. As the price of peace, in 1196, Richard gave up possession of Agen and the Agenais and of Cahors and Quercy, which passed to Raymond of Toulouse as the marriage portion of his wife Joan, the sister of Richard I and formerly queen of Sicily. As part of this settlement, whether in specific return for the Agenais and Quercy or as part of a wider recognition of the service owing to his overlord for the county of Toulouse itself, count Raymond is said to have promised Richard the service of 500 knights72. Joan lived for only three years after her marriage, but in the meantime gave birth to a son, the future count Raymond VII, who in theory at least became heir to her marriage portion, including both Quercy and the Agenais. Thus, in the opinion of all previous commentators, Agen and the Agenais passed beyond the control of the Plantagenet kings. Only after 1259 and the negotiation of the Treaty of Paris between Louis IX and Henry III of England, did the question of the Agenais once again re-enter diplomatic discussions. In 1259 the region was handed back to the Plantagenets with life possession meanwhile for Joan, the surviving daughter of Raymond VII of Toulouse. At her death, in August 1279, Agen and the Agenais were restored to King Edward I73. This, certainly, is the accepted story. As with the previous picture of Henry II’s dealings with Agen in the 1150s and 60s, however, the accepted story may well be a false one.

  • 74 Hardy ed. 1837, 58b.
  • 75 Hardy ed. 1837, 74.

20To begin with, there is evidence that the Plantagenet abandonment of authority over Agen and the Agenais was never so complete as has been supposed. Even before the death of his sister Joan, King John may have attempted to renegotiate the terms of 1196 by which Joan’s marriage portion had been assigned. Certainly, after her death, in January 1200, a charter which Joan had made “de terra de Agiens et de Agineis et de Caurz et Caurciners” was delivered from the court for safe-keeping with the King’s charters at Caen74. A few months later, in August 1200, John made a personal tour of Gascony and the far south, passing through Agen on 11 August75. Clearly at this stage, whatever the theoretical rights of the infant Raymond VII, John himself had by no means abandoned his claims either to Agen or Cahors. In particular, and even if he were forced to admit the terms of the 1196 marriage treaty, John could continue to demand homage and service for these lands from Raymond VI of Toulouse, and, if such service were not forthcoming, exercise his rights as overlord to confiscate the disputed territories. John, in other words, could behave towards Raymond of Toulouse in much the same way that, at this very time, the French king, Philip Augustus, was behaving towards John in respect to Normandy and the Plantagenet lands in France. Furthermore, as the uncle and overlord of Raymond VII, a minor after 1200, John could perhaps have laid claim to a degree of wardship over the Agenais if the Agenais could be shown to be the inheritance of Raymond VII, Joan’s son, rather than of Raymond VI, Joan’s husband. In all events, there were possible justifications here for a continuation of Plantagenet intervention within the region.

  • 76 Below appendix nos. 8-11.
  • 77 Since perhaps 1200, following the death of Joan, Raymond VI had been engaged to marry a sister of (...)

21Matters in the Agenais appear to have come to a head in January 1203, when, from Le Mans, John dispatched a series of letters to the barons, knights, clergy and burgesses of Agen and the Agenais, as well as to various of the more significant local lords, including Raymond Bernard of Ravignan, Stephen de Chaumont and the prior of St-Vincent at Mas-d’Agenais76. We have already considered these letters as evidence both for the independent authority of the burgesses of Agen and for the existence, as early as 1203, of a court equivalent to the general court of the Agenais. For present purposes, what is most significant about them is their acknowledgment that Raymond VI of Toulouse had directed complaints against King John via Raymond Bernard of Ravignan, and had since entered into an engagement, here described as treacherous, with John’s enemies, presumably either with the King of France or with one or other of those southern rulers, most notably the kings of Aragon and Castile, whose ambitions stretched north of the Pyrenees to encompass the Plantagenet lands in southern Gascony77. In January 1203, John urged the men of Agen and the Agenais to enter into no further engagements with Raymond that might interrupt their proper relations with their Plantagenet overlords. Instead they were to obey the Plantagenet seneschals of Gascony, naming in particular Martin Algeis, and were pledged unspecified but clearly substantial sums of money, the observation of the good customs of the region, and defence “through all courts” against any injuries attempted by Raymond of Toulouse. In short, there was an attempt here to subvert the exercise of Raymond’s authority and to re-establish direct ties of fealty between Agen, the Agenais and the Plantagenet kings.

  • 78 In general here, see Vincent 2002, 71-3.
  • 79 For the family, see Taylor 2005, 165-6, 232-3. For bishop Arnaud, see Ryckebusch 2001, 74-6.
  • 80 Hardy ed. 1837, 173b, and see 56, 58, for Raymond Bernard as witness to a charter of King John iss (...)
  • 81 Hardy ed. 1835, 154b.
  • 82 Taylor 2005, 166, 179-80, 190-4.
  • 83 Above n. 62.

22Despite this, relations between King John and Raymond VI of Toulouse were swiftly repaired, to such an extent, indeed, that by the time that the Albigensian Crusade was summoned against Raymond’s lands in 1209, King John was one of the few neighbouring princes who can be assumed to have shown sympathy to Raymond and his cause78. A significant, if now largely obscure role in diplomacy may have been played here by Raymond Bernard of Ravignan, lord of Tonneins-Dessus in the Agenais, close kinsman to Hugh de Ravignan, lord of Casseneuil and of his brother Arnaud de Ravignan alias Rovinha, bishop of Agen from c. 1206 to 122879. Raymond Bernard, previously witness to Richard’s charters to the bishops of Agen and involved in the negotiations between King John and Raymond of Toulouse of 1202-3, was in possession of 100 livres of land in the ducal demesne near Bordeaux, granted away by King John in December 120780. He seems still to have been living in September 1215 when he was promised safe conduct through the King’s lands provided that the seneschal of Gascony could obtain sureties for his adherence to the Catholic faith81. The fear was clearly that Raymond Bernard had flirted with the Cathar heresy, just as Hugh de Ravignan, lord of Casseneuil appears to have served as one of the principal local protectors of heretics. Within the Agenais, the Albigensian Crusade began and to some extent developed as one aspect of the family feuding between Hugh de Ravignan and his brother, bishop Arnaud, driven from Agen after 1209 and forced to take up residence at Mas-d’Agenais82. It was to bishop Arnaud, at the height of the Crusade’s opening campaign, that archbishop William of Bordeaux and the Pope issued confirmations of the charters granted since the 1180s by King Richard I, clearly because the present lord of the Agenais, Raymond VI of Toulouse, was attempting to encroach upon privileges which the bishop believed to be his own83.

  • 84 Hardy ed. 1835, 139.
  • 85 Gardère 1902, 270-6 no. 5, esp. p. 274: Cumque burgenses ab abbate et monachis multas expensas exi (...)
  • 86 Hardy ed. 1835, 113-14, and in general, see Vincent 2002, 76-7.
  • 87 Guébin & Lyon eds. 1926-39, ii, pp. 211-12.
  • 88 Vincent 2002, 76-7, 96-7.

23In June 1214, anxious to demonstrate his loyalty to the Roman Church, King John sent envoys to the papal legate in Gascony, promising to stand by what ever papal mandates might be issued in respect to castles in the dioceses of Agen and Cahors84. As these letters should nonetheless demonstrate, John continued to regard himself as overlord both of the Agenais and Quercy, and hence as possessing a direct interest in the affairs of a region by now subject to regular military campaigning by Simon de Montfort and his fellow crusaders. At some point before 1212, John or his local agents are said to have extracted an aid from the men of Condom, south of Agen85. In April 1214, John himself came south to the Garonne, visiting La Réole as the easternmost outpost of direct ducal authority. It was during this visit that he issued a confirmation, at St-Emilion, confirming the customs payable on wine and salt transported up-river to Bordeaux, dispatched Walter de Lacy to buy horses in the markets of Narbonne and Montpellier, and sent Geoffrey de Neville, his local lieutenant, with a force of armed men upriver to Marmande86. Neville’s standard was hoisted over the battlements at Marmande, but when attacked by de Montfort and the crusaders, Neville negotiated a withdrawal, allowing his serjeants to leave in peace, whilst various of the town’s burgesses fled for safety to La Réole87. By the summer, John was negotiating with the papal legate to place all of his lands in the counties of Quercy, the Agenais and Toulouse under papal protection and, if necessary, to intervene there himself to ensure the expulsion of all heretics88.

  • 89 Patent Rolls 1216-1225 (London 1901), 152.
  • 90 Magen & Tholin eds. 1876, 10-12 no. 9.
  • 91 Magen & Tholin eds. 1876, 25-9 no. 18, and see Vincent 2002, 93-4 n. 107.
  • 92 Calendar of Charter Rolls 1226-57 (London 1903), 345; Calendar of Patent Rolls 1247-58 (London 190 (...)

24As this offer should remind us, John’s schemes for reconquest in Anjou and Normandy were by now in tatters, forcing his return to England later in 1214 and leading thereafter to the failed negotiations and political upheavals of 1215-17. In the midst of civil war, it is hardly surprising that neither John nor, after his death, the minority council of the infant King Henry III had much time to devote to Plantagenet interests in southern France. Nonetheless, that the Plantagenets had still not entirely abandoned their claims as overlords in the Agenais is suggested by letters of May 1218, in which Henry III’s ministers appointed Geoffrey de Neville not only as seneschal for Gascony but with authority to act as seneschal of the Agenais and Quercy, notifying the local clergy and baronage of this appointment89. In September that year, the Philip “seneschal of the Agenais and Quercy” who borrowed 200 livres from the men of Agen may well be identifiable as a Plantagenet rather than a Tolosan official90. Thereafter, with the death of Simon de Montfort and the reassertion of the authority at first of count Raymond VI and thereafter of his son, Raymond VII, there is no further evidence of direct Plantagenet interest in the Agenais for at least the next thirty years. Henry III’s councillors continued to press for the acknowledgment of the military service owing, since 1196, from Toulouse to the King of England, but in 1226/7, when the seneschal of La Réole appointed by Henry III’s brother, Richard of Cornwall, negotiated a settlement between the men of La Réole, St-Macaire and those of Agen, Port-Sainte-Marie and Mas-d’Agenais, Agen itself seems to have been regarded as lying within the authority of the counts of Toulouse, entirely beyond the Plantagenet sphere of influence91. Nonetheless, as soon as news arrived in England of the death of count Raymond VII in September 1249, Henry III transferred whatever residual rights he possessed in the Agenais to his son, the future Edward I, and on 13 December 1249 appointed Simon de Montfort, earl of Leicester and son of the crusading Simon, to sue for the region’s recovery from Raymond’s executors, presumably as an escheat now that Raymond, as Joan of Sicily’s son and heir, had no heir of his own to succeed him save for the Capetian prince married to Raymond’s daughter92. In other words, from 1196 until 1218, and again from 1249 onwards, Agen and the Agenais, far from being dismissed from all consideration by the Plantagenets, continued to be regarded with keen interest and a keen awareness that the residual rights of the Plantagenet kings should not only be maintained but might, as between 1200 and 1203 and again in 1214, demand direct military or diplomatic intervention.

25The story told here may perhaps, at last allow us to appreciate the extent to which Agen and the Agenais were crucial to the history of Plantagenet rule in Gascony, from the 1150s onwards. Besides clarifying a number of points of detail concerning Plantagenet rule in the south, our investigation may also allow us better to appreciate various geo-political realities. The Agenais was first and foremost a frontier region, dividing Plantagenet Gascony from Raymondine Toulouse. With no bridge over the Garonne further west than Toulouse, the proposal to construct such a bridge at Agen, sponsored in the 1190s by the Plantagenet kings, must be interpreted as yet further evidence of rivalry with Toulouse. And yet, the Garonne itself, its shipping and its valuable tolls over commodities such as wine and salt, supplied the Plantagenet rulers not only with one of their principal sources of income, but with the principal outward symbols of their feudal authority. Far from serving exclusively as a political border or line of demarcation, the Garonne represented an artery of commerce and communication reaching from south of Toulouse as far west as Bordeaux and the Atlantic coast. Had the Plantagenets succeeded in their southern initiatives, and had the townsmen of Agen managed permanently to bridge the Garonne, then it might well have been Agen rather than Toulouse that became the greater regional powerbase. As it was, by the late 1190s, and at the height of his struggle to restore the balance of power in Normandy and northern France, Richard I of England was prepared to pull back from Agen and to cede the Agenais itself to Toulouse. Although this did not end Plantagenet claims in the region, it certainly closed a period of fifty or so years in which Henry II and Richard I had appeared to treat Agen as virtually co-equal with Bordeaux as a centre of ducal authority. In the rise of both Bordeaux and Toulouse lay the seeds of Agen’s later decline.

Bibliographie

SOURCES

Auvray, L., ed. (1896-1955): Les Registres de Grégoire IX (1227-41), Bibliothèque des Écoles françaises d’Athènes et de Rome, 4 vols.

Barckhausen, H., ed. (1890): Archives Municipales de Bordeaux: Livre des coutumes, Bordeaux.

Bouquet, M., ed. (1734-1904): Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, 24 vols. in 25, Paris.

Champollion-Figeac, J.-J., ed. (1841): Documents historiques inédits, I, Paris.

Cholet, P., ed. (1868): Cartulaire de l’abbaye de Saint-Étienne de Baigne (en Saintonge), Niort.

Cuttino, G.P., ed. (1956): Le Livre d’Agenais, Toulouse.

— (1975): Gascon Register A (Series of 1318-19), 3 vols., Oxford.

Delisle, L. and E. Berger, eds. (1916-27): Recueil des actes de Henri II roi d’Angleterre et duc de Normandie concernant les provinces françaises et les affaires de France, 3 vols., Paris.

Delpit, J., ed. (1863): in Archives Historiques du Département de la Gironde no. 5, 187-241 no. 156.

Desjardins, G., éd. (1878): Musée des archives départementales: recueil de fac-simile héliographiques de documents tirés des archives des préfectures, mairies et hospices, Paris.

Duvernoy, J., ed. (1996): Guillaume de Puylaurens Chronique 1145-1275, Paris 1976, reprinted Toulouse.

Guébin, P. and E. Lyon, eds. (1926-39): Petri Vallium Sernaii monachi Hystoria Albigensis, 3 vols, Paris.

Hardy, T.D., ed. (1835): Rotuli Litterarum Patentium, London.

— (1837): Rotuli Chartarum, London.

Higounet, C. and A. Higounet-Nadal, eds. (1996): Grand Cartulaire de la Sauve Majeure, 2 vols, Bordeaux.

Howlett, R., ed. (1884-1889): Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, London.

Lewis, A., ed. (1995): “Six Charters of Henry II and his Family for the Monastery of Dalon”, English Historical Review no. 110.

Magen, A. and G. Tholin, eds. (1876): Archives Municipales d’Agen: Chartes première série (1189-1328), Villeneuve-sur-Lot.

Michel, F. and C. Bémont, eds. (1885-1904): Rôles Gascons, 3 vols. in 4, Paris.

Migne, J.-P., éd. (1891): Patrologia Latina, vol. 215, Paris.

Ourliac, P. and M. Gilles eds. (1976): Les Coutumes de l’Agenais, 2 vols., Montpellier.

Potthast, A., ed. (1873-1875): Regesta pontificum romanorum, 2 vols, Berlin.

Round, J.H., ed. (1899): Calendar of Documents Preserved in France Illustrative of the History of Great Britain and Ireland, London.

Sainte-Marthe, D. de, ed. (1715-1865): Gallia Christiana in provincias ecclesiasticas distributa, 16 vols., Paris.

Tamizey de Larroque, P., ed. (1866): “Enquête des usurpations commises sur le domaine du roi en Agenais”, Archives historiques du département de la Gironde no. 8.

Trabut-Cussac, J.-P., ed. (1962): “La charte anglaise des coutumes de Villeneuve-sur-Lot suivie d’un essai de restitution du ‘Livre de bazane noire”’, Villeneuve-sur-Lot et l’Agenais: histoire, art, géographie, économie. Actes des XIVe et XVIIe congrès d’études régionales tenus à Villeneuve-sur-Lot les 13, 14 et 15 mai 1961, Agen.

Tropamer, H., ed. (1911): La Coutume d’Agen, Bordeaux.

Viard J. and A. Vallée, ed. (1979): Registres de Trésor des Chartes, iii part 2, Paris.

Vincent, N. and J. C. Holt, eds. (forthcoming): The Acta of King Henry II 1154-1189, Oxford.

REFERENCES

Alem, T. (1964): “Le réseau routier de la région agenaise dans son contexte provincial ou national des origines à nos jours”, Revue de l’Agenais, 90.

Andrieu, J. (1886-1891): Bibliographie générale de l’Agenais, 3 vols, Agen.

— (1893): Histoire de l’Agenais, 2 vols., Paris-Agen.

Barnes, P.M. (1962): “The Anstey Case”, A Medieval Miscellany for Doris Mary Stenton, ed. P. M. Barnes and C.F. Slade, Pipe Roll Society n.s. 36.

Baumont, S. (1991): Histoire d’Agen, Toulouse.

Benjamin, R. (1988): “A Forty Years War: Toulouse and the Plantagenets, 1156-96”, Historical Research, 61, 270-285.

Bisson, T. (1961): “The General Court of the Agenais in the Thirteenth Century”, Speculum, 36.

— (1989): Medieval France and Her Pyrenean Neighbours: Studies in Institutional History, London.

— (2000): “The General Court of the Agenais: A Reconsideration”, Parliaments, Estates and Representation, 20, 23-40.

Boussard, J. (1956): Le Gouvernement d’Henri II Plantagenêt, Paris.

Boutoulle, F. (2006): “La Gascogne sous les premiers Plantagenêt”, Plantagenêts et Capétiens: confrontations et héritages, ed. M. Aurell and N.-Y. Tonnerre, Turnhout, 285-317.

— (2007): Le duc et la société. Pouvoirs et groupes sociaux dans la Gascogne bordelaise au xiie siècle (1075-1199), Bordeaux.

Burias, J. (1979): Monumenta Historiae Galliarum, Atlas historique français: Agenais, Condomois, Bruilhois, Paris.

Cau, C. and M. Rey-Delqué (1989): Vie politique et vie quotidienne dans le comté de Toulouse au XIIe siècle, Toulouse.

Clémens, J. (1982): “L’espace coutumier d’Agen au Moyen Âge”, Revue de l’Agenais, 109, 3-19.

— (1986a): “La Coutume d’Agen au XIVe siècle”, Revue de l’Agenais, 113, 303-11.

— (1986b): “Les Origines de la cour générale d’Agenais”, Recherches sur les états généraux et les états provinciaux de la France médiévale. Actes du 110e congrès national des sociétés savantes: Montpellier (section d’histoire médiévale et de philologie iii), Paris, 69-80.

— (1992): “La maison de Béarn et les Plantagenêts dans le diocèse d’Agen durant la seconde moitié du XIIe siècle”, Terres et hommes du sud: Hommage à Pierre Tucoo-Chala, Biarritz.

Cook, B.J. (2006): “’En monnaie aiant cours’: The Monetary System of the Angevin Empire”, in: Coinage and History in the North Sea World, c. 500-1200: Essays in Honour of Marion Archibald, ed. B. Cook and G. Williams, Leiden-Boston, 617-86.

Cottineau, L.H. (1935-70): Répertoire topo-bibliographique des abbayes et prieurés, 3 vols, Mâcon.

Debord., A. (1984): La Société laïque dans les pays de la Charente Xe-XIIe siécles, Paris.

Dèprez, E. (1958): Clément VI (1342-1352) lettres closes, patentes et curiales, vol. 2 fasc. 3, Paris.

Du Cange, C. (1840-50): Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infirmae Latinitatis, new ed., 7 vols, Paris.

Ducom, A. (1892): La Commune d’Agen, Paris-Agen.

Ducros, J. (1666): Réflexions singulières sur l’ancienne coustume de la ville d’Agen, Agen.

Eché, G. (1962): “Le développement topographique d’Agen aux XIIe et XIIIe siècles”, Villeneuve-sur-Lot et l’Agenais: histoire, art, géographie, économie. Actes des XIVe et XVIIe congrès d’études régionales tenus à Villeneuve-sur-Lot les 13, 14 et 15 mai 1961, Agen.

— (1975): “Droits et pouvoirs des évêques d’Agen durant le Moyen Âge”, Revue de l’Agenais, 102.

Gardère, J. (1902): Histoire de la seigneurie de Condom et de l’organisation de la justice dans cette ville, Condom.

Gillingham, J. (1999): Richard I, New Haven-London.

— (2001): The Angevin Empire, 2nd edition, London.

Gonzalez, J. (1960): El reino de Castilla en la epoca de Alfonso VIII, 3 vols, Madrid.

Granat, O. (1924): La promenade du Gravier et son histoire, Agen.

Higounet, C. (1952): “Le développement urbain et le rôle de Marmande au Moyen Âge”, Revue de l’Agenais, 3-17.

— (1975): Paysages et villages neufs du Moyen Âge, Bordeaux.

Higounet, C., J.-B. Marquette andP. Wolff (1985): Atlas historique des villes de France: Agen, Paris.

Hocquet, J.-C. (1985): Le sel et le pouvoir de l’an mil à la revolution française, Paris.

— (1987): Le roi, le marchand et le sel, Lille.

— (2006): Le sel de la baie: histoire, archéologie, ethnologie des sels atlantiques, Rennes.

Labenazie, M. (1888): Histoire de la ville d’Agen et pays d’Agenais, Saint-Nicolas-de-la-Balerme.

Labrunie, J. and G. Tholin (1878): “Les ponts sur la Garonne”, Revue de l’Agenais, 5, 439-56.

Landon, L. (1935): The Itinerary of King Richard I, Pipe Roll Society n.s. 13.

Lanhers, Y. (1948): Tables des registres de Clément V, Paris.

Latimer, P. (1986): “Grants of ‘Totus Comitatus’ in Twelfth-Century England: Their Origins and Meaning”, Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, 59, 137-45.

Maleczek, W. (1984): Papst und Kardinalskolleg von 1191 bis 1216, Vienna.

Martindale, J. (1997): Status, Authority and Regional Power: Aquitaine and France, 9th to 12th Centuries, Aldershot.

— (2001): “‘An Unfinished Business’: Angevin Politics and the Siege of Toulouse, 1159”, Anglo-Norman Studies, 23, 115-54.

Mateu, A. (1977): “Une Charte capitale pour l’histoire de la société urbaine du Moyen Âge: les statuts municipaux consentis par les bourgeois d’Agen à la suite des troubles publics en 1248”, Revue de l’Agenais, 104.

Nony, D. (1959): “La monnaie arnaudine, essai de numismatique”, Annales du Midi, 5-20.

Renouard, Y. (1965): Bordeaux sous les rois d’Angleterre, Bordeaux.

Ryckebusch, F. (2001): Fasti Ecclesiae Gallicanae V: Diocèse d’Agen, Turnhout.

Saint-Amans, C. de (1855): “De la monnaie dite arnaldèse des évêques d’Agen”, Recueil des Travaux de la Société d’Agriculture, Sciences et Arts d’Agen, 7, 566-623.

Samazeuilh, J.-F. (1846-7): Histoire de l’Agenais, du Condomois et du Bazadais, 2 vols., Auch.

Tamizey de Larroque, P. (1869): Notice sur le prieuré de Sainte-Livrade d’après un manuscrit inédit de la Bibliothèque Imperiale, Agen.

Taylor, C. (2003): “The Origins of the General Court of the Agenais”, Nottingham Medieval Studies, 47, 148-67.

— (2005): Heresy in Medieval France: Dualism in Aquitaine and the Agenais, 1000-1249, Woodbridge.

Trabut-Cussac, J.-P. (1972): L’Administration anglaise en Gascogne sous Henry III et Edouard I de 1254 à 1307, Paris.

Vincent, N. (2000): “King Henry II and the Poitevins”, in: La Cour Plantagenêt (1154-1204): Actes du Colloque tenu à Thouars du 30 avril au 2 mai 1999, ed. M. Aurell, Poitiers.

— (2002): “England and the Albigensian Crusade”, in England and Europe in the Reign of Henry III (1216-1272), ed. B.K.U. Weiler and I.W. Rowlands, Aldershot.

— (2007): “A Forgotten War: England and Navarre, 1243-4”, in: Thirteenth Century England XI, ed. B. Weiler and others, Woodbridge.

Warren, W.L. (1973): Henry II, London.

Williams, F. (1991): “Monetary Institutions in Agenais from the Establishment to the Disappearance of the Agen Mint”, The Journal of European Economic History, 20, 569-613.

— (2002): “The Establishment of the Town Consulate in Medieval Agen”, available online at www.mises.org/asc/2002/asc8-williams.pdf

Wolff, P. (1962): “Évêques et comté d’Agen au XIe siècle”, in: Villeneuve-sur-Lot et l’Agenais: histoire, art, géographie, économie. Actes des XIVe et XVIIe congrès d’études régionales tenus à Villeneuve-sur-Lot les 13, 14 et 15 mai 1961, Agen, 115-20.

Annexes

APPENDIX

1. Agen, Collegiate Church of St-Caprais

Mandate from King Henry II to bishop Elias, the canons of St-Etienne and the men of Agen to make peace with the canons of St-Caprais, ordering them to ensure, with the advice of William Maengot, the King’s constable, that a gate be made in the wall which the King wishes made to divide the churches of St-Etienne and St-Caprais, to allow the canons access by day and night to their parishioners.

Woodstock [1155 X 1172,? 1163 X 1172]

B = Agen AD Lot-et-Garonne 91J3 (Henri Argenton’s ‘Preuves des essais sur l’histoire de l’Agenais’), p. 8 no. 11, copy from Labénazie’s ms. history of Agen vol. 3 pp. 267-8, itself taken from the archives du chapître d’Agen, with note at end ‘extr’ du martyr(ologie) de St Cap. p. 115 sans dattes’, s. xviii. I am indebted to Frédéric Boutoulle for the information that led me to this text.

The intermediate source from which Argenton (1723-1780) took his copy was a transcript in part 3 of the ms. ‘Histoire de la ville d’Agen’ by Bernard Labénazie (1635-1724), still in existence in 1888 when it belonged to the Martinelli family of Agen (cf Andrieu 1886-91, ii, 5-6), but since untraced.

Date: apparently before the introduction of the Dei gratia clause, and hence before the King’s departure for Normandy in 1172. The reference to a direct royal command suggests a date after the King’s first visit to Gascony in 1156, almost certainly after the King’s return to England following the Toulouse campaign of 1159. For bp Elias of Agen (1149-c. 1180), see Sainte-Marthe ed. 1715-1865, ii, 911-12. For William Maengot, lord of Surgères, who appears here uniquely with the title of constable, perhaps as constable of Agen, subsequently seneschal of Aquitaine and Poitou, see Boussard 1956, 354-5n; Vincent 2000, 114. For the two collegiate churches of the (cathedral of) St-Etienne, and St-Caprais at Agen, see Sainte-Marthe ed. 1715-1865. ii, 891-4. One of the few charters of Henry II surviving for a Gascon beneficiary, and perhaps the only such charter to reveal the full exercise of royal authority. Note, however, the absence of any royal official in the address.

Henricus rex Anglie dux Normannie et Aquitanie et comes Andegauensis Helie episcopo Agennensi et omnibus canonicis S (ancti) Stephani de Agenno et omnibus burgensibus eiusdem ciuitatis salutem. Precipio vobis quod habeatis pacem cum canonicis S (ancti) Caprasii et hominibus eorum et in nullo eis iniuriam faciatis, et permittatis eis habere omnes redditus et usus suos quos habent et habere sole<ba> nta intra ciuitatem et extra, tam in aquis quam in leudis et aliis omnibus rebus bene et in pace et plenarie, et de muro quem egob fieri volo inter ecclesiam S (ancti) Stephani et ecclesiam S (ancti) Caprasii, vobis precipio ut in medio ipsius muri, de consilio Willelmi Mengoti conest(abularii)c mei et prioris S (ancti) Caprasii, portam amplam faciatis ut predicti canonici et homines sui parrochiani nocte et die liberum habeant introitum et exitum per illam. Testibusd Ric(ardo) de Him’conestabulario et Ric(ardo) de Camuillae apud Wodest’.

2. Agen, Bishop of

Notification by Richard as count of Poitiers that he has granted bishop Bertrand of Agen the ‘pugnères’ of the mills, and the ‘émines’ of grain at Agen.? Baigne-Sainte-Radegonde [1181 X 1189]

B = Agen AD Lot-et-Garonne G/G1bis p. 6, in a copy of an inspeximus by Pope Clement (?V) dated at Avignon 4 nones June yr. 4 (?2 June 1309), s. xvi. C = Ibid. G/G8, copy of the same inspeximus, 17 February 1604.

Date: after the death of Elias bishop of Agen and the succession of bishop Bertrand, and before the accession of Richard as King of England.

Ricardusf filius regis Anglie comes Pictauen(sis) omnibus archiepiscopis, episcopis, baronibus, senescallisg, prepositis et ceteris iusticiariis et bailiuish suis ad quos presensi scriptum peruenerit salutem. Sciatis quod ego dedi et concessi B (etrando) Agennen’episcopo in perpetuum esponigieres molendinorumj de Agenno et esminas et redditus earumdem, unde volo et firmiter precipio ut ista habeat et teneat et in pace et sine contradictione aliqua in perpetuum possideat. Testibus Ramundok Bernardi et Stephano de Chaum(on)tl et Guillelmo Remontm de Pins apud Biangne.

3. Agen, Bishop of

Notification by Richard as count of Poitiers addressed to the burgesses and bailli of Agen of his grant as in no. 2 above.? Baigne-Sainte-Radegonde’ [1181 X 1189]

B = Agen AD Lot-et-Garonne G/G1bis pp. 3-4, copy of an inspeximus by Pope Gregory IX, 17 August 1234, s. xvi. C = Ibid. G/G8, copy of the same inspeximus, 17 February 1604.

Date: apparently as above no. 2.

Ricc(ardus) comes Pictauen(sis) fidelibus suis burgensibus omnibus et bailiuon de Agenio salutem. Sciatis quod ego in perpetuum dedi et concessi Agennen(si) episcopo pro salute anime mee las poitiraso de molendinis, eminas et earum redditus, unde vobis mando atque precipio ut ea eip reddatis et ab omnibus integre reddi faciatis, scientes quodq si quis ei reddere contradiceret, indignationem nostram haberet. Testibus R. Bernard de Rouinia, Stephano de Caumont, W. Ram’de Pine apud Beaniam.

4. Agen, Bishop of

Notification by Richard as count of Poitiers and duke of Aquitaine to the clergy and people of the city of Agen of his gift to bishop Bertrand of Agen of the same comital rights which his ancestors granted to bishops Simon and Audebert, further granting jurisdiction over duels, false measures and a mint.

Agen [1181 X 1189]

B = Agen AD Lot-et-Garonne G/G1bis p. 3, copy of an inspeximus by Pope Gregory IX, dated at Spoleto 17 August 1234, s. xvi. C = Agen Lot-et-Garonne G/G8. copy of the inspeximus as in B, 17 February 1604. D = BN ms. Moreau 114 fo. 67v, copy of an inspeximus by W(illiam) archbp of Bordeaux addressed to Pope I(nnocent III), also reciting two privileges of William duke of Aquitaine over the county and the mint of Agen, copied from the archives of the bpric of Agen, s. xviii. E = Agen AD Lot-et-Garonne 91J3 p. 8 no. 9, abbreviated copy by Argenton from the archives of the bishopric, s. xviii. F = Paris, Institut de France, Archives ms. 7G187, brief notice of D by Delisle, s. xix.

Printed (from D) Ducom 1892, 273.

Date: For Simon (II) (1083-1101) and Audebert (c. 1118-pre 1130) bps of Agen, see Sainte-Marthe ed. 1715-1865, ii, 905-9. For bishop Bertrand (1181 X 1183- c. 1203), see Ibid., ii, 911-12. According to Ibid., ii, 912, Richard I confirmed the county (comitatum) of Agen to bishop Bertrand but as King, after 1189, rather than as count (comitatum Anginnensem confirmauit Richardus Anglorum rex et dux Aquitanorum, presentibus Auxitano et Baionensi presulibus qui cum ipso in peregrinatione erant), as below no. 7, and cf. Sainte-Marthe 1715-1865, ii, instr. 429 no. 6, printing the first of the charters of duke William recited in B, followed by a note: eandem comitaliam Agennensem Bertrando episcopo confirmauit Richardus Anglie rex et Aquitanie dux, presentibus archiepiscopo Auxitano et episcopo Bayonensi qui cum eo in peregrinatione erant.

Ricardusrs comes Pictauen (sis) filius regis Anglie dux Aquitaniet uniuerso clerou et populo ciuitatisv Agenn(ensis)w salutem. Sciatisx et sine dubio cuncti credatisy comitaliam quam antecessores meiz dederunt et concesseruntaa Simoni et Audebertobb episcopis Agennen(sibus) mecc dedisse et concessisse Bertrandodd episcopo Agennen(si) sicut unquam illi melius habuerunt et tenueruntee. Quapropterff per fidem quam mihi debetis vos submoneo ut illam neque auferatis illigg neque denegetis sed contra omnem mortalem qui hoc agere tentauerithh fideliter eum adiuuetis. Iusticiam quoque pro duello et mensurarum falsatione que sexaginta solidorum est et omnem aliam que ad meii pertinet iusticiam illi sine ulla contradictione reddatis. De moneta etiam que nostri similiter est beneficiijj precipio ut ubicumque predictus pontifex illam magis sibi profuturam intellexerit, illuc sine calumniakk cuiuslibet hominis eam transferat et in conspectu illorumll qui videre voluerint ibi fieri faciat. Quicumque vero hecmm impugnare voluerit, iram nostram incurret. Testibus me ipso R (icardo) necnon Bernardo de Rouinia, ep(iscop) onn Lectoren’, priori de Biueioo apud Agenniumpp.

5. Agen, bridge of, and Stephen de Artiges

Notification to the bishop of Agen and others of quittance of toll and other privileges concerning the bridge of Agen and of the appointment of Stephen de Artiges as chief bridge-keeper.

London, 12 November 1189

A = Agen, AD Lot-et-Garonne, Archives de la ville d’Agen DD 13, apparently sealed on red, green and white silk cords. Missing, believed stolen, since at least 1974. B = Ibid. DD 14, in an original inspeximus by Edward I, given at Agen, 25 November, 1286. C = Ibid. 91J3 pp. 8-9 no. 12, Argenton’s copy from A, s. xviii. D = Ibid. Archives de la ville d’Agen DD15, copy from A, s. xix. E = London, PRO ms. PRO31/8/138 no. 2, copy from A, noting an apparently late, vernacular endorsement, s. xix.

Printed (facsimile from A) Desjardins ed. 1878, pl. 28 no. 51; (from A) Champollion-Figéac ed. 1841, 499-500 no. 17; Magen and Tholin eds. 1876, 1-2, whence (calendar) Landon 1935, no. 129; (calendar from E) Round ed. 1899, 452 no. 1252. Here printed from the published facsimile of A.

Ric(ardus) Dei gratia rex Angl(ie) dux Norm(annie) Aquit(annie) comes And(egauie) episcopo Ageniens’et omnibus ministris et fidelibus suis de Agen’et omnibus ad quos littere presentes peruenerint salutem. Nouerit uniuersitas vestra nos concessisse et presenti carta confirmasse quod pons Agen’sit liber et quietus de passagio, de pontag(io) et de omni exactione et consuetudine. Donamus etiam et concedimus eidem ponti quod habeat quinque ulnatas spatii an(te) et quinque retro liberas, ne quis ibi aut molendinum edificare aut aliquod aliud nocumentum infra prefatum spatium predicto ponti inferre presumat. Donamus etiam et concedimus libertatem duobus hominibus qui communi consilio ville Agen’et pontenarii eligantur ad perquirendas prefato ponti faciendo elemosinas, et post mortem illorum communi ville consilio alios duos ad h (oc) ibidem constitui concedimus. Concedimus etiam Steph(an) o de Artiges quod sit magister pontenarius ibidem vita sua, et post mortem ipsius alius bonus ibi sit magister pontenarius aliorum duorum et communi ville consilio electus. T (estibus) Waltero Rothom’archiepiscopo, Gauf(rido) Lostor, Hug(one) Loos, Bernardo de Lantas. Data per manum Will(elm) i de Longocampo cancell(arii) nostri et Elyensis electi, anno primo regni nostri, xii. die Nouem(bris) aput London’.

6. Agen, Bertrand Bishop of

Notification to all the clergy and people of the city of Agen of the King’s confirmation of the rights of Bertrand, bishop of Agen to ‘pugnères’ and ‘émines’.

Messina, 26 December (1190)

B = Agen AD Lot-et-Garonne G/G1bis p. 4, copy of an inspeximus by Pope Gregory IX, dated at Spoleto 17 August 1234, s. xvi. C = Agen Lot-et-Garonne G/G8. copy of the inspeximus as in B, 17 February 1604. D = BN ms. Moreau 114 fo. 68r copy of an inspeximus by William archbishop of Bordeaux addressed to Pope Innocent III after January 1210, copied from the archives of the bpric of Agen, s. xviii. E = Agen AD Lot-et-Garonne 91J3 p. 9 no. 13, copy by Argenton from the archives of the bishopric, s. xviii.

Printed (from D) Ducom 1892, 274.

Ricardus Dei gratia rex Anglie dux Norman(n) ie et Aquitanie comes Andegauen(sis) uniuerso clero et populo ciuitatis Agginiqq salutem. Volumus et precipimus quatenusrr dilecto nostro Bertrandoss episcopo Agennen(si)tt totum ius suum quod antecessores ipsius de donatione nostrorum antecessorum habuisse dignoscuntur quod etuu ipse a nobis accepit illesum et integrum omnino ei exhibeatis in terris, in molendinis, in eminis, in moneta et in quibuslibet aliis possessionibus, in pugneriis molendinorum iusticiamque ville cum omnino quiete et pacificevv habere et possidere volumus, sicut unquam melius habuisse dignoscuntur aliqui siue aliquis antecessorum ipsius, et ut monetam suam absque omni calumniaww ubicumque voluerit fieri faciat concedimus, et ne aliam aliquam monetam in tota villa siue etiamxx in toto episcopatu aliquis superinducere aliquatenus attentetyy firmiter inhibemus. Si quis autem contra hanc iussionem venire attentaueritzz, iram nostram se nouerit incursurum. Mandamus etiamaaa uniuersitati vestrebbb et per fidem quam nobis debetis vosccc submonemus quatenus eundemddd episcopum in prefato iure et in quolibet alio iureeee suofff possidendo et conseruando tanquam nos ipsum fideliter adiuuetisggg. Teste me ipso, vicesima sexta die Decembrishhh apud Mesanamiii.

7. Agen, Bertrand Bishop of

Notification to all the clergy and people of the city of Agen of the King’s confirmation of the comital rights of Bertand, bishop of Agen as granted earlier to bishops Simon and Aldebert.

Messina, 3 April (1191)

B = Agen AD Lot-et-Garonne G/G1, in an original inspeximus by Guido bishop of Preneste, January 1210/11. C = Ibid. G/G1bis p. 1, copy from B, s. xvi. D = BN ms. Moreau 114 fo. 68r, incomplete and garbled copy from B, s. xviii. E = Agen AD Lot-et-Garonne 91J3 p. 8 no. 10, brief abstract from? B, s. xviii.

Printed (brief abstract) Sainte-Marthe ed. 1715-1865, ii, instr. col. 429.

Ricc(ardus) Dei gratia rex Anglie dux Normannie Aquitanie et comes Andegauen(sis)b uniuerso clero et populo ciuitatis Agennen’salutem. Sciatis et sine dubio cuncti credatis comitaliam quam antecessores nostri dederunt et concesserunt Simoni et Aldeberto episcopis Agenn’nos dedisse et concessisse B (ertrando) episcopo Agenn’sicut umquam illi melius habuerunt et tenuerunt. Quapropter per fidem quam nobis debetis vos summonemus ut illam neque auferatis illi neque denegetis sed contra omnem hominem qui hoc agere attentauerit fideliter eum adiuuetis. Iusticiam quoque pro duello et mensurarum falsatione que. lx. solidorum est et omnem aliam que ad nos pertinet iusticiam sicut scriptum est in carta quam a nobis predictus episcopus habuit antequam rex essem et sicut habetur in priuilegiis predecessorum nostrorum illi sine contradictione aliqua reddatis, de moneta etiam que nostri similiter est beneficii precipio ut ubicumque predictus pontifex illam magis profuturam intellexerit, illuc sine calumpnia cuiuslibet hominis eam transferat et in conspectu illorum qui videre voluerint ibi fieri faciat. Quicumque vero hec ita pugnare voluerit, iram nostram incurretjjj. Teste <me>kkk ipsolll apud Messanam. iii. d (ie)mmm April(is) et sunt testes archiepiscopus Auscitonen(sis)nnn et episcopus Baionen(sis)ooo qui nobiscum erant in peregrinatione.

8. Agen, Bishopric of

Notification by King John to the barons and knights of the bishopric of Agen that he intends to amend any evil done by his predecessors, by the counsel of the barons’and knights’best friends. The King is prepared to act on the petitions addressed to him by (Raymond VI) count of Toulouse via Raymond Bernard de Ravignan, but the count has entered into alliance with the King’s enemies, whence the King asks that the barons and knights make no sworn agreement with the count except saving their fealty to the King as soon as they return, as they should, to the King’s service, for which they will be richly rewarded. The King urges the barons and knights to obey his seneschals in Gascony, and undertakes to defend the barons and knights through all courts and in all places against any wrong done to them by the count of Toulouse or anyone else.

Le Mans, 22 January 1203

B = London, Public Record Office C66/2 (Patent Roll 4 John) m. 6, s. xiii in.

Printed (from B) Hardy ed. 1835, 23.

Rex etc baron(ibus), militibus omnibus per episcopatum Agen’constitutis etc. Nouerit dilectio vestra quod nos si aliqualiter mali a predecessoribus nostris vobis fuit illatum, plenarie vobis emendabimus, tali modo quod habebitis vos inde pacatos, et h (oc) faciemus per consilium meliorum amicorum quos habetis et vobis maxim(um) bonum et honorem faciemus. Adh(uc) sciatis quod nos omnes illas petitiones quas comes Tolosanus nobisppp feceratqqq et mandauerat per Reymund(um) Bernard(um) de Ruuin’parati eramus adimplere et super h (oc) ipse perexit praue facere inprisionem cum innimicis nostris contra nos, et h (oc) vobis notificamus ut sciatis malam continentiam quam habet aduersum nos. Un(de) vos rogamus et vobis mandamus et vos summonemus in fidelitate quam nobis fecistis vos enim non fecistis iusiurand(um) predicto com(iti) nisi salua fidelitate nostra quatinus ad seruicium nostrum redeatis quod de iure facere deberetis, propter quod maxim(um) honorem cum diuiciis accipietis et pro predicto com(ite) aut pro suis n (ichi) l amodo faciatis. Ad ultimum vos exoramus quatinus sen(escallos) qui pro nobis erunt in Wascon(ia) tamquam sen(escallis) nostris sitis intendentes, et sciatis quod si com(es) Tolosanus aut aliquis alius propter hoc vobis aliq(uem) malum velit dare, per omnes curias et per omnia loca erimus defensores. T (este) me ipso apud Cenom’xxii. die Ian(uarii)rrr.

9. Bishopric of Agen

Notification in similar terms by King John to the bishop, abbots, archdeacons, archpriests, chaplains and all clergy of the bishopric of Agen, asking also that the summon all barons, knights, burgenses and men of the bishopric that they return to the King’s lordship, referring to Martin Algeis as seneschal in Gascony.

Le Mans, 22 January 1203

B = London PRO C66/2 (Patent Roll 4 John) m. 6, s. xiii in.

Printed (from B) Hardy ed. 1835, 23b.

Rex etc episcopo Agen’, abbatibus, archid(iacon) is, archipres(bi) teris et capell(anis) et uniuersis clericis per episcopatum Agen’ const(itutis) etc. Nouerit dilectio vestra quod nos omnes illas petitiones quas com(es) Tolosanus nobis mandauerat per Reimund(um) Bern(ardum) parati eramus adimplere, et super h (oc) ipse perexit facere inprisionem cum innimicis nostris contra nos. Unde vos exoramus quatinus summoneatis omnes bar(ones), milites, burgenses et homines uniuersos episcopatus Agen’ ut redeant in dominium nostrum, un(de) maxim(um) bonum accipient cum honore, et quod pro com(ite) predicto aut pro suis n (ichi) l faciant amodo et quod pro Martino Algeis qui pro nobis est in Wascon(ia) tamquam sen(escallum) sint intendentes sicut alii qui loco ipsius venie<n> t, et sciatis quod si com(es) Tolosanus vel aliquis alius propter h (oc) aliquem malum velit dare, per omnes curias et per omnia loca erimus defensores. T (este) me ipso apud Cenom’xxii. die Ian(uarii).

10. City of Agen

Letters in similar terms to no. 8, addressed to the burgenses and men of Agen, referring to money which they claim was taken from them by the count of Toulouse, and to the customs of the city.

Le Mans, 22 January 1203

B = London, Public Record Office C66/2 (Patent Roll 4 John) m. 5, s. xiii in.

Printed (from B) Hardy ed. 1835, 23b.

Rex etc burgensibus et hominibus Agen’etc. Dilectioni vestre notificamus quod nos illos den(arios) de quibus queremoniam habetis quos com(es) Thol(osanus) vobis fecit auferri, quicquid enim super h (oc) fecimus consilio ipsius fecimus, vobis persoluemus plenarie tali modo quod tenebitis vos inde pacatos, et h (oc) faciemus ad consilium meliorum amicorum quos habetis. Preterea nouerit vestra dilectio quod nos omnes bonas consuetudines quas habetis illesas seruabimus et volumus illas vos habere, et si quas malas consuetudines habetis, per consilium vestrorum meliorum amicorum et vestrum auferremus. Adh(uc) noscat prudentia vestra quod nos petitiones illas quas com(es) Thol(osanus) a nobis petiit per Reimund(um) Bern(ardum) de Ruuinac’parati eramus adimplere, et super h (oc) ipse perexit praue cum innimicis nostris inprisionem facere contra nos. Un(de) vobis mandamus et vos summonemus in fidelitate quam nobis deberetis vos enim non iurastis predicto com(iti) nisi salua fidelitate nostra quatinus in seruicium nostrum redeatis quod facere debetis et propter h (oc), D (eo) voluntate, maxim(um) honorem cum diuiciis adquiretis et amodo pro predicto com(ite) siue pro suis n (ichi) l faciatis, sed sen(escallis) nostris qui pro nobis erunt in Wascon(ia) tanquam nobis sitis intendentes, et sciatis quod si com(es) Thol(osanus) vel aliquis alius propter h (oc) vobissss aliq(uem) malum velit dare, per omnes curias et per omnia loca erimus defensores. T (este) me ipso apud Cenom’, xxii. die Ian(uarii).

11. Bishopric of Agen

Letters in similar terms to the men and burgenses of the bishopric of Agen, noting the dispatch of letters in similar terms to Raymond Bernard de Ravignan, the prior of (St-Vincent) Mas-d’Agenais, William Raymond de Puys, Vital de Chaiseneuve, Stephen de Chaumont and Anisent de Chaumont.

Le Mans, 22 January 1203

B = London, Public Record Office C66/2 (Patent Roll 4 John) m. 5, s. xiii in.

Printed (from B) Hardy ed. 1835, 23b.

Rex etc probis hominibus et burgensibus per Agen’episcopatum constit(utis) etc. Nouerit dilectio vestra quod nos omnes illas petitiones quas com(es) Thol(osanus) a nobis petiit per Reimund(um) Bern(ardum) de Rouin’parati eramus adimplere et super hoc perexit praue cum innimicis nostris inprisionem facere contra nos. Un(de) vobis mandamus et vos summonemus in fidelitate quam nobis debetis vos enim non iurastis predicto com(iti) nisi salua fidelitate nostra quatinus in seruicium nostrum redeatis quod facere debetis, et propter h (oc), Deo volente, maxim(um) honorem cum diuiciis adquiretis, et amodo pro predicto com(ite) siue pro suis n (ichi) l faciatis sed sen(escallis) nostris qui pro nobis erunt in Wascon(ia) tamquam nobis sitis intendentes, et sciatis quod si com(es) Thol(osanus) vel aliquis alius propter hoc vobis aliq(uem) malum velit dare, per omnes curias et per omnia loca erimus defensores. T (este) me ipso apud Cenom’, xxii. die Ian(uarii).

Sub eadem forma scribitur hi(i) s: Reimund(o) Bern(ardo) de Ruuin’, priori de Manso, Willelmo Reimund(o) de Puis, Vitali de Casa Noua, Steph(ano) de Chalmont, Anisent de Calmunt.

Notes

1 See in particular Martindale 1997 and 2001; Gillingham 1999 and 2001; Benjamin 1988; Boutoulle 2006 and 2007.

2 For geo-political definitions of the Agenais, see Bisson 1961, 254-6, reprinted in Bisson 1989, 3-4; Taylor 2003, 152-8; Taylor 2005, 47-54, with a convenient map in Michel and Bémont eds. 1885-1904, iii, facing p. cxxiv.

3 Below appendix nos. 1-7, of which only no. 5 is noticed in Landon 1935, 15 no. 129, which itself is a notice derived from the earlier calendar by Round ed. 1899, no. 1252. Round knew of the charter for the bridge of Agen from the “French” transcripts made in the 1830s for the English Record Commissioners, now London, Public Record Office ms. PRO31/8/138 no. 2.

4 Tropamer ed. 1911 (held by the British Library but apparently not to be found at either Oxford or Cambridge); Ourliac & Gilles eds. 1976.

5 Boussard 1956, 151, and see also 147-8: “Il semble que toute cette partie sud-ouest du Périgord, comme l’Agenais et le Bazadais, ait été répartie entre des seigneurs à peu près indépendants, sous l’autorité lointaine du duc d’Aquitaine”.

6 Taylor 2005, 185.

7 Amongst the many general histories of the region and city, see in particular Labenazie 1888; Andrieu 1893; Baumont 1991. Taylor 2005, 50-2 is especially useful on the Toulosan claims, noting charters of 1079/80 by which William IV of Toulouse referred to himself as count of Agen, and suggesting that William IX of Aquitaine’s charter to bishop Simon represents the revival of comital authority entrusted to the bishops following a period in which it had been assumed by the counts of Toulouse.

8 The charters of William IX are best published by Wolff (1962), 119-20, with commentary at 115-19, tentatively concluding that the two charters are authentic. Their authenticity, or at least the twelfthcentury perception of their authenticity, is further suggested by their renewal by Richard I, discussed below. Wolff knew of the texts of these charters from the copies by Henri Argenton (1723-1780) in Agen, AD Lot-et-Garonne 91J3 (formerly 2J54). There are further copies of the charter to bishop Simon in Ibid. G/G17 (s. xv), and of both charters, taken from a lost inspeximus of 1210 by William archbishop of Bordeaux addressed to Pope Innocent III, in Paris Bnf ms. Moreau 114 fos. 67r-68r (s. xviii).

9 For the “monnaie anuldèse” or “arnaudine”, see Saint-Amans 1855; Nony 1959; Williams 1991, who at 572 notes the existence of similar episcopal mints at Cahors and Rodez, and suggests a conversion rate in the mid-thirteenth century of 24 sous arnuldèse for 1 livre tournois. The coinage is illustrated in Baumont 1991, 44, and in general, for the great diversity of coinage in circulation in Henry II’s French lands, see Cook 2006. For “comitalia” see Du Cange 1840-50, vol. 2, 464, specifically citing the term from William X’s charter to bishop Audebert of Agen, as printed in Sainte-Marthe ed. 1715-1865, vol. II, instr. col. 429. Useful comparisons can be made here with the grants of “comitatus” by the early dukes of Normandy, as discussed by Latimer ed. 1986.

10 Tropamer ed. 1911, 5-9, noting the existence of manuscripts at Agen, including the so-called” manuscrit Noubel” used as the basis of Tropamer’s edition, the so-called “Livre juratoire” (now Agen AD Lot-et-Garonne mss. 5, 42, with a full facsimile of the “Livre juratoire” available online at www. cg47. fr/archives/coups-de-coeur/Tresors/gallerie. htm, both dated by Tropamer to the late thirteenth century), and of further confirmations under the authority of Louis I duke of Anjou and Charles V of France, preserved in the municipal archives at Agen (AD Lot-et-Garonne E Suppl. Agen AA10, AA11, AA14) and in Paris. For recent studies of the Agen customs, see Clémens 1982, 1986a and 1986b, esp. 78 n. 21.

11 The customs of the vill of Marmande, said to have been established by Richard as count of Poitiers and duke of Guyenne, are first recorded in Paris, Archives nationales ms. JJ72 (Register of Philip VI, 1338-46) fos. 145r-155v no. 216, in an undated inspeximus by Philip VI (c. 1341) reciting an inspeximus of 19 October 1340 by the archbishop of Auch and Pierre de La Palu, the King’s lieutenants in Languedoc, with a further copy from a French translation of 1552, now in the archives of the Auber family of Peyrelongue, closer to the copies preserved elsewhere in Bnf mss. Baluze 25 fo. 100r ff; Moreau 340 fos. 26-47. Calendared from the Archives nationales copy in Viard and Vallée 1979, 138 no. 4111, which refers, misleadingly and as if they were the present text, to municipal statutes of 1396 published by Delpit 1863. For an extended study, see Ourliac & Gilles ed. 1976, i, 5-6, 37, accepting the ascription of at least the first 86 of the statutes to the primitive customal supposedly established by Richard in 1182, with an extended commentary on the manuscript transmission at 81-6. A further early copy, said to have formed a separate libellus amongst the archives of the château of La Force in the Dordogne, is abstracted in Bnf mss. Périgord 15 fos. 104v-105r; Périgord 24 fo. 264r-v, s. xviii. For Marmande, see Higounet 1952, reprinted in Higounet 1975, 325-34.

12 Tropamer ed. 1911, esp. 37-42 no. 6, 54-69 nos. 14-21, 96-9 no. 37.

13 For the fullest list of such rights exercised by the bishops, surviving from 1263 and including such otherwise familiar seigneurial privileges as rights to take the first fin of great fish (nervi creagori vel sturgiorum), a tax on foreign Jews crossing the Garonne at Agen, an annual tax from the Agen weavers (textures) and a custom of troselatge payable on each bale of cloth sent to market, see Ducom 1892, 279-86, esp. 283-6.

14 See here, in particular, Eché 1975, 333-9.

15 Ducros 1666, esp. 37-8, apparently reiterated by the city’s leaders in 1789, as cited by Samazeuilh 1846-7, i, 189-90, both listed in Williams 2002.

16 Below appendix no. 5, concedimus duobus hominibus qui communi consilio ville Agen’et pontenarii eligantur, as noted by Mateu 1977, 265-6.

17 Below appendix nos. 1, 3

18 Above n. 8, and note the address to universus clerus et populus civitatis Agennensis in Richard’s charters below appendix nos. 4, 6, 7, adapted directly from the earlier charters of William IX.

19 Bisson 1989, 3-39, esp 4-6, and for the earliest reference to clerical participation delayed to 1271, see ibid. 14. For critiques here, in my opinion wrongly asserting that the general court was a later rather than an earlier development, see Clémens 1986b, 69-80 (although ultimately allowing for a prehistory as far back as the 1080s), with response by Bisson 2000. More convincing arguments are advanced by Taylor 2003, 148-67, and Taylor 2005, 162-4, to demonstrate the diversity of the region’s political and economic structures and to suggest that the general court was a later rather than an early institution. I would differ from Taylor only in suggesting that the 1190s, rather than the period of the Albigensian Crusade, may be crucial in understanding the court’s emergence.

20 Below appendix nos. 8 (addressed to all barons and knights throughout the bishopric of Agen), 9 (to the bishop and all clergy of the bishopric), 10 (to the burgenses and men of Agen), 11 (to the prudhommes and burgenses of the bishopric of Agen)

21 Clémens 1986b, 72-3, 78 n. 21; below appendix no. 10; Cuttino ed. 1975, ii, 332-3 nos. 55-6.

22 For an introduction to the principal sources here, and to the antiquaries Bernard Labénazie (1635-1724) and Henri Argenton (1723-1780) upon whose copies (especially Argenton’s “Preuves”, now Agen AD Lot-et-Garonne 91J3, described by previous writers under the call-number 2J54) we depend for much of our knowledge of the twelfth-century evidences, see Ducom 1892, pp. xxiii-xli, esp. p. xxxix.

23 Continuation of Richard of Poitiers, in Bouquet ed., xii, 417 (coadunato apud Agennensium exercitu), also at 121, as if from an anonymous chronicle.

24 Delisle & Berger eds. (1916-27), i, nos. 127-8, ii, supplement no. 15, shortly to be published in the new edition of Henry’s charters by Vincent and Holt eds. (forthcoming), nos. 1373 (issued at Villemur in castris), 2205 (issued at Cahors), 2222 (issued at Auvillar in castris); Bouquet ed., xii, 374 (from a Toulousan chronicle sub anno 1159, Cepit Verdunum rex Henricus Anglie); Barnes 1962, 18. For further military activity at Cahors and Mons Regalis (despite the remarks of Benjamin 1988, 271 n. 8, more likely to be Montréal-le-Vieux near Bergerac than Montréal between Carcassonne and Castelnaudary), see the Bec chronicle in Howlett ed. 1884-9, iv, 323.

25 Michel & Bémont eds. 1885-1904, ii, 224 no. 800 (secundum concessionem et confirmationem inclite recordationis domini H (enrici)... tunc domini terre Agen) whence Vincent and Holt ed. forthcoming, no. 624b.

26 Torigny “Chronica”, in Howlett ed. 1884-9, iv, 211: post festum sancti Iohannis, Henricus rex Anglorum perrexit in Aquitaniam, et inter alia que strenue gessit, Castellionem supra urbem Agennum castrum, scilicet natura et artificio munitum, obsedit et infra unam septimanam in festiuitate sancti Laurentii (i. e. 10 August 1161) admirantibus et perterritis Wasconibus, cepit, accepted without question by Benjamin 1988, 272, as relating to 1161. The reference here to Castillon as lying supra urbem Agennum leaves little doubt that the castle in question lay on the escarpment above the valley of La Masse, clearly visible today at the back of the modern railway station, and conjecturally identified as the site of the Roman citadel.

27 Clémens 1992, 206-8, whose arguments are accepted by Boutoulle 2006, 297-8, despite the evidence elsewhere (Boutoulle 2006, 291) that Clémens’account of events in the region is far from reliable.

28 The homage rendered by the Bouville family for Castellionem, almost certainly to be identified as Castillon-sur-Agen, is first referred to in July 1263: Ducom 1892, 278, from an account of the installation of bishop William of Agen in 1263, also printed in Archives historiques du département de la Gironde no. 8 (1866), 351, where Castellionem is misidentified as Castillou, cant. Prayssas (whence, apparently, Burias 1979, plan V. 1).

29 Boutoulle, 2006, 297-8, and for Brulhois, see 288, 291. For the devastation of the site, see the inquest of 1311, printed by Tamizey de Larroque ed. 1866, 267 no. 88 article 19, 271 articles 21, 46: et fuit sal in eodem seminiatum adhoc ut nullum fieret ibidem edificium aliquo tempore, sed desertum in perpetuum remaneret, echoing Judges 9:45 (on the revenge reaped by Abimelech).

30 Most notably Warren 1973, 82-7; Benjamin 1988, 270-85; Martindale 2001, 115-54.

31 Below appendix no. 1.

32 For William, see Boussard 1956, 354-5n.; Vincent 2000, 114.

33 For Hamelin, see the charter of Richard, Henry II’s son, dated 31 July 1175 and referring to an earlier settlement of disputes between the abbot and men of Condom Hamelino fratre regis Anglie tunc temporis constabulario in Gasconia existente, also witnessed by William Maengot as seneschal of Poitou: Gardère 1902, 262-3 no. 3. Both of these important references to a constable in Gascony are overlooked by Boussard 1956, who nonetheless (353-6) suggests that the chief agent of Plantagenet rule in the far south was known as the King’s procurator or constable.

34 For a detailed attempt to map the fortifications of medieval Agen, see Higounet et al. 1985.

35 For what follows, see Tropamer 1911, 30-7 nos. 4-5, of which a further, closely related copy, also in demotic French, was copied into the late fourteenth or early fifteenth-century “Livre des Coutumes” at Bordeaux: Barckhausen ed. 1890, 221-4 nos. 3-4.

36 For the bridges, see Eché 1962, 141, citing Granat 1924, esp. 14-17. For a definition of pugneria (alias pugniera/pugneta/pugnetus) as a measure of grain, see Du Cange 1840-50, v, 508.

37 For emina/hemina, employed in the rule of St Benedict to imply a measure of wine, elsewhere frequently applied to grain, see Du Cange 1840-50, iii, 643-4.

38 The Pont de Moncorni appears to have derived its name from one of the internal divisions of the medieval city.

39 That pack animals were nonetheless employed for the transport of salt at Agen is implied by a list of the customs payable to the bishops of Agen in 1263, including a payment of two cups of salt and 16 deniers de ribathge to the bishop from every ship bringing salt up the Garonne to Agen from La Réole, and a handful of salt from every ass-load brought to market: Ducom 1892, 279. Likewise, at Marmande, the lords of the vill were entitled to 1 denier in péage from every horse-load of salt and a halfpenny from every ass-load: Ourliac and Gilles ed. 1976, i, 128-9 no. 48.

40 Clémens 1986b, 72-80.

41 Below appendix nos. 2, 6.

42 Ourliac & Gilles eds. 1976, i, 118-19 no. 29, 124-5 no. 39.

43 Agen AD Lot-et-Garonne E Suppl. Agen AA5 no. 17 (letters of Philip of Valois, 12 December 1339, ordering the seneschal of the Agenais to enquire into complaints that the men and merchants of Agen were now being charged 2s. 4d. péage by the men of the duke of Aquitaine, i. e. King Edward III of England, at Marmande on each barrel of wine). For a further reference, as early as 1221, to the péage customary at Marmande in the time of King Henry (II), see Magen and Tholin eds. 1876, 14-15 no. 11.

44 Below appendix no. 5.

45 Bnf mss. Doat 80 fos. 300v-301r (Ricardus comes Pictavensis filius regis Anglie ballivis Aginnii et burgensibus salutem et amorem. Mando vobis firmiterque precipio ut nullo modo disturbetis naves bonorum hominum de Grandissilva nec naves eorum de cetero exonerari faciatis. Teste me ipso apud Tallaburgum); Latin 11010 (Grandselve cartulary) fo. 145r (R. dux Aquitanie et comes Pictavie senescallo Aginnensi et universis civibus Aginnensibus suis dilectis et fidelibus salutem et veram pacem. Universitati vestre notum fieri volo quod pro salute anime mee concessi imperpetuum abbatie que Grandissilva dicitur liberum descensum et ascensum unius navis semel per singulos annos per Garonnam et omnes aquas et portus meos sine omni consuetudine et tributo pro vendendis propriis rebus et pro emendo sale et ceteris rebus domui sue necessariis, et quia hanc elemosinam in liberam et ab omni exactione immunem conservari volo, mando et districte precipio ut nullus vestrum quod fieri non credo iter predicte navis in aliquo perturbet vel impediat. Valete).

46 Bnf mss. Doat 91 fos. 202v-203r (for Belleperche); Doat 80 fo. 297r-v (for Grandselve), both writs addressed to the bailliuis Burdegalensibus qui tenent salinum.

47 Round ed. 1899, 392-3 nos. 1104-5. Fontevraud’s rights over salt at Agen were still being enforced in 1311: London, Public Record Office ms. SC1/49 nos. 167-8. For the salt pit itself, see Michel and Bèmont eds. 1885-1904, ii, nos. 455, 511, 1517, 1551.

48 Trabut-Cussac ed. 1962, 158-9, 167, citing Edward I’s grant to the men of Villeneuve in 1286 (from an original today, somewhat surprisingly, preserved in New York, Columbia University, Butler Library ms. Smith-Western 12) Item damus et concedimus pro nobis et heredibus et successoribus nostris liberum arbitrium habitatoribus dicte ville... quod possint emere salem ubicumque voluerint et etiam apportare ad bastidam per terram vel per aquam ad eorum seruicium, retento tamen quod nos possimus habere salem nostrum in dicto loco sine preiudicio libertatis hominum dicte ville. For the ducal monopoly over the transport of salt, both on the Garonne and other rivers of the south-west, see Debord 1984, 355-6, and in general for the Atlantic salt trade, see the work of Hocquet, esp. Hocquet 1985, 1987 and 2006.

49 See above n. 29. Abimelech, let it be noted, was, like Richard, to meet his end besieging another fortress, at Thebez, cursed for his tyranny, punished by God and killed by a stone thrown from the ramparts by an old woman, just as Richard was to meet his end from a crossbow bolt fired by a humble member of the garrison at Chalus-Chabrol. Rather than bear the indignity of being killed by an old woman, Abimelech ordered one of his followers to run him through with his sword (Judges 9:50-7).

50 Higounet 1975, 330-1. For the equally lucrative customs, distinct from péage, charged on traffic up the Garonne, payable at Bordeaux by those seeking to export wine from the port of Bordeaux, see Renouard 1965, 53-68.

51 Boutoulle 2006, 289-92.

52 For Richard’s charters to Grandselve, see above n. 45. For Henry II’s charter, see below appendix no. 1.

53 For Richard’s charter to the abbey, see Bnf ms. Latin 12751 pp. 583-4, witnessed at Dax by William Maengot and Henry de Ipena constabularius Castilionis, more likely Castillon-la-Bataille (Gironde) than Castillon-sur-Agen. The lost charter to the men of Ste-Livrade is merely summarized in the history of the abbey of Ste-Livrade, now Bnf ms. Latin 12678 fos. 227v, 232v, 234v, 243v, whence the summary by P. Tamizey de Larroque ed. 1869, 12, 24.

54 Below appendix nos. 5, 7, of which the latter is only briefly abstracted in Sainte-Marthe ed., ii, instr. col. 429.

55 Round ed. 1899, 9 no. 37.

56 Ryckebusch 2001, 73-4; Sainte-Marthe ed., ii, col. 912, recording Bertrand’s gift to La Sauve-Majeure, supposedly made to abbot William in 1187, not otherwise recorded in Higounet and Higounet-Nadal eds. 1996.

57 Below appendix no. 4. For the priory of Brives-la-Gaillarde, and for alternative possibilities including St-Etienne de Brives (Indre, cant. Issoudun, in the diocese of Bourges, a Benedictine dependency of Déols), or St-Pierre de Brivezac (Corrèze, arr. Brives, cant. Beaulieu, in the diocese of Limoges, a Benedictine dependency of Solignac), see Cottineau 1935-70, i, cols. 508-9.

58 For the abbey of St-Etienne at Baignes (Beaniam), see Cholet 1868.

59 Below appendix nos. 2-3.

60 Innocent III’s letters, 30 June 1205 (Potthast ed. 1873-5, no. 2554), are printed from the papal register in Migne ed. 1891, cols. 684-6, placing bishop Bertrand of Agen and his see under papal protection, confirming the bishop’s possessions and churches and preterea comitalia et monetam... pagnerias (sic) quoque molendinorum de Agen et eminas ac redditus earum quas illustris memorie R (icardus) rex Anglie dum esset comes Pictauie in eleemosynam tibi pia liberalitate concessit que ad episcopalem mensam perpetuo deputasti... comitalia quoque et monetam sicut a predicto R(icardo) rege Anglie tunc comite Pictauensi tibi tuisque successoribus pietatis intuitu sunt concessa. The inspeximus by Gregory (IX), dated at Spoleto on 17 August 1234, supplies copies of appendix nos. 3, 4, 6 below and, although not registered, accords with the Pope’s movements as recorded in Auvray ed. 1896-1955, i, 1118 nos. 2064-5. The inspeximus by Pope Clement, which supplies a copy only of no. 2 below, was issued at Avignon on 2 June in the Pope’s 4th year: a date which would suit the itinerary of Clement V, who was at Avignon on 2 June 1309 (Lanhers 1948, 44), but not that of Clement VI, who was at Villeneuve-lès-Avignon on 2 June 1345 (Dèprez ed., 5 nos. 1756-7).

61 Below appendix nos. 6-7, which accord with the King’s itinerary as recorded in Landon 1935, 45-8. The archbishop of Auch and the bishop of Bayonne, who had earlier been charged with the supervision of Richard’s fleet (Boutoulle 2006, 299-300, 313), were both present at Messina on 16 October 1190 and later accompanied the King to Cyprus, being last recorded in the King’s company at Acre in July 1191: Landon 1935, 44, 49, 51.

62 Below appendix nos. 6, 7. Archbishop William’s inspeximus, now known only from an antiquarian copy in Bnf ms. Moreau 114 fos. 67r-8r, whence Ducom 1892, 271-4 no. 1, is addressed Sanctissimo ac reuerendissimo patri suo I (nnocentio) diuina prouidentia uniuersalis ecclesie summo pontifici, and makes explicit reference to William’s participation in the Albigensian crusade: Quoniam ex officii nostri debito pro generali statu prouincie nostre in Agennensi diocesi intraremus ad expugnandos hereticos cum multitudine armatorum et debellendos in eos excedentes, in quo ex magno parte per Dei gratiam profecimus. At the request of the bishop of Agen, it recites in turn (1) the two charters of William IX duke of Aquitaine in favour of bishops Simon and Aldebert, (2) the letters of Richard as count of Poitiers renewing privileges granted by William IX, (3) the letters of Guy bishop of Preneste (which still survive independently as an original engrosment at Agen AD G/G1) which refer to a hearing in the Pope’s presence in January 1210/11 between the bishop of Agen and Raymond VI of Toulouse and to the bishop’s request that copies of his privileges be deposited in the Lateran to protect him against possible loss of his archives in returning to France, reciting Richard’s charter of 1191 (which occurs only in the original, not in the Moreau copy printed by Ducom), (3) Richard’s other charter of 1190. The archbishop’s inspeximus ends apparently without dating clause, but with a notification that it, or a later copy of it, had been confirmed under the seals of the chapters of St-Etienne and St-Caprais at Agen. For Guido bishop of Preneste, see Maleczek 1984, 99-101.

63 Landon 1935, 25 nos. 216-17; Round ed. 1899, 472 no. 1301. Bishop Bertrand witnesses further charters of Eleanor, in favour of Dalon made at Périgueux 1190 X 1199, and at Bordeaux 1190 X 1204 in favour of the Norman abbey of Le Valasse. His predecessor, bishop Elias, witnesses no charters of Henry II or Richard but is nonetheless recorded in 1170 at Bordeaux in company with Eleanor of Aquitaine and numerous southern bishops, serving as witness in the negotiation of dower rights for Eleanor, Henry II’s daughter, married to Alfonso VIII of Castile: Lewis 1995, 663-4; Rouen, AD Seine-Maritime 18HP7; Gonzalez 1960, i, plate between pp. 192-3.

64 Below appendix no. 5.

65 Ourliac & Gilles eds., i, 111-19 nos. 16-27.

66 Ibid., 116-17 no. 25.

67 Ducom 1892, 286, from the 1263 inquest into episcopal privileges.

68 Tamizey de Larroque ed. 1866, 281-2 nos. 47, 49, with further reference to a fishery “near the bridge” at 271.

69 For full details here, see Labrunie & Tholin 1878, at 441-2 noting the renewed appeal for funds for the bridge after 1282, and at 445-7 the destruction of the wooden footbridge completed by the 1390s.

70 Labrunie & Tholin 1878, 441, citing a charter of Raymond VI of Toulouse, printed by Magen and Tholin eds. 1876, 9-10 no. 8.

71 See here the extremely useful map by Burias 1979, plan XV. 4, showing bridges on the Lot at Saint-Livrade and Villeneuve-d’Eyssas, and on the Baïse at Babaste. For the ford at Lécussan, carrying the old Roman road of La Peyrigne, see also Baumont 1991, 42; Alem 1964, 62-3. For the bridge at Toulouse, see ‘Plan de Toulouse 1080-1208’, in Cau & Rey-Delqué 1989, no. 4, as drawn to my attention by Guilhem Pépin.

72 Benjamin 1988, 281-3.

73 Cuttino ed. 1956; Trabut-Cussac 1972, pp. xxi-ii

74 Hardy ed. 1837, 58b.

75 Hardy ed. 1837, 74.

76 Below appendix nos. 8-11.

77 Since perhaps 1200, following the death of Joan, Raymond VI had been engaged to marry a sister of King Peter of Aragon, the marriage itself taking place in January 1204: Duvernoy ed., 1996, 46-7. For the position of Castile at this time, see Vincent 2007, 111-17.

78 In general here, see Vincent 2002, 71-3.

79 For the family, see Taylor 2005, 165-6, 232-3. For bishop Arnaud, see Ryckebusch 2001, 74-6.

80 Hardy ed. 1837, 173b, and see 56, 58, for Raymond Bernard as witness to a charter of King John issued in Normandy in July 1199, and in January 1200 informed of arrangements for the pacification of Gascony. He is perhaps the same Raymond Bernard in April 1204 promised 1000 marks of subsidy from England, following King John’s flight from Normandy: Hardy ed. 1835, 40b.

81 Hardy ed. 1835, 154b.

82 Taylor 2005, 166, 179-80, 190-4.

83 Above n. 62.

84 Hardy ed. 1835, 139.

85 Gardère 1902, 270-6 no. 5, esp. p. 274: Cumque burgenses ab abbate et monachis multas expensas exigerunt pro clausura videlicet ville et donatione facta regi Anglie.

86 Hardy ed. 1835, 113-14, and in general, see Vincent 2002, 76-7.

87 Guébin & Lyon eds. 1926-39, ii, pp. 211-12.

88 Vincent 2002, 76-7, 96-7.

89 Patent Rolls 1216-1225 (London 1901), 152.

90 Magen & Tholin eds. 1876, 10-12 no. 9.

91 Magen & Tholin eds. 1876, 25-9 no. 18, and see Vincent 2002, 93-4 n. 107.

92 Calendar of Charter Rolls 1226-57 (London 1903), 345; Calendar of Patent Rolls 1247-58 (London 1908), 56.

Notes de fin

a solent B, with marginal correction il y a solebant

b ego inserted over the line B

c consiliarii B with note in margin conest’

d Testes B, Testibus supplied

e Him’ et Ric(ardo) de Camuilla conestabularius B, Him’conestabulario et Ric(ardo) de Camuilla supplied

f Richardus C

g senescalis C

h bailliuis C

i quorum presentia BC, quos presens supplied

j moniendinorum C

k Ranundo B, Raymondo C, Ramundo supplied

l Caumont C

m Guilhelmo Raimont C

n bailliuis C

o coitiras B, poitiras supplied from C

p illi C

q quo B, quod supplied from C

r R (icardus) DE

s Dei gratia dux Aquitanorum uniuerso clero E

t Aquitanorum D

u Dei gratia dux Aquitanorum uniuerso clero E

v ciuitatis not in D

w Agenni CE

x Sapiatis E

y credetis D

z nostri DE

aa dedere et concessere D

bb S (imoni) et A (udeberto) E

cc nos E

dd B (etrando) E

ee D ends here habuere et tenere etc

ff E ends here etc

gg illis B, illi supplied from C

hh temptauerit C

ii nos C

jj benificii C

kk calumpnia C

ll eorum C

mm hac C

nn ap(iscopo) o B, episcopo supplied from C

oo Briues C

pp Agennum C

qq Agennen’C, Agennensi D, Agenni E

rr quantum D, quantum de E

ss B (ertrando) E

tt Agenn’E

uu et not in E

vv pacifice et quiete D

ww calumpnia E

xx etiam not in E

yy attendare D, attemptauerit E

zz attemptauerit E

aaa etiam not in E

bbb nostra C

ccc vos not in E

ddd prefatum E

eee iure not in B, supplied from CDE

fff suo not in E

ggg DE end here

hhh vicesima septa Danubria B, supplied from C

iii Messcinam C

jjj etc E

kkk me illegible B, supplied from CE

lll etc E

mmm d(ie) B, Idus E

nnn Auscitanensis E

ooo Bagonensis E

ppp vobis B, nobis supplied

qqq vobis B, nobis supplied

rrr B inserts vel, cancelled

sss vobis over de corrected B

© Ausonius Éditions, 2009

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540