¹ I am indebted to Giles Constable and to Jean Dufour for assistance generously given during the research for this article and to Elizabeth A. R. Brown for helpful comments on the text. The following abbreviations will be used: AN = Paris, Archives Nationales; Cart. Compiègne = Cartulaire de l'abbaye de Saint-Corneille de Compiègne, vol. 1, ed. Morel, Emile, Société historique de Compiègne (Montdidier, 1904); Cart. Corbeil = Cartulaire de Saint-Spire de Corbeil au diocèse de Paris, ed. Coüard-Luys, Emile (Rambouillet, 1882); Cart. Paris = Cartulaire général de Paris, vol. 1, ed. de Lasteyrie, Robert, Histoire générale de Paris (Paris, 1887); Cart. Pontoise = Cartulaire de l'abbaye de Saint-Martin de Pontoise, ed. Depoin, Joseph, Publications de la Société historique du Vexin (Pontoise, 1895–1909); Duchesne, Dreux = André Duchesne, Histoire généalogique de la maison royale de Dreux (Paris, 1631); Dufour, Recueil = Dufour, Jean, ed., Recueil des actes de Louis VI, roi de France (1108–1137), 4 vols., Chartes et diplômes relatifs à l'histoire de France (Paris, 1992–94); GC = Denis de Sainte-Marthe et al., Gallia christiana …, new ed., 16 vols. (Paris, 1715–1865); HF = Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France 15, ed. Michel-Jean-Joseph Brial (Paris, 1808); Luchaire, Louis VII = Achille Luchaire, Etudes sur les actes de Louis VII (Paris, 1885); Mém. Soc. Vexin = Mémoires de la Société historique et archéologique de l'arrondissement de Pontoise et du Vexin; Obituaires = Obituaires de la province de Sens, vol. 1: Diocèses de Sens et de Paris, ed. Molinier, Auguste, Recueil des historiens de la France, Obituaires (Paris, 1902); Pr. = Preuves; St-Martin-des-Champs = Recueil de chartes et documents de Saint-Martin-des-Champs, monastère parisien, ed. Depoin, Joseph, vol. 2, Archives de la France monastique 16 (Ligugé and Paris, 1913); Tardif, MH = Tardif, Jules, ed., Monuments historiques. Cartons des rois, Inventaires et documents publiés par l'ordre de l'Empereur (Paris, 1866); Torigny = Robert of Torigny, Chronicle, in Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II, and Richard I, ed. Howlett, Richard, vol. 4, Rolls Series 82 (London, 1889).Google Scholar

² Torigny, 204.Google Scholar

³ Examples in Cart. Paris, 296 no. 319, 298 no. 321, 301 no. 325.Google Scholar

⁴ See below, at nn. 34–37, 40, 43–44.Google Scholar

⁵ Luchaire, , Louis VII, nos. 148, 200, 257, 276; Torigny, 204, 207; Ralph of Diceto, Ymagines historiarum, in The Historical Works of Master Ralph de Diceto, Dean of London, ed. Stubbs, William, vol. I, Rolls Series 68 (London, 1876), 303.Google Scholar

⁶ AN, L 900, no. 14, undated act for Saint-Victor of Paris, in Duchesne, Dreux, Pr., 228, from a seventeenth-century copy; André Lesort, “Notes sur les abbayes de Saint-Martin de Pontoise et de Maubuisson,” Mém. Soc. Vexin 43 (1934), 79, undated act for Saint-Martin of Pontoise; Cart. Corbeil, 49–50 no. 34, act for the canons of Saint-Spire dated 1155. Duchesne (Dreux, Pr., 229) cites, from a cartulary of Saint-Corneille of Compiègne, an act dated 1164. This charter seems not to be extant; perhaps it was in a cartulary, now lost, which Dom Grenier saw in the eighteenth century: see Cart. Compiègne, x. The date 1164 is impossible (Philip died in 1160), but if one envisions a transposition of elements within the roman numeral (“MCXLIV” in place of “MCLXIV”), there need be no reason to doubt the authenticity of the act.Google Scholar

⁷ There is no mention of Peter prior to his marriage. Since the date of his marriage can be set no more precisely than ca. 1150–ca. 1160, and that of his birth no more precisely than ca. 1125–ca. 1137, we cannot gauge even to the closest decade how much of his life is undocumented. On Robert, see my “Fourteen Charters of Robert I of Dreux (1152–1188),” Traditio 41 (1985): 146–59. On Peter, see my Royal Succession in Capetian France: Studies on Familial Order and the State, Harvard Historical Studies 100 (Cambridge, Mass., 1981), 59, 60, 156, 165, 292 n. 4, 293 n. 8, and Jean Du Bouchet, Histoire généalogique de la maison royale de Courtenay (Paris, 1661), 6–15.Google Scholar

⁸ In 1159, Robert of Torigny called him dean of the cathedral of Paris: Torigny, 204. In fact, Clement was dean there from ca. 1147 until ca. 1167; Cart. Paris, 310 no. 342, 393 no. 464. Ralph of Diceto reported that Samson, archbishop of Reims, refused to anoint Louis VII's third wife, Adela of Champagne, as queen “quia sororem ejusdem Alae propter consanguinitatem separaverat a Philippo fratre memorati regis”; Historical Works 1: 303. It is difficult to reconcile this statement with the chronology of Philip's career and with the relations between Louis VII and Adela's father, Theobald II of Champagne, for Philip had already taken orders as a cleric when he was thirteen or younger, that is, before the canonical age for marriage; see nn. 3, 5 above. Relations between Louis VII and Theobald were strained since at least 1140, hostile in 1142 and 1143, and strained for several years thereafter; Michel Bur, La formation du comté de Champagne, v. 950–v. 1150, Publications de l'Université de Nancy II (Nancy, 1977), 289–92; Marcel Pacaut, Louis VII et son royaume, Bibliothèque générale de l’École Pratique des Hautes Études, VI^e Section (Paris, 1964), 42–45. According to Pacaut (p. 45), Louis VII initiated a rapprochement with Theobald in March 1144. But Theobald had married his oldest daughters to the dukes of Apulia and Burgundy and had recently sought to marry a third one to the count of Flanders: Bur, La formation, 292. It seems unlikely that he would have agreed to marry even a younger daughter to the impecunious Philip. Note that precisely in 1144–45, Louis VII arranged no better a match for Robert, the marriageable brother next in age to himself, than one to the dowager countess of Perche; Lewis, Royal Succession, 60.Google Scholar

⁹ Luchaire, , Louis VII, 109 no. 31; Joseph Depoin, “Les origines de la collégiale de Saint-Mellon,” Mém. Soc. Vexin 1 (1879), 47. See also nn. 19–20 below.Google Scholar

¹⁰ The inscription on the tomb gave the date 1161; Père Anselme de Sainte-Marie (Pierre de Guibours), Histoire généalogique et chronologique de la maison royale de France, 3rd ed. (Paris, 1726), 1:75. On the date of the tomb, Georgia R. Sommers, “Royal Tombs at St-Denis in the Reign of Saint Louis,” Ph.D diss., Columbia University, 1966, 44 n. 109. Philip's death was commemorated at Tours and at Paris on dates between 2 and 6 September; Necrologium Beatissimi Martini Turonensis, 804–1495, et obituarius Majoris Monasterii, ed. Nobilleau, Paul (Tours, 1875), 36; Obituaires 1: 174, 455 (in an accompanying note the editor confuses this Philip with Philip of Mantes, half-brother of Louis VI). Three acts of Louis VII, dated 1160 (thus predating Easter, 16 April 1161), speak of Philip as already dead; Luchaire, Louis VII, nos. 432, 434, 438.Google Scholar

¹¹ See Luchaire, Achille, Louis VI le Gros: annales de sa vie et de son règne (1081–1137) (Paris, 1890), nos. 474, 476.Google Scholar

¹² Cart. Paris, 305 no. 331 (Luchaire, Louis VII, no. 200).Google Scholar

¹³ The terminus a quo of 24 December allows for computation of the year from Christmas, reckoned from the vigil of the feast, but it is more likely that the Easter style was used. This charter was for Notre-Dame of Paris, and during the 1120s acts of the bishops of Paris and of Louis VI for that church were dated by the Easter mode; Dufour, Recueil 3: 177–78. Luchaire cited two royal acts from 1147 and three from 1152 — none of them for Notre-Dame of Paris, although one written by a scribe who had ties there — in which he believed the Easter mode was used; Luchaire, Louis VII, 26–27; Françoise Gasparri, L'écriture des actes de Louis VI, Louis VII et Philippe Auguste (Paris, 1973), 46, 48, 125 no. 73. Louis Halphen showed that Luchaire had misdated one of these acts, and he expressed doubt as to whether the style of Easter or that of 25 March was used in the others; “Observations sur la chronologie des actes de Louis VII,” Revue historique 108 (1911): 55–58. For royal charters from 1118 that appear to have been dated by the Easter system, see my “La date du mariage de Louis VI et d'Adélaïde de Maurienne,” Bibliothèque de l'École des Chartes 148 (1990): 8. If use of that reckoning is envisioned for these acts from 1147, the terminus a quo will be 19 April (Easter Saturday) 1147. On the pueritia as lasting until the age of fourteen (or the fifteenth year), see Sears, Elizabeth, The Ages of Man: Medieval Interpretations of the Life Cycle (Princeton, 1986), esp. 61, 69, 78.Google Scholar

¹⁴ St-Martin-des-Champs 2: 197–99 nos. 308–10. In no. 308, Philip is the last witness, subscribing after the officers of the cathedral chapter of Paris; in nos. 309–10, he is cited as a witness immediately after the officers of the chapter but before other ecclesiastics and all the laymen.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Cart. Paris, 296 no. 319; Tardif, ΜΗ, 257 no. 474 (Luchaire, Louis VII, no. 148).Google Scholar

¹⁶ Examples in Cart. Paris, 298 no. 321, 301 no. 325.Google Scholar

¹⁷ For Philip's charter, see Duchesne, , Dreux, Pr., 228; for Henry's, see Tardif, , ΜΗ, 248–49 no. 450. Although in most regards the two acts are identical, Philip's titulary differs from Henry's in that, in addition to his abbatial titles, Henry is styled treasurer of Saint-Martin of Tours.Google Scholar

¹⁸ On Henry, see Constable, Giles, The Letters of Peter the Venerable, vol. 1, Harvard Historical Studies 78 (Cambridge, Mass. 1967), 195–96.Google Scholar

¹⁹ See n. 9 above. See also Luchaire, , Louis VII, 86. In my Royal Succession (60 and 251 n. 78), I utilized the act attributed to Hugh, but Thomas G. Waldman, who is preparing an edition of Hugh's acts, advises me that, because of anomalies in the witness list and in the diplomatics, he regards this text as forged. Assuming composition at Pontoise, the use in it of the formula anno Domini for the date suggests that it was written no earlier than the thirteenth century; compare the twelfth-century documents in Cart. Pontoise with Chartrier de l'abbaye de Saint-Martin de Pontoise, vol. 1, ed. Depoin, Joseph, Publications de la Société historique du Vexin (Pontoise, 1911).Google Scholar

²⁰ Both acts cite as witnesses men who did subscribe other charters of Louis VII and of Hugh; but, of the witnesses to the act attributed to Hugh, Giles the archdeacon and William the precentor of Rouen did not hold those offices simultaneously.Google Scholar

²¹ Cart. Compiègne 112 no. 59, 121 no. 66. Duchesne, however, saw an act, now lost, which styled Philip treasurer of Saint-Corneille; I suggest above (n. 6) the emendation of the date in it as 1144. That change would alter slightly the chronology of Philip's career.Google Scholar

²² As dean at Orléans, HF 15: 458 (Eugenius III to the canons at Orléans; JL, no. 9390); as archdeacon, HF 15: 667 (Adrian IV to Louis VII; JL, no. 10054); as dean at Saint-Martin of Tours, Nobilleau, Necrologium (n. 10 above), 36 (“Obiit Philippus, frater regis Francorum, decanus hujus ecclesiae”). The authors of GC 14:176 appear to have seen documents indicating that Philip was dean of Saint-Martin as early as 1155. That a later archdeacon at Orléans established a pittance for the canons who were present at the commemoration of Philip's anniversary tends to corroborate the inference that he had been archdeacon there; Cartulaire de Sainte-Croix d'Orléans (814–1300), ed. Thillier, Joseph and Jarry, Eugène, Mémoires de la Société archéologique et historique de l'Orléanais 30 (Paris, 1906), 203 no. 120.Google Scholar

²³ Lesort, “Notes,” 79. This charter refers to an act of Adelaide of Maurienne, which is also undated but which its most recent editor attributes to 1147–54; Dufour, Recueil 2: 495–96 no. 16. The fact that both these acts refer to Louis VII simply as Francorum rex may imply that they were issued after he had abandoned the style dux Aquitanorum, in 1154; see Luchaire, , Louis VII, 10. Adelaide died on 18 November 1154; ibid. 27; Obituaires 1: 331, 353. Her charter may thus date from 1154 and Philip's from about the same time.Google Scholar

²⁴ In 1152, he witnessed a charter of Clement, dean at Notre-Dame of Paris; the placement of his subscription, between those of the deacons and those of the subdeacons, suggests that he held one of those ranks; Cartulaire de l’église Notre-Dame de Paris, vol. 1, ed. Guérard, Benjamin, Collection de documents inédits sur l'histoire de France (Paris, 1850), 389. The necrology of the cathedral styles him “concanonicus noster”; Obituaires 1: 174.Google Scholar

²⁵ Torigny, 204: “connivente Philippo … qui, ut dicunt, electionem suam concessit eidem Petro.”Google Scholar

²⁶ Cart. Paris, 361 no. 413; Obituaires 1, 174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁷ In 1150, the archbishop of Rouen asked Louis VII to intervene to protect the canons from mistreatment by one of their number, a certain Hulduin; and in a letter to Suger, speaking of Saint-Mellon and another church, he wrote “Rex eas tenet” and spoke of those “qui ecclesias illas per Regem occupant”; HF 15: 702, 698. If the lack of reference to Philip is considered along with the fact that Philip used no abbatial title in the charter cited above (n. 23), it may suggest that Louis had placed control over Saint-Mellon in the hands of another appointee. Administration of it by an archdeacon responsible to the king is documented by 1165; Jean-François Lemarignier, Recherches sur l'hommage en marche et les frontières féodales, Travaux et mémoires de l'Université de Lille, n.s., Droit et Lettres 24 (Lille, 1945), 54.Google Scholar

²⁸ Simon was dean at Orléans in 1153; Thillier and Jarry, Cartulaire de Sainte-Croix, 21–24 no. 11, 143–45 nos. 73–74. For his successors (from 1154–59), ibid., 16–17 no. 6, 21 no. 10, 146–47 no. 75.Google Scholar

²⁹ For Mantes, see below, n. 40. The authors of GC 12: 128 appear to have seen a record of Philip as abbot at Étampes in 1155. The fact that in 1160–61 Louis VII granted to Notre-Dame of Étampes a fair such as the abbey had possessed on the day of Philip's death implies that Philip had remained abbot there; Basile Fleureau, Les antiquitez de la ville et du duché d'Estampes, avec l'histoire de l'abbaye de Morigny (Paris, 1683), 349 (Luchaire, Louis VII, no. 438).Google Scholar

³⁰ “Frater illustris ludovici dei gratia Regis francorum & ducis aquitanorum & per dei gratiam abbas quarumdam regalium ecclesiarum …” (AN, L 900, no. 14); “Ludovici illustrissimi Francorum regis frater, et capicerius ecclesie Sancti Melloni de Pontesara” (Lesort, “Notes,” 79); “Francorum regis frater et filius, Dei gracia ecclesie Beati Exuperii Corboliensis abbas” (Cart. Corbeil, 49 no. 34); see also Appendix below.Google Scholar

³¹ Philip's charter for Saint-Victor was modeled on an earlier one to the same church from his brother Henry, and both were written by clerks at Saint-Victor; n. 17 above, and Gasparri, L’écriture, 49–50.Google Scholar

³² Douët-d'Arcq, Louis, Collection de sceaux, 3 vols., Inventaires et documents publiés par l'ordre de l'Empereur (Paris, 1863–68) 3: 148 no. 9181. Dom Claude Estiennot saw this same seal on Philip's charter for Saint-Martin of Pontoise: “Sigillum exhibet uirum ueluti pluuiali amictum librumque prae manibus gestantem …” (Paris, BN Lat. 12741, 36). That seal remained attached to the charter until 1840, when it was removed for inclusion in a collection of seals at the Archives d'Eure-et-Loir; Lesort was shown what he accepted as Philip's seal but which in fact was that of a layman (“on y distingue à peine la forme équestre d'un chevalier”); “Notes,” 78.Google Scholar

³³ The seal used by Philip's brother Henry before he became bishop of Beauvais also gave his name and title in the nominative; by contrast, the seals of Robert I of Dreux and Peter I of Courtenay used the genitive; Duchesne, Dreux, Pr., 226; Lewis, “Fourteen Charters,” 147 n. 6, 163 n. 1; Du Bouchet, Histoire, Pr., 8, 10. Note, however, that the seals of Robert and Peter date from after 1150 and 1160, respectively. Among prelates, the archbishop of Reims used the genitive form on his seal, as did the bishops of Paris, Amiens, Beauvais, Chartres, Laon, Noyon, Senlis, and Soissons, and the abbot of Saint-Germain-des-Prés; Douët-d'Arcq, Collection des sceaux 2: 464 no. 6341, 533 nos. 6775–81, 480 no. 6437, 491 no. 6507, 500 nos. 6564–65, 510 no. 6631, 528 no. 6744, 545 no. 6851, 547–48 no. 6869; 3: 109 nos. 8899–8900. By contrast, the archbishop of Rouen still used the nominative, as did the bishops of Meaux (in 1157; by 1161 his successor had switched to the genitive) and of Orléans; ibid. 2: 468 no. 6362, 520 nos. 6695–96, 530 no. 6758. The archbishop of Sens used the nominative in 1125 but by ca. 1138 had adopted the genitive; ibid. 471 nos. 6382–83.Google Scholar

³⁴ Cart. Compiègne, 118–22 nos. 65–67.Google Scholar

³⁵ “… Nisi regie majestati super fratre suo deferendum judicassent, eos qui cum eo inventi sunt … turpiter punissent…” (ibid., 121).Google Scholar

³⁶ “… Ad reginam matrem nostram litteras nostras misimus, quatinus abbatem Compendiensem cum omnibus suis in pace dimittat, nullamque ei vel suis molestiam inferat, et ut verbum de injuria filii sui et sua patienter usque ad octobas B. Dionysii induciet” (ibid., 123 no. 68).Google Scholar

³⁷ Ibid., 148 no. 80 (JL, no. 10336); this letter is from 29 October 1156–58.Google Scholar

³⁸ For two properties that he held, see Boullé, Jules, “Recherches historiques sur la maison de Saint-Lazare de Paris,” Mémoires de la Société de l'histoire de Paris et de l'Ile-de-France 3 (1876), 170 (Luchaire, Louis VII, no. 432), and Tardif, MH, 292 no. 564 (Luchaire, no. 434).Google Scholar

³⁹ For Henry, see Lewis, , Royal Succession, 248–49 n. 61, 250–51 nn. 71, 76; Dufour, Recueil 1: 493 no. 233. In 1175 Henry, then archbishop of Reims, arranged for Philip of Dreux to be elected bishop of Beauvais; Philip accepted the election but was not consecrated until 1180; Helinand of Froimont, PL 212: 1069; GC 9: 732. For Philip's age, see n. 63 below.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Luchaire, , Louis VII, 189 no. 276. I have not seen the printed version of this act cited by Luchaire. I cite it from Paris, BN Coll. Vexin 12 (Antoine-Joseph Lévrier, “Mémoires historiques sur le comté de Meullant, le Vexin, etc. Preuves”), fol. 203r-v: (eighteenth-century copy from an “Hist. msc. de Mante”): “… controversiam diu fuisse inter Philippum fratrem nostrum abbatem Ecclesiae Meduntensis et Canonicos. Dicebat enim ex eo quod Abbas esset, clericos Ecclesiae se posse submonere quo vellet, et eos necessario venturos: et contra Clerici a suo abbate non debere quaerelari Clericos Canonicos extra Capitulum, et hanc Ecclesiae dignitatem esse affirmabant.” From the notation of the year (“a. 1152, r. 15”), Luchaire attributed the act to 30 March–31 July 1152. The manuscript, however, adds “Epact. 23, indict. I^a,” from which the dating should be revised to 1 September–31 December 1152. On the regnal year, see Halphen, , “Observations,” 57–58 (n. 13 above). The participation of Samson Mauvoisin, archbishop of Reims, might be thought to reflect a deliberate exclusion of the archbishop of Rouen; it seems more likely, however, that Samson was consulted because, as a native of the district of Mantes, he was familiar with its customs; see Cart. Pontoise, 253–255.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Lemarignier, , Recherches, 50–54.Google Scholar

⁴² This dispute is known from the charters that recorded its composition in 1164; Cart. Compiègne, 173–75 nos 97–98. Morel erred in stating that the dispute was between Philip and Stephen of La Chapelle. Stephen did not become bishop of Meaux until 1162; the bishop involved was Manasseh II. The issue of the homage is obscure. Some thirteenth-century princes refused to do homage to bishops; Lewis, Royal Succession, 174. Philip's stance may reflect the pride of royal blood, perhaps especially since Manasseh II was not of a high noble family; see Bur, , La formation, 246. But after Philip's death the abbot, who had assumed the function of treasurer, also refused to perform the homage (“quia hominium facere non potest Meldensi episcopo”); Cart. Compiègne, 174 nos. 97–98.Google Scholar

⁴³ See n. 22 above.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See n. 37 above.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ As regards age, note that Louis VII had clashed with Henry at the beginning of the latter's episcopacy at Beauvais, a dispute that John of Salisbury ascribed to Henry's immaturity (levitas), a noteworthy comment, since at the time Henry was slightly older than Philip was in 1159 and had had the sobering experience of life as a Cistercian monk; John of Salisbury, Historia pontificalis, ed. and trans. Chibnall, Marjorie, Oxford Medieval Texts (Oxford, 1986), 69–70. It may be significant that Philip had not been chosen for either of two bishoprics (Meaux and Soissons) which had become vacant in 1158; GC 8: 1614; 9: 361. Since Archbishop Samson of Reims was old, Louis VII could well have envisioned that Henry would succeed him (as in time he did) and that Philip would then be made bishop of Beauvais; for Samson's age, note that he was sub-dean at Chartres in 1118–19, then dean in 1119; Lucien and René Merlet, Dignitaires de l'église Notre-Dame de Chartres: listes chronologiques, Archives du diocèse de Chartres 5 (Paris, 1900), vii, 10, 51, 231. The see of Beauvais was important to Louis VII's policy in the Vexin. Capetian concern with the bishopric of Beauvais is reflected in Henry's intervention to secure it for Philip of Dreux in 1175; see n. 39 above. Nor is his action to be explained merely as an aging prelate's concern for his nephew, since three other bishoprics in his archdiocese (Laon, Meaux, and Noyon) had become vacant in 1174–75, and Philip had been named to none of them; GC 8: 1617; 9: 533, 1004. Beauvais was thus a deliberate choice. One may wonder whether similar motives had figured in 1149 in the selection of Henry for Beauvais. John of Salisbury remarked that Henry had been selected then “eo quod erat frater regis Francorum”; Historia pontificalis, 69.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ For only confirmations to be extant need not mean that charters of other sorts did not once exist. A significant body of sources does, however, survive: a rich collection from the cathedral of Paris and cartularies from Saint-Corneille of Compiègne and Saint-Spire of Corbeil. The absence of charters of donation for these churches is suggestive. So is the nature of the bequests for which Philip was remembered at Notre-Dame of Paris: vestments, a canopy that was hung above the altar, and the sum of twenty pounds, but no rents or other permanent income; Obituaires, 1: 174.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Chaalis (Oise, arr. Senlis, cant. Nanteuil-le-Hardouin), Cistercian monastery (diocese of Senlis) founded by Louis VI in 1136; Dufour, Recueil 2: 273–74 no. 371. Estrées-Saint- Denis (Oise, arr. Compiègne, cant. Estrées-Saint-Denis).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Transloy or Tranloy (Oise, arr. Compiègne, cat. Estrées-Saint-Denis); Paris, BN Lat. 11003 (cartulary of Chaalis), fol. 303r-v no. 1246: “… in territorio de Trembloy quod alio nomine dicebatur cultura sancti georgii.” La Motte-d'Ancourt (Oise, arr. Clermont, cant. Choisy-la-Victoire), an abandoned site adjacent to Froyères. On the grange of Transloy, see Blary, François, Le domaine de Chaalis, XII ^e -XIV ^e siècles. Approches archéologiques des établissements agricoles et industriels d'une abbaye cistercienne (Paris, 1989), 237–39.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Cart. Paris, 374 no. 435, 361 no. 413; see also ibid., 382 no. 450, from 1164. The use of the name Philip in the cadet lines of the royal family is noteworthy. It appears first with Philip of Dreux, a younger son, who from early childhood was intended for an ecclesiastical career and entrusted to the care of his uncle of the same name. It was also the name of a younger son (from the position of his name in the documents, probably the third son) of Peter of Courtenay; Du Bouchet, Histoire, Pr., 11–12. These data are inconsistent with the thesis recently proposed according to which the name Philip had “imperial” connotations in Capetian circles during the twelfth century; cf. Jean Dunbabin, “What's in a Name? Philip, King of France,” Speculum 68 (1993): 949–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁰ Cart. Paris, 323–24 no. 360, 352 no. 405 (JL, no. 10420). Nevelo's predecessor, Gilbert, witnessed a charter from 1142; ibid., 281 no. 291. His successor, Ascelinus, became dean of Saint-Marcel in 1169–70; before then he had been a canon and priest at Notre-Dame of Paris; ibid., 399 no. 475, 405 no. 482; St-Martin-des-Champs 2:309 no. 402, 313 no. 406; Obituaires 1: 155. Since the cathedral chapter was thus a source from which deans of Saint-Marcel were drawn, one may wonder whether this Nevelo was the same person as the Nevelo who appears in 1148 as Philip's magister; St-Martin-des-Champs 2: 198–99 nos. 309–10.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Cart. Compiègne, 112 no. 59. In 1152–53, Rainold witnessed an act of the count of Beaumont-sur-Oise for the Templars; Cart. Paris, 333 no. 374.Google Scholar

⁵² Cart. Compiègne, 154 no. 84.Google Scholar

⁵³ Peigné-Delacourt, Achille, ed., Cartulaire de l'abbaye de Notre-Dame d'Ourscamp, Mémoires de la Société des Antiquaires de Picardie, Documents inédits concernant la province (Amiens, 1865), 185 no. 314; see also ibid., no. 315.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ William M. Newman, Les seigneurs de Nesle en Picardie (XII ^e -XIII ^e siècle): leurs chartes et leur histoire, vol. 1 (Paris and Philadelphia, 1971), 249 n. 19.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Cart. Compiègne, 154 no. 84; Madeline H. Caviness, “Saint-Yved of Braine: The Primary Sources for Dating the Gothic Church,” Speculum 59 (1984): 536–38.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Newman, , Seigneurs de Nesle, 1: 226. See also n. 66 below.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Delaborde, Henri-François, ed., Recueil des actes de Philippe Auguste, roi de France, vol. 1, Chartes et diplômes relatifs à l'histoire de France (Paris, 1916), 203 no. 169, and n. 23 above. Béthisy was probably Béthisy-Saint-Pierre (Oise, arr. Senlis, can. Crépy-en-Valois).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ From its proximity to Compiègne, one might identify the place as Berneuil-sur-Aisne (Oise, arr. Compiègne, can. Attichy), but the form of the place name used in the charter is not among those given by Emile Lambert, Dictionnaire topographique du département de l'Oise, Collection de la Société linguistique picarde 23 (Amiens, 1982), 54 no. 361.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ The inference that Philip was here accorded clerical status is supported by comparison with a charter of Henry, bishop of Beauvais, from 1152 in which Peter I of Courtenay subscribed as witness after all the ecclesiastics; Paris, BN Coll. Moreau 66, fol. 46v. Diplomatic usage in this regard was not, however, invariable; in the witness lists to some acts, laymen of very high rank are named before certain clerics.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Newman, , Seigneurs de Nesle 1: 249 nn. 18–19.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Deladreue, Louis-Eudore, “Cartulaire de l'abbaye de Notre-Dame de Lannoy [i],” Mémoires de la Société d'Archéologie, Sciences et Arts du département de l'Oise 10 (1879), 653, no. 23: “anno … millesimo centesimo quingesimo octavo.”Google Scholar

⁶² Since this was a charter of Henry, bishop of Beauvais, one might expect that it would follow the usage of the Capetian chancery, that is, probably the Easter mode. Note, however, that, at least in the thirteenth century, both sees which Henry had held (Beauvais and Reims) began the year on 25 March; Arthur Giry, Manuel de diplomatique (Paris, 1894), 107, 114.Google Scholar

⁶³ For the date of the marriage, see Lewis, , Royal Succession, 62–63. Writing much later, Alberic of Trois-Fontaines listed Henry second among the sons; MGH SS 23, 909. Since Philip had become a bishop (in 1175) long before Henry did (1186), in “Fourteen Charters” (159 n. 53), I considered Philip the elder. Other evidence contradicts that view. On 30 April 1168/69, Pope Alexander III ordered two bishops to adjudicate a dispute between Henry and another man, both of whom were claiming the chancellorship of the cathedral chapter of Noyon; the pope's letter mentions the proctor whom Henry had sent to the papal court; HF 15: 861 (JL, no. 11529). Even allowing for the exceptions to normal rules that may have been made for the king's nephew, it seems unlikely that Henry could have taken such actions prior to the end of his pueritia. Thus, if the dispute began in early 1169, Henry would have been born by early 1155. In addition, the date of Philip's consecration as bishop suggests that he was not born until 1155, for, although elected in 1175, he was not consecrated until 1180; n. 39 above. Capetian cadets were indeed made bishops when they were under the canonical age of thirty, but not before that of twenty-five, the prerequisite age for ordination to the priesthood; see above, after n. 39. If, therefore, Henry and Philip both were born by early 1155, and Philip in that very year, Henry would have been the elder. This revision of the sequence of births would resolve a serious anomaly: that, despite the high mortality rate for children, Robert I would have placed his second son in the church while the eldest was still so very young. If instead one views Henry as the second son, Robert I would be seen as having put his third son in the church while keeping the two sons as potential heirs. Later, after the future Robert II had reached an age at which he seemed likely to survive, the father would have placed Henry in the church as well, thus providing for him while safeguarding the succession of the eldest to the bulk of the parents’ holdings. In this light, the chronology of the sons’ advancement to bishoprics would reflect the extent of their ecclesiastical preparation rather than their relative seniority of birth.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ For comparison, note that the future King John of England was placed at Fontevrault when even younger (possibly as young as one): Alfred Richard, Histoire des comtes de Poitou, 778–1204 2 (Paris, 1903), 375; W. L. Warren, King John (Berkeley, 1961), 26. This example suggests that, for sons of families of the highest rank, the only absolute requirement may have been that the child have already been weaned.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ The closest analogy may be the appointment of Henry, son of Louis VI, as abbot of collegiate churches at the age of three or four; see n. 39 above. For comparison, note also the designation of Philip, eldest son of Louis VI, as king at the age of not quite four and, beginning immediately afterward, the notation of his consent in royal acts; Lewis, Royal Succession, 56. The future Philip Augustus was three and a half when Henry, eldest son of Henry II of England, performed homage to him; ibid., 69–70.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ In 1158, the elder Philip witnessed an act of Robert I and his wife for Saint-Yved of Braine; Lewis, “Fourteen Charters,” 164 no. 3. It appears from the identify of most of the witnesses that this charter was issued at Braine and thus that Philip visited there during that year. Among the witnesses was “Stephanus frater camerarii,” whom I now identify as Stephen of La Chapelle, brother of Louis VII's chamberlain, Adam, and canon at Notre-Dame of Paris (and future bishop of Meaux and archbishop of Bourges); Eric Bournazel, Le gouvernement capétien au XII ^e siècle: structures sociales et mutations institutionnelles, Publications de la Faculté de Droit et des Sciences économiques de l'Université de Limoges (Paris, 1975), 75. He may be thought to have accompanied Philip to Braine. The date of the charter implies that this visit was the same as the one hypothesized as preceding Philip's charter for Chaalis. The fact that Philip appears in the company of different clerics from Paris on each occasion might imply that these were two distinct visits; an argument to that effect, however, would assume that his entourage remained the same throughout his stay at Braine and the return trip to Paris. Quite unexceptional considerations — such as the possibility that Stephen of La Chapelle had returned to Paris with the request that a cleric of higher rank (the dean of Saint-Marcel) should be sent to enhance the dignity of the group that was bringing the king's nephew to Notre-Dame — could explain that difference in entourage. The composition of such groups is extremely important, but lack of data permits only speculation about their significance. Hugh Martelot is a case in point. One may suspect that he was present in Philip's entourage as a representative of Henry of Beauvais for the occasion. The charter printed below permits the reconstruction of a fragmentary but remarkable vignette. The same Hugh, who would have seen Philip of Dreux as a small child prepare to enter clerical life, later participated in his election as bishop. Indeed, as senior official of the cathedral chapter of Beauvais, and an old follower (if not creature) of Henry's, Hugh would almost certainly have been one of the persons through whom Henry engineered Philip's election.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ I infer this about the act for Saint-Victor; the two others state it explicitly; see n. 6 above.Google Scholar