The main question is the date. One authority—Hugh of Fleury—gives it distinctly as 999. Will. Jumièges clearly identifies the Odo in question as Odo II. Now Odo II. was not count till 1004; but his father died in 995, so William may have given him the title by anticipation at any time after that date. The Abbr. Gest. Franc. Reg. would seem to place it thereabouts, as its note of time is “eo tempore” in reference to Hugh Capet’s death (which occurred in October 996). On the other hand, Richer speaks of “the kings” in the plural; from which Kalckstein, Waitz and Luchaire (Hist. des Institutions monarchiques de la France, vol. ii. p. 7, note 1) conclude that it is Odo I. who is concerned, and they date the affair 991. Why they fix upon this year, in defiance of both William of Jumièges and Hugh of Fleury, I cannot see. M. d’Arbois de Jubainville (Comtes de Champagne, vol. i. p. 196) adopts Hugh’s date, 999. Is it not possible, however, from a comparison of the other authorities, that the right year is 996, just before Hugh’s death, or even that he died while the siege was in progress? for it is to be noticed that Richer mentions only one king at the surrender. Richer has made such a confusion about these Odos and their doings that it is hardly fair to set him up as an infallible authority on the subject against such writers as Hugh of Fleury and William of Jumièges. Anyhow, the Angevin story cannot stand against any of them.
Note B.
THE PARENTS OF QUEEN CONSTANCE.
The parentage of Constance requires some notice here, as she is usually called either a niece or a cousin of Fulk Nerra. The one point on which all authorities are agreed is that her father’s name was William. It was long disputed whether he was William III. (Taillefer) count of Toulouse or William I. count of Arles and Provence. M. Mabille, in a note to the latest edition of Vic and Vaissète’s Hist. du Languedoc (Toulouse, 1872), vol. iv. pp. 157–161, has made it clear that he was William of Arles; this conclusion is adopted by M. Luchaire (Hist. des Instit. Monarch., vol. ii. p. 211, note 1).
M. Mabille however does not attempt to decide who was Constance’s mother, through whom her kindred with the Angevins is said to have come; and this is the question which we now have to investigate. The evidence at present known is as follows:—
1. An unprinted MS. of R. Glaber’s history, l. iii. c. 2 (quoted by Mabille, note to Vic and Vaissète, as above, p. 158; Marchegay, Comtes d’Anjou, Introd., p. lxxiii. note 2), describes Constance as “neptem prædicti Fulconis ... natam de Blancâ sorore ejus.” This is the version adopted in Gesta Cons. (Marchegay, Comtes, p. 110).
2. A letter of Bishop Ivo of Chartres (Ep. ccxi., Migne, Patrologia, vol. 162, cols. 215, 216), written about A.D. 1110, makes Constance’s mother sister, not of Fulk, but of his father Geoffrey Greygown. So does an anonymous chronicle ending in 1109, printed in Duchesne’s Hist. Franc. Scriptt., vol. iv. p. 96.
3. The Chron. S. Albin. (Marchegay, Eglises, p. 21) has under date 987: “Hlotharius rex obiit.... In isto reges Francorum defecerunt. Hic accepit uxorem Blanchiam filiam Fulconis Boni comitis Andegavensium, patris Gaufredi Grisegonellæ, et habuit ex eâ filiam, Constantiam nomine, quæ fuit data cum regno Roberti regis filio, scilicet Hugonis Magni.” Wildly confused as this passage is, I believe that it really contains a clue to the identity of Constance’s mother. Whoever she was, she certainly must, at the time of Constance’s birth, have been wife not of Louis the Lazy (who is evidently meant, instead of Lothar), but of Count William I. of Arles. Now it is plain (see Vic and Vaissète as above, pp. 62, 63) that William was twice married; first to Arsindis, who was living 968–979; and secondly, to Adelaide, who appears in 986, was mother of his successor William II., and apparently still living in 1026. Of Arsindis nothing further is known; but with Adelaide the case is otherwise. King Louis the Lazy, at some time between 978 and 981, married a lady “ab Aquitanis partibus” (R. Glaber, l. i. c. 3, Rer. Gall. Scriptt., vol. x. p. 5), whose name was Adelaide according to Richer (l. iii. c. 92), but whom the Chron. S. Albin. (as we have already seen) and the Chron. S. Maxent. (a. 986, Marchegay, Eglises, p. 382) call Blanche. After two years of marriage with the young king she divorced him, or was divorced by him, and married William of Arles (Richer, l. iii. cc. 94, 95). This is clearly the lady of whom we are in search. The dates fit exactly; William’s first wife, Arsindis, is dead; he marries the divorced queen, probably about 982–983, and they have a daughter who in 1000 will be, as Constance evidently was at her marriage, in the prime of girlish beauty. The probability is strengthened by the fact that Adelaide’s first husband actually was what R. Glaber (l. iii. c. 2, Rer. Gall. Scriptt., vol. x. p. 27) mistakenly calls Constance’s father, count of the “First Aquitaine,” or Toulouse; for Richer (l. iii. c. 92) says she was widow of Raymond “duke of the Goths,” i.e. of Septimania or Toulouse:—by the name of “Candida,” the Latin equivalent for “Blanche,” given to the wife of William of Arles by Peter of Maillezais (l. i. c. 6, Rer. Gall. Scriptt., vol. x. p. 182; see above, p. 173, note 5[{386}]);—and even by the blundering Angevin chronicle which makes Constance a daughter of “Blanche” and “Lothar,” meaning of course Blanche the wife of Lothar’s son, and her third husband. This same Chron. S. Albin., however, adds that the said “Blanche” was a daughter of Fulk the Good. Nobody else seems to have known her origin, and this very “perplexed and perplexing” chronicler is a doubtful authority to build upon; but as there is no intrinsic impossibility in this part of his statement, and as there evidently was in the early twelfth century a tradition that Constance was akin to the house of Anjou, he may be right. From the dates, one would think she was more likely to have been Greygown’s daughter than his sister. If she was his sister, it must surely have been by the half-blood. She might be a daughter of Fulk the Good by his second marriage with the widow of Alan Barbetorte.
Note C.
THE PILGRIMAGES OF FULK NERRA.
Of all the writers, ancient and modern, who have treated of Fulk Nerra, scarcely any two are wholly agreed as to the number and dates of his journeys to Holy Land. Some make out four journeys; some three; one, his own grandson, makes only two (Fulk Rechin, Marchegay, Comtes, p. 377). It is, however, abundantly evident that there were at least three—one before the foundation of Beaulieu (Gesta Cons., ib. p. 117; Hist. S. Flor. Salm., Marchegay, Eglises, p. 273); one after the foundation of Beaulieu, and before that of S. Nicolas (Hist. S. Flor. Salm. as above, p. 275); and one in returning from which he died (see above, p. [168]). It is admitted on all hands that his death took place at Metz on June 21st, 1040; the date of the last pilgrimage is therefore undisputed. That of the first is now fixed by a charter quoted by M. Mabille (Marchegay, Comtes, Introd. p. lxxix) to 1003. The points still remaining to be decided therefore are (1) the date of the second journey; (2) the reality of the third.